Hey, there! Log in / Register

How much would you pay to read the Herald online?

Herald Publisher Pat Purcell says the paper could start charting a subscription for online access to its stories by next year, the Herald reports, adding, however, that Purcell also said he realizes it might not work unless the Globe also agrees to charge.

You may recall the Herald used to charge for access to its columns but ended that when it appeared few people wanted to pay to read them.

The Boston Business Journal has more.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

All during the period when the Herald tried to charge people for certain features and columns in the paper, I used bugmenot.com to get passwords generously provided by their subscribers. I wonder if publishers know about this and have methods of getting around this service.

up
Voting closed 0

I have been to websites that did not allow me to right click in username/password fields.

Also, not stopping subscribers from giving out passwords on bugmenot.com is either ignorant or lazy. The paper could have contacted bugmenot or monitored the use of passwords on the website.

up
Voting closed 0

Seeing as I wouldn't even pay to use it as toilet paper; nothing.

Murdock's last min money online grab is pretty funny.

up
Voting closed 0

and what does he have to do with the Herald?

up
Voting closed 0

and he owns it.

up
Voting closed 0

that's FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Yes, I'm shouting because I don't understand why people keep saying Murdoch owns it when he doesn't. It's like saying the Taylor family still owns the Globe.

up
Voting closed 0

Huh, okay. That's an urban legend so strong that I suspect most people believe it. I was always under the impression that it was owned by Newscorp, but just checking wikipedia, I see he had to sell it when he bought channel 25.

Thanks for telling me. But don't get so mad that people accept a rumor that seems reasonable. You might have just said it was wrong in the first place, rather than ask some snide question.

up
Voting closed 0

(in this, the mecca of snark), it's time to get out of the house more. It always amuses me when people with an agenda "accept a rumor that seems reasonable". That level of objectivity is how we got Lyndon Larouche and half of the "Great and General Court of the Commonwealth".

up
Voting closed 0

For the record I could care less who owns that fish wrapper. But it is reasonable to accept without criticism the idea that a known media mogul who in fact once owned the Herald is the current owner. Now accepting the idea that Barack Obama was born on Mars or whatever the Larouchies are peddling this week, that would be anything but reasonable.

up
Voting closed 0

It is to laugh a capitalist laugh. Nothing.

They need to go only to those who tried and failed as they did. The papers who can do this are those with measurable value added. Two are the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. They have premium content. In those two examples, readers also use their features to make money.

There was a time when the Herald in its various incarnations offered superior reportage on crime, very localized tidbits, sports and photography. They've let all that go away. So what's left to sell — clichéd conservative commentary? Oh, right, that's what they tried and failed to sell last time.

Think. Think. Think.

up
Voting closed 0

The Herald failed with subscriptions just like the NY Times did.

up
Voting closed 0

The only thing that the Herald or the Globe offers of any value is local news (and even a lot of that is available on sites like UH - including a lot of stuff the Globe and Herald don't cover). I can get everything elsewhere for free.

up
Voting closed 0

I would pay for a subscription for the Herald if it did not pay for Howie Carr's salary -- but I would not pay for an online subscription in order to access his columns.

I think their business model should be to get rid of Carr and double the price of the subscriptions. I would double-down.

up
Voting closed 0

I was at this event. Purcell was not talking about the Herald doing this alone, he was talking about the industry. He did not get into the specifics of how this would happen or what would happen if not everyone participated.

It was part of a general panel discussion from three traditional media leaders, not an announcement of the Herald's plans.

It was, by the way, a really good discussion and interesting event.

up
Voting closed 0

So a cabal of "competitors" would get together and act in kahoots? Isn't that the sort of things newspapers used to investigate when other industries did it?

up
Voting closed 0

...oh yeah, COLLUSION :-)

up
Voting closed 0

Let's make it a Tom Sawyer proposition. They would have to pay me some serious money to read that sh . . . sh . . . shtuff.

up
Voting closed 0

Interestingly enough (?) the free "Bulletin" newspaper that anyone can pick up at dozens of locations around the city, and which is otherwise advertising supported, has just gone paid on its web site.

If you want to read their paper on line it is now $12/year plus a log in ID.

Why pay for on-line when I can get a free one atthe corner store?

This escapes me.

---
Dennis K.
[email protected]

up
Voting closed 0

...but I click to their site just about every day I'm in town.

The Herald plays an important role in covering local news. Oftentimes I'm not crazy about their coverage and commentary, but it's an important counterpoint to the Harvard Globe.

up
Voting closed 0