Yes, it’s important. And would be worth paying for … if they supplied it. But I don’t see many sites providing it (including the ones you mentioned).
you go to the game to watch & support the team? Or talk to someone who was there.
This! I pretty much lost a computer after visiting a legitimate site that happened to have malware-infested ads.
I know the money has to come from somewhere – if I like the site’s content enough (like this board!), I’m happy to pay to make them go away. But I’ve had enough of system-crippling malware and pop-up windows that obscure the entire page (this is particularly bad on phones).
The big newspapers need to come up with a common company to fund them.
When SF had 2 dailies, they formed a company to run the presses and distribute the papers.
Have one point where you can subscribe to all:
something like:
Welcome to News Portal!
Select the sites you'd like to see:
1. NYT - $15/yr (checkbox) or $2/mo (checkbox)
2. WaPo $15/yr ditto ditto
3. ChiTrib $
.
.
.
The individual sites would be assured of a single source (but still can offer the same terms on their own sites rather than requiring a fan to go to payfornews.com)
New York Times has a subscription (paywall)
San Francisco Chronicle (which operates sfgate, a freebie) has a subscription
Washington Post may well have one - now or shortly if people keep blocking the ads.
And, in small towns, even the old shut-ins love the Bulldogs or Spartans. The bleachers won’t hold everyone - not even everyone who lives nearby.
In small towns, the High School buses in all the students in the county. Those are the ones who get behind the teams - the ones in the boonies.
The Post has a paywall now - they let you view a certain number of free articles per month before requiring you to pay.
I seriously think we need to go back to patronage. In the past, composers were not protected by copyright or such, and their compositions were copied and performed by just about everyone who could get them, but they did well for themselves, because of patronage. I think the same model should work for the internet, but crossed with crowdfunding.
Really, once the work is commissioned, there is very little per-viewing cost involved. Why not make it free for everyone at that point?
For example, I like a podcast enough to toss $2 at it every month. If 1000 other people think like me, that’s $2000 for a weekly podcast, which is decent. But once the podcast is made, everyone else can listen to it for free - why not? One of those people might like it enough to toss a few bucks in as well.
There are also other podcasts which I don’t particularly like, but will listen to. That’s fine! Someone else will like it enough to keep it alive, and if not, that’s no big loss.
With the internet as a distribution channel, the long tail is long enough to sustain many of these content creation type businesses. Think of kickstarter, Patreon, even Reddit. I think it could work, as long as it becomes socially “acceptable” or “desirable” to be seen as supporting content creation.
Maybe the relevant model is street performers, as seen in large cities, esp. touristy types.
Ever drop a dollar in the instrument case? Toss a quarter in the cup?
Somebody has to.
Eventually, even in competitive, ‘I’ve got mine, the Hell with you, Jack!’ cultures, the grown-ups realize that money is required to deliver your goods and services.
The PBS Pledge Drives are an obvious example (do they still do those?).
I fear for PBS Nature programming - National Geographic underwrote many, many programs.
Rupert Murdoch has to be among the people I"d LEAST like to see own it.
But hey! Bill Gates mellowed in his old age and may well, on balance, leave a great legacy.
We can hope for Mr. Murdoch to follow that lead.
My lung capacity is reduced, so I will not be holding my breath.
Or you just clear the relevant cookies. Or open such sites in a private browser so that the cookie doesn’t update.