So, the last few times I've gone to Variety.com, Variety's online site, within seconds of starting to view the page a full-page ad for Variety asking me to become a member and sign in has displayed. The sign-up has a small charge, it appears. Not as much as getting the mag for a year. However, and here's the thing that a lot of online sites seem to not understand: the vast majority of people who are used to getting the milk for free will refuse to pay for the cow and will move on to other locations where they can continue to get milk for free.
And I'm just like that-- I have eliminated the links to Variety.com from my home page and just won't go to their site any more unless and until the information is free. It is WAY too easy to get any entertainment industry news from a variety of other sources for free still, so I'm certainly not going to pay for it.
Variety may argue that they provide a service that is worth paying for and the price is reasonable. I would counter with the fact that any price is unreasonable when I can get the same, or virtually the same, information for free elsewhere. Add in the fact I have never, not once, read an article on Variety.com that didn't include at least two typos, errors, grammar mistakes, or poor wording choices that change the meaning of the sentence and, for me at least, Variety's decision to ask me to pay for their service becomes a recipe for disaster.
Variety.com may have the information first, but if it is virtually unreadable due to errors and mistakes, faulty reporting, or bad editing, then I'll go elsewhere and get it later. I'd rather have it later and right than sooner and wrong. Something all news sources may want to consider, frankly.
So, Variety lost a small amount of click count and definitely lost out on revenue today. I suspect they will find that my few clicks per week and subscription rate isn't the only one they lose out on and their attempt to save their business by making people pay for it will actually hasten the mag's demise. We'll see.
-
You were bored and searching for something to read when serendipity brought you to my blog. Many blog responses and emails later, things see...
-
Originally, I used Yahoo! as my home page. However, I never liked how everything sort of got clumped together with ads and other things that...
-
Well, I got "the script" from Renee today. I knew something was up at work with the number of mid-level managers who were present ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, free info will always win over subscriptions. It's a tough business to be in publishing right now. A lot of people are more reluctant to pay for a magazine when they can read online for free. On the other side, though, I stopped my subscription to PC Magazine when they suspended printing and went to an online-only version. I had no interest in reading a digital version, I preferred the hard copy that I could carry to the doctor's office while I wait, etc. I know I should be more open to digital formats, but old habits die hard. Maybe it would be easier with a Kindle, but sitting at my PC or laptop to read isn't desirable after working all day.
ReplyDeleteThe over-all quality of written communication has fallen so far that it is appalling. Add to that lack of basic skills the mindset that if it's published on line, the mistakes don't count, and you have mediocre publishing.
ReplyDeleteI recently sent a message to one of my favorite authors to point out two egregious errors on page 26, errors that even an idiot could have caught with a casual reading of the text. Once it's in print, the error stands forever: no do-overs until the next edition, and there aren't many next editions these days.
Electronic options are okay, but I'm with Liz: I want to hold it in my hands, carry it with me, turn the pages, mark the margins. I don't want to depend on a cord or a battery charge: I just want to read.
*agorpi -- this has to be a favorite!