Charging for the news

[andrewducker]

A whole bunch of papers have recently been talking about ways they can make money from their websites.  I've not, generally, seen good ways for them to do so.  Going pay-only means that you lose the vast majority of your subscribers.

The Economist, however, seems to have found a compromise that might just work.  Everything over 90 days is pay only.  And so is the main contents page of the print edition.

Which means you can see a page from the most recent issue if someone links to it.  And you can see a few major stories via the front page.  But if you want to find your way to the rest of it - you'll need to pay for it.  Which is just annoying enough that, if you're the kind of person who _wants_ to read The Economist on a regular basis you'll pay for it.

It strikes me as a good balance - nicely done.

Comments

[drplokta]

It breaks the Internet, because all the people who link to Economist articles will find that the links stop working after ninety days.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

That might work for the economist - but I suspect many of their articles have a longevity that other paper's articles might not.

[terminalmalaise.livejournal.com]

Hmm, sounds pretty similar to the model the NY Times gave up two years ago...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I know some sites that do it the other way round, charge for recent content. Some sort of mix does seem sensible: something to draw people in, and then, once they're already happy with you, something they want to pay for.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Here's why it won't work, for everything:

http://www.metafilter.com/85761/How-To-Save-Media#2776753