The paywall at thefacts.com
Are any of you ponying up the dough to read the online Facts if you are not a subscriber?
(I'm not, but that's beside the point.)
The reason I ask is that Mike McGuff has reported that the Houston paper decided a paywall wouldn't work.
Does The Facts know something the almighty Chron doesn't?
Posts
7 comments:
Not me. I used to read Ron Rozelle's column, but I don't want to pay for it. The chain that owns the Facts must own the paper in Brownwood, where I once lived. It's switched to the same on-line pay format. And what happened there was that someone started a free on-line paper that's pretty darned good. So I read that one.
Bill, Southern Newspapers Inc., which owns De Facts, doesn't won the Brownwood paper.
Here's what they do own: http://www.sninews.com/publications.lasso
A friend of mine gets the printed paper. With their last name, they (The Facts), gave me the account number over the phone, so I'm hooked-up.
Crap, crap, crap. News? Rarely is there anything worth reading. Police beat is censored to the point of being a joke. I read the obits 'cause of my age, and the "letters to the editor" is what I read the most. Oh yea, the "help wanted" ads.
The Facts does not have the content to justify the charge.
Don't get me started on the ".townnews" layout and format. Look at the Galveston Daily. It's the same old software that The Facts used to use, and they just "turned-on" user comments. The Galveston paper remains a free service.
The problem is we don't have any real journalists any more, and what we read is written by someone across the country!
I am not a fan of the Hearst dynasty.
Al
My question is what does The Facts lose. If someone who was reading the paper online refuse to pay for it, they haven't lost anything.
that's a legit point, as far as it goes, Anonymous.
on the other hand, I supposed one could aver that by giving free online content, The Facts could spread its brand of journalism far and wide and thus enhance its reputation as a beacon of fine writing.
that doesn't do anything for the bottom line, but is the bottom line everything?
personally, i don't have a problem w/ a paywall. it takes money to pay reporters and editors a living wage, and the general public likely would be surprised how crappy the pay is for the working press.
you don't go into that line of work for the money. you do it cause you like, you find it more interesting than other fields, or because you're good at it (at least in your own mind.)
the only paywall i shell out for is the Wall St. Journal. If the NY Times ever goes to a full-out pay wall, I'd probably shell out for that one too.
the content of The Facts just isn't worth paying for so far as I'm concerned. that's not to disrespect what they do; I suppose they do the best with what they've got, or at least try to do their best a majority of the time, given their limitations of personnel, leadership, vision, money and so forth.
nice Post written by you guys. It is amazing and wonderful to visit your site. Thanks a ton for such a nice post.
Delighted that I found your site, fantastic info. I will bookmark and try to visit more frequently.
Post a Comment