Washington POST online fee.

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

Thinking of doing that too.  I'll get pho all over my tablet, but so it goes.

Agreed. Their current website is awful, because they are trying to squeeze every dollar of revenue out of a free site they can. I'm assuming that the paysite will be (almost) add free.

I'll probably cancel home delivery and give it a shot.

[1995hoo]

Agreed. Their current website is awful, because they are trying to squeeze every dollar of revenue out of a free site they can. I'm assuming that the paysite will be (almost) add free.

....

Funny, my assumption as to ads is exactly the opposite.

[GburgNatsFan]

I'm not sure what you mean. There will be more adds on the paysite?

Funny, my assumption as to ads is exactly the opposite.

[mitlen]

When this thing starts, I hope those of you who subscribe will give us an update (ads, quality of stories, added features, etc.).

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

I would imagine that it's only a matter of time before all newspapers are online only. 

[1995hoo]

I'm not sure what you mean. There will be more adds on the paysite?

I assumed all the same advertising would appear with no change whatsoever.

[GburgNatsFan]

I'm hoping it's more like the e-replica, which does include the advertising that's in the print version.

http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

I assumed all the same advertising would appear with no change whatsoever.

[nats2playoffs]

The POST is gonna start charging for viewing online articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/washington-post-to-phase-in-a-paid-online-subscription-model/2013/06/05/d2e1bce4-cdd4-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z2

No reason to click on the Washington Post site, when you can read it somewhere else:

http://www.vnews.com/news/nation/world/6823738-95/washington-post-to-charge-online

‘Washington Post’ to Charge Online

Steven Mufson, The Washington Post.
Thursday, June 6, 2013, (Published in print: Thursday, June 6, 2013)
   
Washington — The Washington Post will phase in a paid online subscription model for Web content starting June 12, charging some readers $9.99 a month for access to more than 20 articles a month on desktop and mobile devices. For $14.99 a month, readers can get a premium package that includes access to all of The Post’s custom apps, which make it easier to see material on gadgets such as iPads and iPhones.

The plan will not affect substantial numbers of The Post’s readers, who will continue to have unlimited free access online. Readers who subscribe to home delivery of the print edition, including those who receive only the Sunday edition, will be asked to register for the website, but they won’t pay anything extra.

In addition, students, teachers, school administrators, government employees and military personnel who sign on from their schools or workplaces will not have to pay for online access. If they log on from home, however, they will have to pay for unlimited access to the paper’s website.

In addition, the newspaper said in an announcement, “visitors who come to The Post through search engines or shared links will still be able to access the linked page regardless of the number of articles they have previously viewed.” That includes readers who view an article through a link on Facebook or Twitter.

Access to The Post’s home page, section front pages, videos and classified advertising will not be limited for any readers. Photo galleries that encourage readers to flip through several pages of content will count only once against the 20-article limit. But individual entries on blogs will each count toward the cap.

The Post has been cautious about following the lead of newspapers that have instituted what is commonly known as a “paywall.” Some executives have worried that the paper would lose too many readers, especially from the national audience.

I expect that the number of payments received will be based on those who are scared and fooled, since most people will NEVER need to pay at all.

[1995hoo]

....

The plan will not affect substantial numbers of The Post’s readers, who will continue to have unlimited free access online. Readers who subscribe to home delivery of the print edition, including those who receive only the Sunday edition, will be asked to register for the website, but they won’t pay anything extra.

....

Thanks. That part was NOT included in the story that appeared on the Post's own website.

[RobDibblesGhost]

Thanks. That part was NOT included in the story that appeared on the Post's own website.

I gotta imagine that Sunday-only delivery with free online access is well under the $10 a month they're asking for just the online access.  Go figure...

[Coladar]

Am I the only one who doesn't get this trend, meaning it makes no sense for/doesn't apply to me?

I don't go to the Post, Times, or anywhere else to get my news. I do go to my Google News feed. I look at all the headlines that have been presorted. Whoops, that headline shows the Wall Street Journal published this article? *click* Okay then, next... Reuters? No paywall, same story.

It is starting to get irritating that more and more are doing this, causing more and more wasted time as I click an article only to find it isn't accessible in full unless I pay. But there'll always be some rogue out there who has the gall to make knowledge and information free for all, and so I'll never go this route. The money is meaningless though, it's just because of how I get my news content. The way my Google News is set up, pulling at random, I rarely visit the same news site twice in a day. First and foremost it ensures I'm reading from different sources and thus don't have to worry about potential bias/slants, and secondly by pulling the most popular articles on a story ensures I'm reading the best, most informative and well writen pieces available.

So pay walls, at least just for only one site? Insanity. Unless I'm totally alone in not going to YourBigPaperNewsCartel.com daily, this is a futile dying gasp of an industry that's already been replaced. Now if they had any sense and offered a group deal, where I could pay a reasonable fee to access the WP, USA Today, NY and LA Times, WSJ and whatever else that isn't coming to mind together... That might make sense. This? Way to ensure I don't read anything on your site, ever. A handful paying $$$, or folks like me who read occasionally and earn you advertising revenue, I guess we'll see in the coming years which audiences enable your doors to stay open for a bit longer.

The *only* way I'd do this is for specific news. A site like Space.com, for astronomy news, or elsewhere for science news in general, gaming, whatever I'm into, you're offering me stuff I care about I can't get anywhere else. I want to support you just on principle. General news? If I cared what some overpaid, self-important blowhards have to say about the headline of the day or tabloid gossip, meaning Op/Ed content, I'd watch the dogpile of Cable News. Op/Eds aren't even remotely worth it.

Localized content? Sure, maybe. I could at least understand the value of some folks paying for it - namely the 'It isn't available anywhere else' component I just mentioned for genre news. But the WaPo isn't local, 99% of the articles that I'd read there is covered by one of a hundred other sites. The WaPo covers states and states worth of 'locales'. Content by and for on a city level, I might consider. On the regional level of the WaPo, again, if I cared about it it's nothing I wouldn't get watching the first ten minutes of the 11pm local news.

[HalfSmokes]

If you dont see the difference in writing between a wire service and the ny times or the Washington post,  there is no reason to bother with them (unless its a story the wire services havent written about)

[GburgNatsFan]

So you're getting irritated by news organizations' need to pay their journalists.

If you don't think that WaPo is local, then I don't think you've been reading it. Most of the sports coverage quoted in the threads of this very forum are from Post writers.

I do like the "news subscriber" idea of yours, though. $10 a month for access to all the majors seems like a no-brainer.

Am I the only one who doesn't get this trend, meaning it makes no sense for/doesn't apply to me?

I don't go to the Post, Times, or anywhere else to get my news. I do go to my Google News feed. I look at all the headlines that have been presorted. Whoops, that headline shows the Wall Street Journal published this article? *click* Okay then, next... Reuters? No paywall, same story.

It is starting to get irritating that more and more are doing this, causing more and more wasted time as I click an article only to find it isn't accessible in full unless I pay. But there'll always be some rogue out there who has the gall to make knowledge and information free for all, and so I'll never go this route. The money is meaningless though, it's just because of how I get my news content. The way my Google News is set up, pulling at random, I rarely visit the same news site twice in a day. First and foremost it ensures I'm reading from different sources and thus don't have to worry about potential bias/slants, and secondly by pulling the most popular articles on a story ensures I'm reading the best, most informative and well writen pieces available.

So pay walls, at least just for only one site? Insanity. Unless I'm totally alone in not going to YourBigPaperNewsCartel.com daily, this is a futile dying gasp of an industry that's already been replaced. Now if they had any sense and offered a group deal, where I could pay a reasonable fee to access the WP, USA Today, NY and LA Times, WSJ and whatever else that isn't coming to mind together... That might make sense. This? Way to ensure I don't read anything on your site, ever. A handful paying $$$, or folks like me who read occasionally and earn you advertising revenue, I guess we'll see in the coming years which audiences enable your doors to stay open for a bit longer.

The *only* way I'd do this is for specific news. A site like Space.com, for astronomy news, or elsewhere for science news in general, gaming, whatever I'm into, you're offering me stuff I care about I can't get anywhere else. I want to support you just on principle. General news? If I cared what some overpaid, self-important blowhards have to say about the headline of the day or tabloid gossip, meaning Op/Ed content, I'd watch the dogpile of Cable News. Op/Eds aren't even remotely worth it.

Localized content? Sure, maybe. I could at least understand the value of some folks paying for it - namely the 'It isn't available anywhere else' component I just mentioned for genre news. But the WaPo isn't local, 99% of the articles that I'd read there is covered by one of a hundred other sites. The WaPo covers states and states worth of 'locales'. Content by and for on a city level, I might consider. On the regional level of the WaPo, again, if I cared about it it's nothing I wouldn't get watching the first ten minutes of the 11pm local news.

[HalfSmokes]

So you're getting irritated by news organizations' need to pay their journalists.

If you don't think that WaPo is local, then I don't think you've been reading it. Most of the sports coverage quoted in the threads of this very forum are from Post writers.

I do like the "news subscriber" idea of yours, though. $10 a month for access to all the majors seems like a no-brainer.

Have you seen their metro section lately,  fairfax county,  population over a million, is lucky to get an article a day.  In some ways,  they're at a disadvantage since tgey cover two states plus dc as local,  but if you subscribe based on local news,  the wires cover everything else,  they are useless

[GburgNatsFan]

I guess it depends on what you mean by local.  There's a lot of DC coverage. There's the Nats/Skins/Caps/United/Wiz coverage.

Have you seen their metro section lately,  fairfax county,  population over a million, is lucky to get an article a day.  In some ways,  they're at a disadvantage since tgey cover two states plus dc as local,  but if you subscribe based on local news,  the wires cover everything else,  they are useless

[mitlen]

Have you seen their metro section lately,  fairfax county,  population over a million, is lucky to get an article a day.  In some ways,  they're at a disadvantage since tgey cover two states plus dc as local,  but if you subscribe based on local news,  the wires cover everything else,  they are useless

Been  my complaint for years with all the "local" media  ...  'TOP, POST, etc.    "Local" ends at the Potomac.

[HalfSmokes]

I guess it depends on what you mean by local.  There's a lot of DC coverage. There's the Nats/Skins/Caps/United/Wiz coverage.

Sports and metro are not the same and most people in the area dont live in DC- fairfax pg and montgomery all have more people

[PANatsFan]

Have you seen their metro section lately,  fairfax county,  population over a million, is lucky to get an article a day.  In some ways,  they're at a disadvantage since tgey cover two states plus dc as local,  but if you subscribe based on local news,  the wires cover everything else,  they are useless

Their DC news is still the best

[mitlen]

Their DC news is still the best

If you care about a hardware store on Capitol Hill.   

[GburgNatsFan]

Uhm, exactly. It's a local paper.

And while Sports isn't in the same category as the Metro section, isn't it the news that unites most of the DC area?

There really aren't any great options in the burbs anymore. In Maryland, there's a weekly Gazette that's okay. And even in smaller cities, like Harrisburg PA, the weekly paper is now two or three times a week, and it's tiny.

The future is (obviously) digital.

Sports and metro are not the same and most people in the area dont live in DC- fairfax pg and montgomery all have more people

[mitlen]

Uhm, exactly. It's a local paper.

"Local" includes NVA as well.   We feel left out.   They seldom discuss the hardware stores in Loudoun.   

[GburgNatsFan]

I hear that you feel left out, but the Post's local focus is DC. I usually grab the Sports section and then read through the main section. I rarely read Metro.

They used to have weekly suburban sections - did they stop that?

For really local news, I read the Montgomery Gazette. Once a week.

"Local" includes NVA as well.   We feel left out.   They seldom discuss the hardware stores in Loudoun.   

[mitlen]

I hear that you feel left out, but the Post's local focus is DC. I usually grab the Sports section and then read through the main section. I rarely read Metro.

They used to have weekly suburban sections - did they stop that?

For really local news, I read the Montgomery Gazette. Once a week.

I do the POST online (for now).    I used to like the weekly "local" inserts.    I get a lot of my "local" news from the Loudoun Times Mirror  ...   however they can be weak on who, what, where, when and why sometime.

[TigerFan]

I do the POST online (for now).    I used to like the weekly "local" inserts.    I get a lot of my "local" news from the Loudoun Times Mirror  ...   however they can be weak on who, what, where, when and why sometime.

I thought those things were optional to journalists   

[mitlen]

I thought those things were optional to journalists   

They are out here in the hinterlands.