Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
And then you want us to believe that you won't share those because it would be poor sportsmanship? That's funny.
I refuse to ever subscribe again after one of their telemarketers signed me up for a subscription without my consent. I cancelled before moving apartments and every couple of weeks got a call from their subscription department. Several months later I got a bill for a new subscription at my old address (the building was being torn down, so they weren't even delivering the papers).
Their print readership is drying up. Doesn't it make sense to try and charge people that are frequent users of the site? How do you expect them to continue making the money that feeds their reporting? They're not some small local weekly paper that's just supporting a handful of employees.
Don't get me wrong. I think it will most likely fail just because people have been conditioned to having access to everything online for free. but shit, seeing your glee in watching them struggle is lame.
("Magically" in this context refers to their partnership with another company who's cookie many people do not want to delete, but which is capable if storing large amounts of user data.)
It seems like making the paywall semi-porous is a better business model, because they get paid by people who don't know how or don't bother to get around it, and those who game the system boost their readership numbers, so they can justify charging more for ads.
(includes photo gallery)
Paywall isnt a big deal to me, I rarely read the Seattle Times, but for a guy like Goldy, someone who obsesses over The Seattle Times, its a really big deal.
"Oh, and here are all the ways to get around the paywall."
And as someone else mentioned, I waste less time on the site now reading silly content.
Brilliant!!!! So simple, so effective. Thank you!