Comments on: Should all news organizations start charging for online content?

Is it too late for news organizations to form a (secret) cartel and charge for the their presumably valuable product?

[Harlan879]

Oh boy! Price fixing! Instant lawsuit!

Television ads don't require the viewer to click on anything. Brand awareness just requires a bit of attention. Internet ads work, even without clicks, if they give people familiarity with products and services. Companies that buy internet ads are paying per-click rates on the assumption that for everyone that clicks, dozens of people see the ad and are more likely to remember them in the future.

[Penguinisto]

@Harlan: TV is a bit different in that it's somewhat linear - you can't avoid the ads. The most you can do is tivo past 'em - after you've recorded them, and if you have the presence of mind to (they also present breaks in the show so that you can get up and get a snack, hit the bathroom, etc).

With websites, you can block the ads outright if you want (e.g. with Firefox and AdBlock), or train your attention to just not bother with most of 'em... without disrupting the content

Now for the fun part - nope, most folks don't click on adverts, but the smart advertisers online won't really care if you do - their goal is to get their names up there in a nice quiet non-flashing advert, where your subconscious will catch (and cache) them. The smart advertisers know that you'll remember the name later on, in relation to the website you were at (a tech site, a games site, etc.)

[techman21]

The news is mostly written by AP and parroted by all the news sites - what is there to pay for?

[joeangier]

First of all, you make it sound like "AP" is some kind of free-flowing, naturally-occurring phenomenon that everyone else is feeding off of ... and then re-selling. Second: a recent study showed that AP gets a huge amount of their material from local newspapers (many of which are now going belly-up). Third, this new meme that traditional news-gathering is obsolete because people young and old now get their news from "aggregators" is a half-baked non-insight. What are all these aggregate sites aggregating from? Answer: the news that's gathered by thousands of paid reporters working beats in cities around the world. Their numbers are dropping precipitously, as is the coverage they've been providing. Yes, there is some real reporting being done by freelance web reporters ... some of whom are even making money. But they can only make up for a small fraction of what's being lost by the rapid demise of print journalism. And don't get me started on that other idiotic assertion that goes like: "Young people today don't need the mainstream media ... They get all their news from The Daily Show." With all respect to that excellent program, I'm sure they'd be the first to admit that their material isn't coming to them from some magical cost-free ether ... but from the work of reporters who are getting paid to write the news.

[markblewis32177]

if esubscription was same as paper subscription AND epaper was laid out similar to newspaper AND there were no more ads than in newspaper AND escription had same coverage as newspaper [OK, add links to more detailed info], i'd pay for escripition. currently what's online is ridiculous & i won't pay for same calibre.
marklewis