Washington Post to Begin Charging for Online News
Frequent users of The Post's website will be charged a monthly fee beginning this summer.
Photos
The Washington Post has decided to follow other newspapers in limiting free online content and will begin charging frequent users of its website beginning this summer, the paper announced Monday.
The company has not decided how much it will charge.
“News consumers are savvy; they understand the high cost of a top-quality news gathering operation and the importance of maintaining the kind of in-depth reporting for which The Post is known,” Katharine Weymouth, publisher of The Post, said in an article the paper ran in its business section Monday. “Our digital package is a valuable one, and we are going to ask our readers to pay for it and help support our news gathering as they have done for many years with the print edition.”
The paper reported that it would exempt parts of its audience from having to pay the fees. Home-delivery subscribers will have free access to all of The Post’s digital products, and students, teachers, school administrators, government employees and military personnel will have unlimited access to the website while in their schools and workplaces, the paper said.
Access to The Post’s home page, section front pages and classified ads will not be limited.
“We are obviously looking at paywalls of every type. But the reason we haven’t adopted one yet is that we haven’t found one that actually adds to profits,” Graham said at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in December, according to The Post. “But we are going to continue to study every model of paywall and think about that, as well as think about keeping it free.”
Graham said at the December conference that a paywall could drive away some of the paper’s digital audience, and thus push away advertisers and cost the paper “a very significant amount of digital advertising.”
According to the Post article Monday, Weymouth said, “We really are a 24/7 publisher of news. To separate our print from our online subscription models doesn’t make sense anymore. We’ve watched our peers in the industry, and we think the metered model is the best way to keep our reach while asking our readers to help pay for the quality journalism we are known for.”
Scot
6:04 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
What is The Washington Post? But seriously, does anyone subscribe to it anymore? When I walk the dogs I never see it on any doorsteps. Funny, the only place I ever see delivered newspapers these days is on the steps of City Hall.
Laurie Dodd
10:07 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I value good reporting and good writing, so I subscribe to the Washington Post. I will be getting free online access as a print subscriber. When I look at NYTimes online, I am limited to ten stories per month unless I pay; I hope the Post will look into a similar plan, to balance their need for profits with public access to an important source of news.
Rick Tocchet
6:10 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
That's hilarious, they couldn't pay me to read that Soviet style propaganda sheet.
Gus
7:54 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Yet another reason not to read The Post. What I find in this crummy paper, I can easily find elsewhere. Buh-bye. . .
Hamilton
8:41 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
there needs to be a stable sustainable model for our news - not sure what that is. I would think that if google and facebook can make big bucks with online data, that news orgs should be able to make enough to sustain. Funny how the newspaper owners were once among the richest of the rich.
Why is Warren Buffett buying news orgs?
J. Michael Hill
9:19 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I read the Post every day. It is important to stay informed and to never stop learning. We all need to understand all viewpoints.
John Smith
9:34 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Even the very wrong points have merit, my parrot and his cage agree.
Kim Moore
10:17 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I love the Washington Post. One of the best ways that I began to enjoy current events (remember that as a school assignment???) was reading the newspaper. Now, my kids read it and I constantly check its website throughout the day. Many seem to have their complaints about newspapers, yet they remain the core source of the most valued information.
Even if you do not like the Post, the Boston Gobe, New York Times, or any other news outlet, without a newspaper to make you question information, how would you have known what was worth investigating?
Newspapers are one of the last resources for Op-Eds and in-depth reporting. I regard them as excellent opportunities to encourage literacy and debate.
Carl Norton
7:23 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Drudge Report allows me to question information. Obviously, the Post is up against competition from the NYT for left leaning readers. They jettisoned any attempt for center right readers years ago. Now they are no longer worth paying for whether for hard or online copies.
1Ronald
7:53 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
In-depth reporting? YES! Op-Eds can be informative and could assist in resolving issues. However, I ceased long ago to read Paul Akers' drivel in the Free Lance Star. How he continues to draw salary and keep his position is a mystery. Hopefully someone at FLS is keeping score and planning for his final day. Soon.
Regarding any "center right" comment and any disappointment with the Post, nowadays that is codespeak for "to the right of Atilla The Hun." The so-called "left-leaning readers" is taking us into the realm of extremism. I can say this because I, too, have enjoyed conservative editors, being one of the late Jack Kilpatrick's biggest fans. Jack was able to re-invent himself after leaving the editorial page and brought much to readers in the manner of proper English--writing and speaking as a syndicated columnist. Call it changing with the times, but Jack was still Jack.
Sandra
11:10 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I like reading the Post, although I prefer the printed format. I think the Post is much better than the newspapers I've read from other cities.
Ana Hamdi
1:10 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Cancelled the post years ago!
guestuser
9:15 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Limited access paywalls are easily usurped by clearing your history and cache. Takes 0.00007 seconds. It's got to be all or nothing to be effective. Publishers know that that's a huge gamble because if you block someone, they simply go elsewhere. We are now fully into a generation that doesn't know a world without the Internet. They won't pay for information available for free with 20 keystrokes. The Post will back down. Mark my words.
James
9:53 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Hey it's nice to have somehting to start fires with in the fireplace! I keep telling my wife to unsunbscribe, but she wants the coupons. I AM happy when the Washington Examiner shows up on the driveway every now and then. Otherwise, the Washington Compost is absolutely of no use to me. Concert listings? Online. Movie reviews? Online.
Also, I personally don't like any paper that puts Doonesbury in a section of the newspaper that is meant for kids.
Tom Butts
1:34 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
That issue of Washington Examiner will come less often now:
http://observer.com/2013/03/the-washington-examiner-announces-a-shift-in-their-business-model/
No one is immune.
Matt Holden
10:18 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Paul Akers doesn't even read his own paper.
Lee Hernly
11:21 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
My wife likes the paper for the same reason as James. We then use it to line the litter box. It is about all the paper is good for.
Brad L
2:00 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I cancelled the Post years ago because it's far left reporting was ridiculous. By periodically looking at it online it's only gotten much worse.
The Post continues its slow death. There will soon be one less liberal rag on the market. Such a shame...
Bob Bruhns
2:39 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The newsstand price for Friday's Washington Post (3/15/2013) was $1.25. The price has skyrocketed in the last ten years or so. I remember a newsstand price of 35 cents, but it started climbing rapidly in over the past decade.
I guess newspapers are losing advertising. Certainly they have lost classified ads. It's not just the internet; people just aren't interested in the news any more. If there wasn't -some- news on TV and radio, I think that more than 95% of people would not be aware of any news at all. And it's scary how some really stupid rumors get started on online social media outlets. It seems as though people will believe anything.
I read that Warren Buffett was buying newspapers, and advocating the end of free online news. Buffett is no small financial player.
Certainly news reporting is a hard job with long hours, that doesn't pay all that well unless a reporter or newscaster really becomes famous. Personally I think that the news business could stand to get some more money, and probably needs to.
Pamela
4:15 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I buy the W post on Sundays from the news stand for the coupons and it is well worth it . But I would never pay to read it online .
Bob Bruhns
4:54 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I guess it depends on how much it costs. I used to pay 35 cents a day, and I think about a dollar on Sundays, back in the paper days. That added up to more than ten dollars a month. Probably online should be around a dollar or two a month. Beyond that, there would be less total revenue, I think. Certainly they'd better not start competing with the mortgage or the transportation taxes.
Matt Trevant
8:47 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
"students, teachers, school administrators, government employees and military personnel will have unlimited access to the website while in their schools and workplaces"
And how will the Post accomplish this? IP tracking of some kind? Sounds creepy.