Would you pay to read The Telegram online?

[Emily Behlmann]

Here's a discussion that began in The Telegram's live chat Monday afternoon, but we'd like to hear additional comments on the topic.

Brett Riggs (Telegram managing editor):  Here's a question to all of you who read The Garden City Telegram online, would you pay for an online subscription?

Margaret Meyers:  Not me.

Andrew Mahoney: If it was richly customizable, I might pay.

Sally Gray:  The Advocate staff has talked about whether to charge for online subscriptions, and so far we've decided not to charge. Too many people expect to read online free.

Brett Riggs:  Yes, Sally, you're right about that. In print, they'll pay. Online, they won't. In some ways it makes no sense, and in other ways it makes perfect sense.

Diane Elliott (Telegram assistant managing editor):  That is the rub, and getting advertisers on board might be more difficult with fewer paying subscriptions.

Margaret Meyers:  Advertisors care about visitors, not paying subscribers.

GCTelegram:  Good point, Margaret.

Brett Riggs:  Yes, that is true.

[november]

Pay for what is currently on the web? Or pay for having all the same articles as the physical paper posted to the web? And for what price -- the same price as the monthly paper subscription?

I can answer better if I know more specifics. 

[Emily Behlmann]

Good questions, November. I guess we're trying to get an idea of what kind of web site, if any, people would pay for, and also how much? Would you be willing to pay to get the printed articles online, perhaps instead of subscribing to the physical paper? Or would there have to be further enhancements/customization for you to be willing to pay? Or should it all be free?

And if you would pay, how much? A monthly subscription rate of $10, $20, $50? A per article rate of a few cents or a dollar?

[november]

I think I'd be interested. I know my Telegram sub habits wax and wane throughout the year. A lot of times, I find myself checking the website online, even if I do get the paper, and then I never read the FULL paper and it just sits in my doorway collecting dust, lol.

That said, if *all* of the articles were online like they appear in the paper (and the classifieds were as accurate/up to date) as the actual paper, I'd be willing to pay for it. Probably not any more than I would pay for the paper version, though.

Also, I wouldn't need lots of crazy features or anything. Just a PDF version of the newspaper would be enough (or something similar). I like to see the advertisements/city announcements/etc. I would like to see the full pictures as well -- the itty bitty thumbnails can be kind of frustrating. But then again, it's currently free, so I can't complain.

[ksdoglady]

I would be interested, but not for the same price as the printed subscription....would have to be half as much or less.  What would I line my dog crates with?

[november]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/16/financial-times-lionel-barber

[ksdoglady]

All I can say, is that the average Joe will be even less informed than he already is if that comes to pass.....

[KingsNomad]

While I love actually picking up a newspaper everyday and reading the articles, it has come time in human history to abandon the printed newspaper. Hardly any newspapers get recycled and the ink is just more poison for the ground. The only thing I really feel bad about is the young paper boys and girls who won't have their routes anymore. The newspapers themselves won't need to go out of business, they just need to downsize. They can still generate advertising income the same as they did before, and also charge a small subscription fee. Another benefit is being able to update the news constantly, instead of just once a day. In this fast paced world people want their news right away.