What if your ABSOLUTE favorite websites charged a subscription fee?

[Papa Deuce]

Would you pay it?

There is only 1 website that I would be willing to pay a subscription for, and it is not the DIS.

I have made donations at several sites, put I have not paid a subscription.

I bring this up because 3 sites I visit, have, in the last 2 weeks said that they will be charging fees to read. I will not be reading them as soon as that happens.

 

[Sir Robin Hood]

None. I hope this trend doesn't grow. You pay enough for monthly internet service as it is. That would be as dumb as NBC or ABC charging per show that you watch. I've donated to some sites before also, but subscription fees just sound ugly. I can see it now: "Remember when we could search Google or watch YouTube for free?" Maybe this would get people offline and back outdoors again.

 

[mickaholic4077]

IMHO,no site is worth having to pay to read.(Even this one!)

 

[NotUrsula]

Personally, only one, and it is a very tight-knit group with very selective criteria for giving out access -- it's also the only one that I visit that might actually be considering such a thing.

Professionally, I manage full-text site subscriptions that cost us in the neighborhood of $48K per year, so that the people in my company can access information that they need in order to do their work.

 

[mfd25wife]

No, I would not pay.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

Hmm..depends on the dollar amount.
I really like my DISing time

 

[FireDancer]

Rupert Murdoch sure seems to think people will be willing to, but I think he is wrong. The track record of moving anything from free (or in the Internet world, ad supported) to pay-for service has not been very good.

If I felt I received value for the subscription I might pay but it would have to be more than an information site. The web is full of information and there are plenty of free sources. Now, paying something like 99 cents a month for Pandora (as we might be soon) is a perceived value to me because you are getting something other than just information.

While I would say I am very unlikely to do so a compelling product is always worth paying for if you want to consume it and there are no (or only inferior) free alternatives.

 

[bicker]

You pay enough for monthly internet service as it is.

None of that money makes it to any of the people who offer websites.

That would be as dumb as NBC or ABC charging per show that you watch.

Not dumb. "Scary" perhaps.

As you allude to, the issues are similar: Both websites and broadcast television are paid-for by the viewers' willingness to watch advertising commercials and to be influenced by those commercials with regard to their purchasing decisions. In both cases, the traditional means of delivering commercials can now effectively be avoided (for television, DVRs can skip ads; for websites, ad blockers work well), and even when folks don't skip over commercials (with a DVR or ad blocker), it is becoming clearer that more and more people are not allowing themselves to be influenced by advertisements.

That all makes the value of your viewership worth less. If something is worth less, then you're going to pay less for it, right? Well same with advertisers. As commercial avoidance increases, and as commercial effectiveness decreases, advertisers will need to find new ways of activating purchases. That means that they'll either take their advertising money away from broadcasters and websites, or they'll force broadcasters and websites to make advertising more invasive and less avoidable.

In the case of a website that doesn't want to make advertising more invasive and less avoidable, the only alternative to remain revenue neutral is to replace lost advertising dollars with subscription fees. Will people pay? I doubt it. I think too many people are going to flock to the places that remain "free", even though those places choose the other alternative: more invasive and less avoidable advertising.

So the end result is probably going to degradation of the online experience -- but at least websites will still mostly be "free".

 

[Disney Doll]

Then it wouldn't be my absolute favorite website any more.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

No.

 

[Buckalew11]

Then it wouldn't be my absolute favorite website any more.

No.

Too much out there for free but I'd never pay for a website unless it was very important to my work.

 

[mill4023]

Well, I've subscribed to TGM more than once, so I guess I am willing to pay for some websites. But I only look at that as a one time purchase for something I use to help plan a vacation.

I can't think of any websites I'd be willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for.

 

[legalsea]

I would pay. I do not expect something for nothing.