... Well that's a bummer. I get that news companies need to try new business models, but these subscription prices seem kind of ridiculous.
After registration and a free preview period, a subscription to Reuters.com will cost $34.99 a month, the same as Bloomberg’s digital subscription. The Wall Street Journal’s digital subscription costs $38.99 a month, while The New York Times costs $18.42 monthly.
...
Reuters will roll out new sections on its website for subscribers in coming weeks that include coverage of legal news, sustainable business, energy, health care and the auto industry. It also plans to introduce industry-specific newsletters.
Well that's a bummer. I get that news companies need to try new business models, but these subscription prices seem kind of ridiculous.
I can get why, though. If the ad revenue isn't working out for them, I think it's very possible a low subscription fee would just end with them being shoved out by the NYT and WaPo, who really own...
I can get why, though. If the ad revenue isn't working out for them, I think it's very possible a low subscription fee would just end with them being shoved out by the NYT and WaPo, who really own that space right now.
Instead, they're going to go up market to the more lucrative professional market, where as more of a business necessity (to keep up with the latest happenings ASAP), the demand curve is way more inelastic. Many of these subscriptions get expensed by companies for their employees. As the first quote indicates, this price is on-par for what Bloomberg, WSJ, FT cost.
Yeah, but will Reuters make it impossible to cancel the way that The New York Times does? I agree. I go to Reuters.com about once a month for a single article. I'm not paying $35.00 for that. It's...
Reuters.com will cost $34.99 a month,..., while The New York Times costs $18.42 monthly.
Yeah, but will Reuters make it impossible to cancel the way that The New York Times does?
Well that's a bummer. I get that news companies need to try new business models, but these subscription prices seem kind of ridiculous.
I agree. I go to Reuters.com about once a month for a single article. I'm not paying $35.00 for that. It's not a wise use of my money. (Especially when so many other services republish reports from Reuters unchanged!) If I could pre-pay some amount and it deducted something every time I went, I might be willing to try that. Or if they had a more limited subscription, I might be willing to do that. Like $5.00/mo. for 10-20 articles total. (Even that seems outrageously priced, but it's better than $35.00/mo.)
I wonder what a model that allows me to pay per article or pay per section would inadvertently incentivize? I personally would only pay for general news, technology/science, and politics. I have...
I wonder what a model that allows me to pay per article or pay per section would inadvertently incentivize? I personally would only pay for general news, technology/science, and politics. I have no interest in Business, Markets, or Lifestyle.
Another model may be paying for a set amount of articles and spending them on pieces I want to read. My biggest issue with locking each source down with a paywall is it makes it a lot more difficult to get a large swath of articles on a particular topic so I can develop a more nuanced view.
If you are looking for a per article model you may want to look at blendle.com. I don't know if they will add Reuters or not but it allows me to just pay for what I am interested in reading from...
If you are looking for a per article model you may want to look at blendle.com. I don't know if they will add Reuters or not but it allows me to just pay for what I am interested in reading from pay-wall publications.
Very disappointing, I use Reuters because I consider them to have good, unbiased coverage. I think it would be better if I could pay for access to individual articles instead of subscriptions.
Very disappointing, I use Reuters because I consider them to have good, unbiased coverage. I think it would be better if I could pay for access to individual articles instead of subscriptions.
...
Well that's a bummer. I get that news companies need to try new business models, but these subscription prices seem kind of ridiculous.
I can get why, though. If the ad revenue isn't working out for them, I think it's very possible a low subscription fee would just end with them being shoved out by the NYT and WaPo, who really own that space right now.
Instead, they're going to go up market to the more lucrative professional market, where as more of a business necessity (to keep up with the latest happenings ASAP), the demand curve is way more inelastic. Many of these subscriptions get expensed by companies for their employees. As the first quote indicates, this price is on-par for what Bloomberg, WSJ, FT cost.
Yeah, but will Reuters make it impossible to cancel the way that The New York Times does?
I agree. I go to Reuters.com about once a month for a single article. I'm not paying $35.00 for that. It's not a wise use of my money. (Especially when so many other services republish reports from Reuters unchanged!) If I could pre-pay some amount and it deducted something every time I went, I might be willing to try that. Or if they had a more limited subscription, I might be willing to do that. Like $5.00/mo. for 10-20 articles total. (Even that seems outrageously priced, but it's better than $35.00/mo.)
I wonder what a model that allows me to pay per article or pay per section would inadvertently incentivize? I personally would only pay for general news, technology/science, and politics. I have no interest in Business, Markets, or Lifestyle.
Another model may be paying for a set amount of articles and spending them on pieces I want to read. My biggest issue with locking each source down with a paywall is it makes it a lot more difficult to get a large swath of articles on a particular topic so I can develop a more nuanced view.
If you are looking for a per article model you may want to look at blendle.com. I don't know if they will add Reuters or not but it allows me to just pay for what I am interested in reading from pay-wall publications.
Very disappointing, I use Reuters because I consider them to have good, unbiased coverage. I think it would be better if I could pay for access to individual articles instead of subscriptions.
I use Reuters because I'm able to share it.
Without that I have no incentive to use it. Bye Reuters for me. Hope this works for them.