Going paywall...

It was impossible to be on board with this from Day One. People forget too quickly. Go back to Day One. What happened is the consultants and the IT types who installed the systems for individual newspapers told publishers they simply had to give the news away for free online. They said in this new online world, NOBODY would pay for news and they were insistent. The publishers instantly were on board. It's partly because they through the years made MOST of their money on advertising rather than subscriptions. They also have always devalued the work of reporters thinking anybody can write a story (remember the citizen journalism craze? Managing editors were all for it).

 

I can see why. I'm sure very few people were paying for the online product. At some point the newspaper executives probably decided to be relevant at all they had to give away the copy and hope someday ads might be sold.

 

Really? If I’m using a service daily and paying less than a dollar a day, I’d say that’s pretty darn cheap. It’s why I have three digital newspaper subscriptions and don’t mind the less than $2 a day I pay for them.

 

3 free articles per month

I agree, The Athletic is driving a format that should be the standard.

 

The Boston Globe offers a limited amount of articles a month and won't let you view in a private window. It seems the most effective of the paywall systems I have seen.

 

Did it help to do that?

 

I can never imagine paying for The Athletic or any sports site. So little of what they can produce can possibly be that distinct -- or necessary -- from innumerable other sites. I subscribe to The New Yorker online for $8.99 a month, which also gives me access to their entire archive. I definitely get my money's worth.

 

It is. I am, however, a little pissed I didn't get my sub during a sale. If there's not a sale going on when my sub runs out, I'll probably wait until there is to renew.

 

What's distinct? The feature writing? The newsbreaking?

 

Rosenthal is the best in baseball and Shams is basically tied with Woj in basketball. But their breaking news is free on Twitter.

And their longform is as good as anyone's. I just happen to like the voices they have more than other sites. They also have really good soccer coverage, which isn't easy to find.

 

This is revisionist history and just not true. First, there were papers who tried through other companies (see: Washington Post). For others, the technology wasn't there yet to properly set up a system to accept online payments. Then when newspapers went online, they treated it like a red-headed stepchild and sales people basically gave away ads for free or as add-ons, thus devaluing the online product.

 

Congrats, you get news from one market for that price, while The Athletic subscribers can access articles from any market. That's quite possibly the biggest asset TA has....readers don't have to subscribe to 4-5 different websites to get the coverage they want if they like teams from different markets.