Newspapers rethink paywalls as digital efforts sputter

The early years of the Internet spawned a lot of "me too" news websites just trying to make easy money, while exposing a lot of lesser quality rags for their general short-comings. There has also been a growing sense of entitlement that everything on the internet should be free. The NYT and WSJ, the Economist, et al, whether you agree with their politics or not, offer their news in a well-rounded, attractive, quality package. You know you're getting more first-hand, or at least more reliable news, without flashing ads, annoying pop-ups, mis-directions and all of the other negatives we so often associate with the internet. I pay for a subscription to an online "newspaper" because it cuts through so much of the second-hand, rumor-mill click-bait news that the internet has become awash with over the years. It lets me get my news fix, while keeping me from getting bogged down in the mire. For me, it's worth the money.

I pay for a digital and print subscription to the Nihon Keizai Shinbun. It is pricey but worth the money. I cannot think of an English or Japanese language publication that offers comparable value. I also buy Kindle editions of popular business news magazines in Japanese if they have a special edition that interests me.

I laugh when the FT, Economist, Guardian or other newspapers flash up something like "Quality Journalism Costs Money. Please Consider ...."

I always think, "Yes, I know that quality journalism costs money and your coverage of Japan makes it clear that you are spending next to nothing in this area. You don't really expect me to pay for this drivel, do you?"

I cannot see myself paying for something I can just Google & get on another site. I feel for the companies who I know need the money but I cannot pay when I'm only going to read an article or two a day from a publisher. In my mind paying for the WiFi includes this cost. I KNOW it's wrong but one doesn't have money for everything.

I subscribed to The Guardian for awhile, but I didn't get round to reading much of it. What I liked about the paper was the different sections and pull outs. Buying the weekend editions gave me enough reading material for a week. The digital version lacks that content. Also there is no way of saving articles. For example recipies, travel destinations. The other problems is the sheer diversity of media. If I subscribed to everything I liked, I would have no money. Also, companies are being a little too greedy. With digital there is no 3rd party, so the prices could be more competitive. I have never understood why films in a digital format are being sold for the same price as a DVD.

As a former newspaper employee, I think it's also a matter of relativity. How much time do you want to spend reading the news in a printed newspaper? Most of those have a morning distribution, which means they're put to bed shortly after the dinner hour and printed late at night. By the time they arrive on your doorstep, the news is at least 12 hours old. In my case, I cancelled my city's daily (I live in a capitol, in Canada) when I took an extended trip to Japan, and upon returning home, discovered the paper allowed me access to ten articles a month, after which I had to pay. Subsequently, I found I could keep up with what's happening locally by reading only the headlines via the paper's website. Now, I only buy the Sunday edition, for its weekly features. Same story with my national newspaper - no more repetitive stories, and one weekend edition. My monthly news 'fix' went from over $60 to $20. And I don't miss a thing, thanks to other online news sources.