It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pay-for-view News Sites & Their Online Impact.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


They'll probably have limited free content, under the guise of enticing people to buy their site.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Great Post, S&F


We are living in strange times.

People are paying with real money on Facebook for imaginery online Casino Chips that are worthless.

But will that mean people will pay for online news?

how many people do each you know that will pay for content?

I can see this plan being a big disaster. IMHO, charging for content is a backward step for Internet, not forward.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by grantbeed]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
It suddenly occurred to me while reading your post that propaganda is pretty useless if it isn't freely available!

On the contrary, the lies you really bind yourself to are the ones you have invested something in--money, time and face. If they can get you to pay for the lies they spin you, you're that much more likely to believe them.

I agree with Kandinsky that no-one's going to pay for general news online. The general-content newspaper, real or virtual, is a dying medium. Specialist newspapers and magazines will go on thriving, on line as well as off.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed
People are paying with real money on Facebook for imaginery online Casino Chips that are worthless


For real? Is it legal for me to set up a virtual casino like this for others to give me their money? :p There's the old saying about how a fool and his money are soon parted.


Originally posted by AstyanaxOn the contrary, the lies you really bind yourself to are the ones you have invested something in--money, time and face. If they can get you to pay for the lies they spin you, you're that much more likely to believe them.


I never really thought about it that way. I think you do have a good point. Look at something like Scientology; there are people who have shoveled thousands, if not millions, of dollars at it, and it would be pretty hard I think for somebody like Tom Cruise or John Travolta to come out and say 'I'm an idiot, I just got swindled out of millions'. They're likely to keep quiet, even if they have a change of mind about it.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


I may be reading something into your post that wasn't there, but it suddenly occurred to me while reading your post that propaganda is pretty useless if it isn't freely available!


This is correct. The media barons and corps will lose their ability to influence the general public in the way they have done. If they diminish that power, the politicians won't come-a-calling as often or be as pliable to what the corps want. Current Govts have rolled over on the public, privacy laws and proportionate justice to appease the power of media companies and the RIAA. These corps and individuals have the power to dictate (to a degree) our reality.

If they (News corps) lock themselves behind the paywall, they'll need to think long and hard about what they are giving up. I won't miss them or their BS politics for a second.

The most likely result is someone will step in with a working model that has *free* open content. The market doesn't go away just because these guys want more money. Likewise, the market doesn't pay for content that isn't worth paying for. BBC and similar will probably gain a larger market share than before...this is a good thing IMO because they are reasonably neutral and hated by every damn media/news corp due to jealousy and resentment


EDIT to add: I was just reading a slashdot thread about an experiment in France. Some journalists will be isolated in a house with only access to Facebook and Twiiter. Using only them they will continue to broadcast news reports. I honestly pity them! It'll be interesting how accurate the news is. Naturally, if it's fairly accurate, it further undermines the chances of paywall news sites being long-term successful.

Slashdot: News Experiment To Rely Only On Facebook, Twitter

RTFA! News sourcing experiment to rely solely on Facebook, tweets

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The paywall is here again. Murdoch's News Corp will start charging for access to The Times and Sunday Times in July. The two newspapers are apparently losing an incredible £240 000 per day! I can't see them putting the breaks on those sort of losses by charging a dwindling consumer base. On the other hand, maybe that's why I just read the news instead of 'making' the news?


While the most recent figures show that BSkyB made a pre-tax profit of £707m in the nine months to March, up from £339m a year earlier, Professor Luckhurst says the Times newspaper is losing in the region of £240,000 a day.
Rupert Murdoch's growing multi-media empire



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join