Boston Globe editor Marty Baron tells “Greater Boston” that the Globe may start charging for some online content. No surprise. It’s pretty clear that the Globe and a number of other papers are going to try paid-content experiments of one sort or another. I don’t think they’re likely to work, but that’s another matter.
Whatever the Globe tries, it should make sure that there are no extra charges for its best customers — its print subscribers. And it should stay away from charging for its daily newspaper content. In other words, create a new product that people who don’t currently subscribe to the Globe would be willing to pay for.
Not easily done, I realize.
Update: Just watched the segment. Baron says the Globe is looking into charging for “premium” or “specialized” content of some sort. Not sure what that means, but directionally it sounds like the right move.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I admit it: I don't pay for the NYT, but I do pay for their online crosswords. (Split with a friend through a separate login, of course.)
If the Globe wants to create some premium or specialized content and charge for access to it online, that's fine. If they try to do it by further reducing an already diminished publication and moving currently available material behind a pay only door, then that's unacceptable. It reminds me of TimesSelect when the NYT tried moving their primary columnists behind that pay only door. I just stopped going to the NYT web site altogether. In order to get access to all of the Globe's reportage, you should only have to pay once. If you subscribe to the print edition, then that should bring with it access to the online edition as well, unless a new publication is developed with material created just for it, not merely removed from the parent publication.
Do you remember that Boston.com's @Bat Insider started as a sort of premium content. The low, low, price of $14.95 a season. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/8471_757501