Printed VS Online Communication, Which One Is More Important?

You pay for magazines and newspapers, would you do so for news sites and blogs?

While navigating the net I came across an interesting question from someone who had just seen BlogIt, readers who want to avail themselves of the content on that site have to pay subscription a fee–the question was therefore whether it was worthed to pay for such a service.

Think about it, you are reading this new site and probably many other news sites around the web that are the authority in the fields they specialized in. There are thousands of readers everyday, wouldn’t it be better for those sites to sell their information? Why is it that we are OK to pay for a printed magazine or a newspaper, while we question the fact of paying news or other information given online?

I muld it over a bit and I think this phenomenon can be easily explained.

I can see the magazine in the shop before I buy it and I can decide whether to purchase it or not, after I have a had a quick look through. I don’t just see the first few lines of an article, but I see the full articles, I have mass in my hands, I have the something physical in my hands that suggests that I am holding something that has a value. Maybe the content isn’t really that valuable, but there are the elements in this situation that tell me it is.

The internet world is conceived as something that allows people to express freely, quickly and to a broad public. Because it was conceived as a communication system, initially amongst military, and because of all that stands behind communication, people tend to cringe at the fact that there’s something that stops them from communicating. It might seem silly, but think about what is behind the concept of “freedom of communication”. It’s so strong and so important that people have died for it.

People already pay to get onto the net, but they don’t pay to step inside a shop even before they bought anything.

You don’t get spam through magazines. Yes there are still advertisements, but take a look at their appearance. They are carefully designed, they don’t look cheap like spam e-mails or flashy banners in GIF format.

Magazines don’t assault us. We can decide whether to buy them or not, whether to subscribe to them or not. Communications through the internet is very much an assault to the reader. It’s much worse than billboards in the streets. Sooner or later the space for the board will run out, but that is not the same for the internet. People on the net have to scream much higher, they have to impose their presence on the web, the communication almost jumps from the internet through the computer screen to the user. It loudly says “READ ME”. So why would the user have to pay it?

A good way to sell articles on the net is on the model of the Before and After Magazine. First of all, even though it’s on the net, it’s called magazine. People’s mind instantly associate with the printed equivalent. Some articles are free, in PDF format so they look like a magazine and I can see full features. I can see that there was someone putting some quality time into making them and that instantly pushes up the value of what I am looking at. It’s like the magazine in the shop. I have read a couple, I can trust the content is good, I am going to subscribe now.

Having said all that, I have noticed quite a few news sites that are already selling their RSS feeds. Many services are offered on the net for free, but if people are going to hate advertising, then their wish for ad free sites might be granted by some through paid subscriptions.

How would you take it if, one day, you went onto Publish.com or the like and find out you have to pay for the news about the latest software?