Comments on: Can Free Press Continue Online? Why Interactive News Can’t Be Free Forever http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/can-free-press-continue-online-why-interactive-news-cant-be-free-forever/ Where Interactive Advertising Begins Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Cryptblade http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/can-free-press-continue-online-why-interactive-news-cant-be-free-forever/#comment-12881 Cryptblade Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:53:05 +0000 http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/can-free-press-continue-online-why-interactive-news-cant-be-free-forever/#comment-12881 I think the revenue model is faulty to charge for content. That can only go so far and yes, readers will bolt somewhere else. Only archives can conceivably charge for content, I think. I think there should be revenue models of charge per content/article. I know I personally read an article - not a newspaper online. There are too many things out there, and 1 AP news article is published in multiple online newspapers - so why should I pay for ANY news when papers simply syndicate much of the same content? But - for truly unique news, unique content - why not charge per article? When I use news search or search for news, I look for the news - not the news paper. Yet online newspapers ask for subscriptions - that's exactly what I DON'T want to do! I don't want a friggin newspaper - i just want the article. Another revenue model should be to charge for syndication. It's easy to use feeds and publish them on other sites. Why not charge online publishers to use the feeds? I have seen some do that, but mainly in specialty news sites. Most newspapers do not charge publishers who reparse feeds on their own sites. Of course that makes it hard for common readers to use RSS - so what can be done? Right now...I dont know - I think of the ideas. I think the revenue model is faulty to charge for content. That can only go so far and yes, readers will bolt somewhere else. Only archives can conceivably charge for content, I think.

I think there should be revenue models of charge per content/article. I know I personally read an article – not a newspaper online. There are too many things out there, and 1 AP news article is published in multiple online newspapers – so why should I pay for ANY news when papers simply syndicate much of the same content?

But – for truly unique news, unique content – why not charge per article? When I use news search or search for news, I look for the news – not the news paper. Yet online newspapers ask for subscriptions – that’s exactly what I DON’T want to do! I don’t want a friggin newspaper – i just want the article.

Another revenue model should be to charge for syndication. It’s easy to use feeds and publish them on other sites. Why not charge online publishers to use the feeds? I have seen some do that, but mainly in specialty news sites. Most newspapers do not charge publishers who reparse feeds on their own sites. Of course that makes it hard for common readers to use RSS – so what can be done?

Right now…I dont know – I think of the ideas.

]]> By: Allan Hoving http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/can-free-press-continue-online-why-interactive-news-cant-be-free-forever/#comment-12879 Allan Hoving Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:08:37 +0000 http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/can-free-press-continue-online-why-interactive-news-cant-be-free-forever/#comment-12879 Online readers will pay, but only when offered a uniquely interactive level of engagement. Online -- and the revenue streams that will certainly follow -- is limited only by the imagination of publishers and marketers. Online readers will pay, but only when offered a uniquely interactive level of engagement. Online — and the revenue streams that will certainly follow — is limited only by the imagination of publishers and marketers.

]]>