subscribe to CNN?!

When did this happen?

[Bogglesworld]

I just tried to download something from CNN and got a message to "subscribe to our new premium service" for about $4.95.

Did I miss the boat? Is this new? I guess even CNN is reconsidering its business model.

[Laisha]

The same thing is happening with the NY Times. It appears that these are certain archived news articles only and they are being distributed by Northern Light. See this example [premium.news.yahoo.com].

We run a war on terror news site and we link to more than 100 news articles a day. We only started noticing this stuff this morning.

Additionally, many online newspapers have started requiring registration since 9/11, the latest being the Bangor News -- which no one ever reads! -- who will begin requiring registration Monday.

[Bogglesworld]

I guess it shouldn't suprise me as we have all seen site after site go towards partial and then full subscription (my favorite was the economist.com which used to let you look at archived articles). It seems that free services of any kind, from hosting to content, are slowly dwindling. I personally don't mind. Let's get people used to paying for their services so that we can make a little money.

[chiyo]

agree.. yes the model is changing to paying for stuff. No problem here. The less material available for free, the more likely people will pay to access *your* news or info site in future, and the more likely people start looking seriously for high standard alternative free news.

Bad news for blogs though. They may find many of the links from website they subscribe to but their readers do not will come up blank, given the <witty comment><link> style of the mainstream blog. It may favour the second most popular blog category.. those that provide original useful content, and provide more than just witty asides to the mainstream media "link of the day".

All in all the net result long term to me is extremely optimisitic. I see it improving quality of content, and giving some advantage to original and niche content. Those who charge better make sure their content IS worthy of payment, increasing quality, and the free content providers may get more exposure, ecouraging improvement of content quality as they too target a paid subscription model in the future as the big boys modify the expectations of web surfers and get them into the habit of paying.

[Lisa]

This is starting to look like a cycle. I remember a few years ago when websites started to use subscriptions. Then they slowly went back to non-subscription. Now we are on the subscription swing again.

Yes, lots of things are moving from Free to pay. But that leaves room for new free services to pop-up. And in order to crush them the paid services become free again. Or if one of those free services gets really big then they may want to make the switch to paid-subscription.

[nwilson]

Let's hope this 'swing' loses it's momentum. CNN isn't that good afterall.

Nick

[chiyo]

Lisa. I think this a more substantive swing than last time. Only a few made the pitch early and when the largest (Slate) failed as a full subscriber site, many others saw the writing on the wall. The model now is more likely to be (free content) + (premium or whatever but paid) content. It still gets you hits and a free readership plus you start building up revenue with the "extras". That model is more likely to succeed.

The first wave of newcomers to the Web were sold on the "Web is free" culture. In that environment paid content failed, especially as many were on slow or unreliable connections. Now the Web is more intergated with people's lives. They have more than one reason to visit the web, many do so at least once a day, and it is easier to access via cybercafes, home, work, even small devices. Access is more convenient, and most importantly cheaper. Security is also improving, making people more confidant of placing commercial or valuable material behind "paid" areas. And people are slowly been acculturated to paying. I never thought I would be paying for PPC for example!

The Web is now mainstream, not an object of curiosity and ready to be more than a plaything of consumers and spammers.

So i dont see it as a swing but a substantive move from where there is no turning back. That is not to say that there will be no "free" resources, as i say above, but more delineation between each. A "free" web and a "commercial" web. The quality of both i think, will increase.

at present there is very little way for content providers to make money on the web. Money is mainly made by infrastructure providers, spammers, and technicians, with of course exceptions. This natural move makes it more possible for quality content to be attracted to the Web.

I done expect it will make writers and artists rich of course. It was always smarter to publish a book than write it! And the same online. But maybe some writers and artists to self publish on the Web.

[chiyo]

Price: $2.50
Article Length: 281 words
Desk: Foreign Desk

yahoo link provided by Laisha above..

Hmm.. 1 cent US a word..

..and you get to have it for 90 days only

[richlowe]

I know that i am very willing to pay for premium content and services, and in fact I find that I like this model better than free. With premium service (such as bluemountain now does for their ecards and webshots for their wallpapers) I can expect service and products.

So far, many prices have been reasonable and those that are not I do not buy.

Richard Lowe

[Brett_Tabke]

Yahoo has really been pushing the "click her to buy" links alot lately.

[mivox]

I've actually seriously considered subscribing to NYTimes... I get their daily headlines email, and it's become almost my only contact with the "real world" news outside NPR during the morning and afternoon commutes. But last I checked, they charge for access to their archives, but not the current headlines... so I wouldn't even be using the paid service very often.

Still, it's one of those situations where even though the service I use is free, I'd like to pay just because... kinda like the WebmasterWorld donation buttons. ;)

[cyril kearney]

I doubt that this is a new CNN model. CNN is primarily a content site. Content can be paid for in two ways; subscription or through ad revenue. I expect that they had both in their model.

Initially ad revenue were seen as being more profitable. Now with ad revenue down, it looks like CNN is trying the subscription waters.

CNN has a very good product and may be able to make subscriptions work for some services.

The anti-business spam lobby is hurting most sites trying to make the advertising model work. There are no free lunches so if the back-end email revenue dries up, there will be more and more pay-for-content sites. Ad driven sites will only be able to afford very limited content.

How long would radio or TV last if ad revenues were reduced by 60%? How many stations would need to solicit subscription money like Public Broadcasting System does.