More Content Behind The Online Tollbooth
from the why-put-it-on-the-internet-at-all? dept
Mark Glaser's latest column is looking at the LA Times' newest experiment to put all of their entertainment content behind the paid wall. They've only just started, so there's no real way to determine how successful it has been, but I still argue this is a mistake. They're charging $5 a month for entertainment info - which is something of a commodity online. Are the LA Times' reviews really so valuable that I would pay to read them over some other site's reviews? Without adding any additional features and blocking off highly competitive content, the LA Times is making a mistake. These sites are not embracing what makes the internet useful, but rather are trying to shift offline business models onto the internet and then putting up artificial barriers to pretend they make sense. The value in a different medium is in embracing what makes that medium different. Pretending it's just an electronic version of your newspaper may be easy, but it's not a long term strategy that will work.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
To err is human
There are a host of other entertainment news sites on the web (many of which are better than most newspapers). By limiting their content offering, LA Times is ensuring a decline in online readership, and ultimately future advertising revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To err is human
- Move to a Micropayment payment model.
- Wait until everyone else charges for thier content.
The first suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. I'm suprised it hasn't caught on yet, and to see what's out there is still in it's infancy is frightening. I guess we can just hope it catches on soon.Oh, and I don't see #2 happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To err is human
Companies need to decide where they see the value in their content. Is it in attracting eyeballs for advertising or is it in having such exclusive content that it can be walled off and charged? If it's in the advertising, then it clearly makes sense to open up the site for free. You get more eyeballs, you get more advertising.
If they want to wall it off, it absolutely has to be unique content that can't be found elsewhere and has real value to the end user. Otherwise, any plan to charge will fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]