> Some may argue that, from a business standpoint, not charging for stories primarily relying on public records automatically means fewer subscriptions and therefore less revenue (…)
> while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, *it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice* and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run.
(emphasis is mine)
Not, the outcimes are not as likely. This is the same argument that switching to foss and donation-based model would not result in income-loss compared to traditional business model.
We know from experience it does not financially work for a (very) large majority of products.
I laud Wired’s initiative but I hope they have considered it as a net-loss of income.
Most major subscription newspapers in Finland have a model where "important" news articles are free but for feature stories and such a subscription is needed. Having specific articles free would be something similar.
The free news articles are not out of the goodness of the shareholders. Most newspapers (Wired included) run ads, and still get ad revenue from the free stories and with them get to somewhat compete with fully ad funded alternatives.
I wonder how many subscriptions are bought for outlets which have no outside-internet recognition or freely accessible content, where all you can see is a paywall.
If I'm gonna subscribe to your magazine, the main things I want to know is quality of reporting and if I can cancel without hassle (due to tactics sadly employed by some titles). I will not just believe you have good stories if I can't see them. This is not the level of trust we give nowadays. And magazine and newspaper subscriptions are not some pressing need that I can't forgo.
For some of these I could just buy one paper issue to try out (technically even for foreign titles), but otherwise how would I know. And no, with a book I would buy, I know I can expect some level of quality because of the publisher, and I can read what it is about in the backcover. Worst case scenario, I get 250 pages of poor entertainment to read when very bored in a train. It's not the same with getting access to someone's sorry content farm.
(emphasis is mine)
Not, the outcimes are not as likely. This is the same argument that switching to foss and donation-based model would not result in income-loss compared to traditional business model.
We know from experience it does not financially work for a (very) large majority of products.
I laud Wired’s initiative but I hope they have considered it as a net-loss of income.