The Question: Would you ever pay for a newspaper?
Newspapers
This week’s question is from photographer Mark Harmel, a 55-year-old Los Angeles-based photographer. In a recent encounter with a pre-med student in LA, the future doctor told Mark he had never once in his life bought an actual newspaper. Why would he? The content is free online. So this week’s question is, “would you ever pay for a newspaper?” Please leave your answer with any amount of elaboration, in the comment section.
Would you ever pay for a newspaper?
Photo by: theerin
41 Responses
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by edwardboches: Attention Millennial Gen? Would you ever pay for a newspaper? Please share comments: http://bit.ly/35eKqs...
I wouldn’t say I will never pay for a newspaper because there might be a few cases when it is the only way to get a certain article. However, those cases are very, very few.
Why don’t I pay for a newspaper? I can go the newspaper’s web site and the same article will be there with links to background information and previous articles on the same topic. This is probably the easiest way to follow issues. Sometimes by the time the newspaper is out on the stands the news is already old, which is not an issue with content posted on the Internet. If something happens now, I can get the information about it within a few minutes, even seconds. If I rely only on print newspapers, I will have to wait until tomorrow, which is too late. Did I mention it is free to get my news online? I read articles from over 2 dozen newspapers, half of which are not even available in the USA. I would spend thousands of dollars to purchase all these newspapers. I get all the information in these newspapers for free. Not only do I get the newspaper for free, but I get it straight in my iGoogle page – easy, quick and convenient.
However, this is not the case with magazines. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but there is something special about holding a magazine in my hands and flipping the pages. I will continue buying my usual 3 magazines until the price is too high or the quality of their content dramatically decreases. Then I will probably switch to different magazines, which I will still buy in print.
I would pay for a singular newspaper itself, if it’s the Sunday edition or if I wanted something to read.
However, I wouldn’t subscribe to a newspaper.
I would never buy a newspaper because I get all my news from my Google reader every morning and from links on Twitter throughout the day but I do still have a weakness for glossy fashion mags to indulge in on the weekends to take a break from my computer…
I would pay for a newspaper if it were the only way to get a paper crossword puzzle. Apparently the paper in Starbucks isn’t there just for me to write in and return…
Oh, and I think doing the puzzle in pen will be one of the casualties of the death of old media. There goes my Sunday morning.
The only way I would buy a newspaper is if I was in it, meaning the last time I bought a newspaper was when I was eight (I was in the picture for the story on our local fishing derby). Overall, I just find the experience of reading a newspaper cumbersome and anti-social; you’re more approachable when reading off an iPhone than eclipsing your face with a giant paper. Of course, if you prefer everyone would leave you alone, then newspapers sound like a great way to go. As for the matter of the information–would I pay for it online? Only if I’m being offered something exclusive I can’t find elsewhere for free; and, that’s a rare scenario.
The only time I could imagine paying for a newspaper was if it was an industry specific publication that pertained directly to my field. If the Wall Street Journal provided information I needed, I would subscribe to it, but other than that I expect my general news to be free. If the newspaper I find charges, I know I can find the same news from someone who will give it to me for free, and I don’t mind taking a little more time to not spend the money.
The only time I’ve ever paid for a newspaper was when UNC won the National Championship in basketball back in the spring. I guess there would have to be something pretty newsworthy that I *had to have* in print, otherwise my Google Reader & online news scanning is enough for me!
I have purchased many actual print newspapers in my life, even subscribed to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Barron’s at different times. However, at this point, I find all the news I need onine – International current affairs, PR/Advertising-related news, etc. all exists on the web.
Purchasing a hard copy of what exists on the Internet is bad environmental practice in my mind (ok, I’m a California, you caught me). If I’m already gobbling up electricity to use my computer and Internet service (which is inevitable in today’s world), why cause more damage by wasting paper?
However, I would consider subscribing to an online news site that enables subscribers to access more sections of the site than non-subscribers can. That seems reasonable. For example, if I had to subscribe to The New York Times’ Sunday edition (online) in order to access the Travel, Arts, and other sections beyond the A section, I might sacrifice a few dollars a month for that.
I really wouldn’t pay for a newspaper.
I was actually forced to over this summer by my professor when I was talking summer courses. I needed to subscribe to the Boston Globe and The Wall Street Journal. The second that the class ended, I unsubscribed to the two publications and continued on with my life. To this day, I still get snail mail from both of them pleading me to go back and offering me ridiculous 70% off deals of their subscriptions signed by copy machine imitating the president of both publications.
I have enough news being thrown at my from Twitter, Facebook, Google Reader. I initially thought that the newspaper would be more credible than sources online, but now with all of these publications going online, there really does not seem to be a desire to have a newspaper in my hands anymore. On top of that, what interests me is not the news but how my friends and peers react to the news. When Kanye bitched out Taylor Swift, or the entire Balloon Boy incident, I was more interested in the people freaking out on Twitter and updating their statuses like crazy than the event itself.
I get the New York Times at home because I need it for class, but I rarely read it. I’m used to doing everything digitally. I always go online for news. It’s easier, quicker and you don’t get your hands dirty. I would never pay for specific articles, but I would pay for a subscription if it were required. With all the news available online I feel that’s a far way off.
Allow me to throw the credit back to Greg Ceo who asked this question to his Business Practices for Photography Class at Savannah College of Art and Design. These were people training to be members of the media. I assume that they wish to be paid to so that they could retire their student loan debt.
Here is his Greg’s post about his question.
http://bit.ly/6Tr8M
God, no. Why would I? I have the Internet, which doesn’t sully my hands or force me to turn oversized pages.
I don’t envision ever paying for a newspaper anytime soon. Why would I? Free online content has SO much more value. It’s more current, there’s more out there, and it’s incredibly easy to access. The last time I paid for a newspaper was because I had to. I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal because it was a reading requirement for one of my advertising classes. I will say that my subscription was worthwhile, and it was refreshing to hold a physical newspaper in my hand, but that will probably the last time I buy a newspaper for a long, long time.
I’ll raise another question in regards to paying for “old” media. Would any Millennials out there pay for an album again?! I’m not talking about buying albums on iTunes, because a lot of my friends do that. I want to know if anyone would anyone actually get in their car, drive to their local Best Buy, and pick up an album. Although I haven’t bought an album in a while, I would, especially if it was one of my favorite artists. Call me old school, but I still like the feeling of ripping off that hard-to-take off plastic wrapping on the CD and popping it in the player for the very first time.
Right now I don’t pay for a newspaper, but I have and there is a chance I will again in the future. As I get older I could see myself sitting with a cup of coffee on a Sunday morning, watching football and reading the Wall Street Journal or Sunday edition of the local paper. The majority of my reading will still be done online, but the online experience isn’t the same as owning the physical copy.
i only buy a newspaper when i need to light my bbq.
The obvious answer is no, because there is simply no need: newspapers are not charging for their content. Newspaper subscription fees are essentially a luddite tax.
The more interesting question is whether free content funded by advertising revenue is a viable business model for journalism. The Huffington Post promotes itself as the future of news, but how much actual reporting does it actually do? Very little; the vast majority of its content is either links to traditional news sources or blogger commentary on those sources.
It may be the case that journalism will never be able to function as a for-profit business ever again. The whole media world cringed when President Obama ruminated publicly on the possibility of a bailout for the newspaper industry, for understandable reasons. People are sensibly wary of state-sponsored media outlets. Nevertheless, consider NPR and PBS: they offer the highest quality broadcast journalism available right now, and — despite being funded in large part by the government-run Corporation for Public Broadcasting — they have proven themselves more reliable in holding the government accountable than for-profit news sources have been doing. It may be that in a world where corporate interests are more powerful than the government (that is, our world), a news source subsidized by the government might not be such a frightening thing.
Dylan, It’s interesting that you think iphone users are more approachable than newspaper readers. I think it is because I view newspaper and iphone use different in terms of the locations they are used. Newspapers, to me, are something you read at your own table in your own home on your own time, so the vibe I get from them is homey and approachable. iphones are used by people on the go, who want to be connected to friends, information, and business. People using iPhones seem busy/rushed/in their own world–who knows if they’re reading the latest NYT article, or checking their email, or stocks, or twitter, or… In all, they would seem unapproachable to me. I find your take on it really interesting, and just as valid as mine, but because of my experiences with the two, I just don’t relate!
That being said, I probably wouldn’t buy a printed newspaper. These days, I’m on the go, and newspapers aren’t very portable. They’re cumbersome to read on a subway or bus (you’d need to spread your arms out three seats wide just to see an inside story!) and I can much more easily look at my iPhone.
But, If I view this question a little more broadly….I think that the websites of The Washington Post, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, etc are newspapers in themselves even though they are online. If these websites started charging for access, I might pay. But I would expect things to be a lot cheaper than the print version since it is a LOT cheaper for them to publish online. I wouldn’t mind them adding (interesting and engaging) advertising to the site to pay for their writers and overhead though.
So, after all that thinking out type, yes, I think I would pay for an online newspaper, but it would have to be the right cost, and done the right way.
I have no problem paying for newspapers, but at a frequency of 15-20 per year (50% weekend editions).
IN a similar vein (and prefaced by my locality, DC) when will the Washington Post stop offering a daily print edition? I expect an eventual morph to a magazine format, but predict and end to the (daily) presses in 2015.
I can’t imagine buying a newspaper every day or subscribing to a daily news publication, but there are two specific circumstances that might spur the purchase of a newspaper and they are:
1. If a picture of me or someone else I know and love is in it. C’mon, everyone wants a hard copy of their moment in the spotlight.
2. To commemorate an event. I bought a newspaper on the day that President Obama was elected and when Senator Kennedy passed away.
I would never buy a newspaper to actually learn about news. News is up-to-date, free, and fast online.
I’m not against paying for the news, I get the newspaper when I have time to read it and I’ve had subscriptions on and off for a very long time. Problem is I’m always living in a new place and changing the subscription is a real pain, and so often I just cancel it. And single issues are so expensive now that I don’t buy those as much any more. Plus, the metro certainly fills the requirement of the “good enough” revolution that defines our generation (I find spelling errors daily).
I’d pay if it were cheaper and easier to get it. Try syncing my newspaper subscription with my facebook address via a clever app that sits in the background, so I never have to worry when I move – even something that small could make a huge difference. I don’t want new media to replace old, just augment it.
Short answer – no and yes. I wouldn’t buy a paper for the recap of news, sports, politics and other garbage thrown my way. I can get the news I want from other sources. But however, I would purchase a paper for the novelty aspect. Perfect example would be frame the headline of a major story (i.e. the Red Sox or Patriots winning, or Obama winning last November). Something about a newspaper moment framed might look ancient in about 30 years.
I wouldn’t say it’s a flat out “no” for me, but I do prefer to get my news online. It’s more efficient and I can easily pick what news I actually want to read about and eliminate what I don’t. As a busy college student and an intern, I rarely have time to actually sit down and casually peruse through a paper. Added bonus to getting news online: avoiding ink-stained fingers.
I would definitely buy “a” newspaper, but a subscription model is no longer feasible for me. There are still places in the world without wifi, and people without 3G phones (myself included). Newspapers can be great for passing the time, especially the crosswords.
I can’t say either way on this one. A big part of my morning is sitting down with the paper and having breakfast, but I’m unemployed and staying with my parents so that may change when I’m paying with my own money. As others have said, why pay for what can conveniently be had for free? However, I’ll definitely make it a point to buy single newspapers, whether to pass the time on a long train ride when I’ve forgotten a book or to save an article with sentimental value.
Following the tune of most people who have replied to this prompt, I’d have to say I’d probably not pay for a newspaper, given the amount of relevant information that is updated faster and more in-depth online. And of course, it’s free.
What’s interesting to consider, however, is that while a lot of newspaper companies have been beefing up their online presence with all of their interactive media guides, video on-demand interviews, and forums for discussion right on the main page, but there’s something to consider: could major newspapers go the route of the “pornography method” of online newspapers? Allowing the reader to preview the first 2 to 3 paragraphs of a news story, and if they wanted to see the rest, they would have to subscribe to the newspaper to read the rest.
Smaller, local newspaper companies require you to have a subscription and plug in your information to be able to read these articles. Could this trend to the bigger companies when they realize that money from advertising may not be enough to cover expenses? Will we find other, free news sources if this happens? Is it a reasonable concern for us “freeloaders of news”?
I buy the newspaper in the morning for 25 cents before I head off to work on the commuter rail system so I can browse the local news and time goes by quicker. How can you beat that price?
Wow, I am in a totally different camp. I buy the newspaper every day (not a subscription). I would subscribe, but apparently it’s too difficult for the newspaper companies to get it to my building every day. All of that aside, the newspaper is a valuable tool. I get the news delivered to my inbox, but it isn’t the same. I don’t want to skim the news. Sitting down with the newspaper, I find myself learning more about things that don’t interest me. I read almost every article, and yes, some lose my attention, but I make a point to have a well-rounded approach. The news in my inbox is the stuff that pertains to what I do and what I am interested in. If I only read what interests me, I would feel quite narrow minded. Reading the newspaper online just doesn’t cut it. Before I know it, I have clicked my way to an article that’s a few years old. There is way too much news out there, and I rather have someone structure it for me. The real, hard-copy newspaper puts everything into a global picture, or at least tries. The only thing I won’t read from a newspaper is opinion. I want to draw my own conclusions and would be far happier if the newspaper just had a ton of facts … but that might be a little extreme!
The news is not free – the writers, researchers, graphic artists, etc. need to be paid for their work – online or analog. That is the crux of what needs to be figured out. I want to read news that is well-thought out, well written and properly researched and am happy to pay for that.
I have paid for newspaper subscriptions before, but I rarely ever read the paper copies. Call it youthful altruism, but I value the news and the news organizations have yet to find a way for me to pay for their product, even though I’m eager to.
There is a difficult dynamic in play here. On one hand, if a news service put up a paywall, I would never use it. On the other hand, I’d be happy paying a reasonable sum for a digital delivery method. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist yet. The Christian Science Monitor is attempting it, but their implementation requires signing in and downloading a PDF and the whole process is, in a word, clunky. I tried it for a while, but even then, I never read it. Once these organizations form a system to deliver the news to me in a digital form, without my having to pursue it (through logins and downloads, etc…) then I will happily pay for it.
I would not pay for a newspaper unless I was bored and not near a computer for a long time. Maybe at an airport or train station, but that would be all. The content is all online so there is no need otherwise.
I enjoy supporting local businesses. When I travel to a different place, I make a point of buying that place’s local newspaper, whether it’s a tiny weekly or a major metropolitan daily. Newspapers — and their Web sites — are still the best channel to figure out what’s going on in a place on any given day. (In Chicago, we have a vibrant blogosphere and all sorts of aggregators. Not every town is that lucky.)
-Daniel
Though I don’t buy one every day, I do enjoy getting the newspaper on occasion. Granted, all of the news that you can possibly find is online, but a newspaper is just…well…different. There’s something to be said about the tactile experience of holding something in your hand, something that doesn’t have links to other articles that might distract you from the main content. It presents information in a certain continuity that you just can’t get on a web site.
There’s no email, no twitter, no links, no animated advertisements, just you, words, and your thoughts to occupy your time. It may not be something I do every day, but every day I do it I know I can enjoy it.
Let’s all keep in mind, newspapers are cheaper than umbrellas when the rain takes you by surprise.
I would totally pay for a newspaper, three in fact (that being the total of my favorite newspapers). Sure, the Internet has made things far more convenient — you don’t have to pay, you don’t have to go pick it up from your doorstep. One click and you’re set.
But in my world, no amount of convenience can replace the absolute romance that is tea and newspaper reading. There is something about folding, unfolding it, sharing it with whoever you have for company, and finally, putting it together and keeping it away for the day.
Now, that’s one thing the Internet can’t offer you: old-fashioned romance.
For the International news stories I use the internet in the very early morning. I use 3 or 4 news agencies for each headline and decide what is the real story for myself. I use the internet for stock market. I use the internet for news videos.
~~ I buy daily newspapers for the local content. At 50 cents a couple times a week, it’s always entertaining, I know who got married and where the best sales are. Also, the dinner menus are listed daily so I support my local restaurants.
~~ I can take a newspaper with me and read it anywhere. When I travel out of the country, I buy the local papers for local information. So, Yes, I would pay for a newspaper.
I might pay for a Sunday edition, but not for daily news. Getting a myriad of papers for free on campus is something I take for granted, however. I still have a copy of the Times the day after Obama’s election and would have paid for it. When I’m older and probably out of state, I can see myself paying for my hometown newspaper (it’s a REALLY small town, I know everyone in it each week.)
I tend to rely on a few RSS feeds (NYTimes, Wall Street Journal and AdAge) to get the majority of my news, supplemented by article links and occasional blog posts from Facebook or Twitter. However, when I have enough time, I really do enjoy spending an hour reading through a physical newspaper. I grew up always having a local newspaper on the table while I was eating breakfast, in college the NYTimes was distributed free on campus, and now I frequently find myself picking up a copy to read when I stop into Starbucks. There’s something inherently more relaxing about flipping through a newspaper as opposed to skimming RSS headlines. There is also still a content divide between traditional journalism and social media – I’d prefer to read an article detailing the current healthcare debate rather than a blog post about Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift.
HELL YES. There is something so beautiful and satisfying about making breakfast on Sunday morning and and sitting down to (for me) the Los Angeles Times. Reading news online will never replace the paper. It is a totally different experience and way less relaxing–you’ve probably got 4 gchat’s going on and are checking your Facebook all at the same time.
If I bought a Kindle, I would subscribe to a newspaper digitally so I could read on my morning commute.
Save that, I’ve only bought the occasional weekend paper, usually if I have a free afternoon (which is rare). I’d say twice a year do I buy a newspaper in print??
Day-to-day I get my news online.
I wouldn't say I will never pay for a newspaper because there might be a few cases when it is the only way to get a certain article. However, those cases are very, very few.
Why don’t I pay for a newspaper? I can go the newspaper's web site and the same article will be there with links to background information and previous articles on the same topic. This is probably the easiest way to follow issues. Sometimes by the time the newspaper is out on the stands the news is already old, which is not an issue with content posted on the Internet. If something happens now, I can get the information about it within a few minutes, even seconds. If I rely only on print newspapers, I will have to wait until tomorrow, which is too late. Did I mention it is free to get my news online? I read articles from over 2 dozen newspapers, half of which are not even available in the USA. I would spend thousands of dollars to purchase all these newspapers. I get all the information in these newspapers for free. Not only do I get the newspaper for free, but I get it straight in my iGoogle page – easy, quick and convenient.
However, this is not the case with magazines. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but there is something special about holding a magazine in my hands and flipping the pages. I will continue buying my usual 3 magazines until the price is too high or the quality of their content dramatically decreases. Then I will probably switch to different magazines, which I will still buy in print.