Brill thinks you'll pay for online content—will you?

Isn't "AP" already the aggregator? I wonder if AP could start a direct to consumer online news service for a fee? I suspect they already charge the newspaper's a fee when they use AP content. I'd pay direct to AP with no ads, especially if I could load it up on a kindle or sony type E-Ink type device. Plug it into wifi overnight and get the "paper" in the morning.

Dan M, I think that's what Brill is proposing--something like Rhapsody. We'll see if he can get publishers lined up.

There needs to be a subscription model similar to Rhapsody and others in the music space. The subscription service is an aggregator for many different content providers. Subscribers can listen to (or read, in this case) however much they want from any content provider. One login and one payment to access any content. The subscription service makes all the arrangements for legitimate payment to content providers behind the scenes based on actual usage of the content. Unlimited access to all newspapers for one low monthly fee? Yep, I'd definitely pay for that!

Any newspaper that tries to obtain payment for content is dead if it goes the road alone. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of newspapers I can access online for free. It can only work if they form a cartel.

It will depend on the content. My local paper tried an e-subscription at the same price as the delivered paper and dropped it after a short run. The new e-paper is now about $15/year, which is commensurate with the mostly empty content.

Using something like Olive Software to allow a newspaper to be read online just as if you had the paper in your hand would be a great idea that I would be willing to pay for just as I do my current hard copy subscription. I think a pay as you read type of service might not be quite as good though.

Information is a commodity. It is impossible to get people to pay for it on one site when they can get the same information on another site for free. If you search a little, you can find anything you need, without paying for it. This is like paying for market research reports: they are overly expensive (compared to what the info is actually worth), they are biased most times, and most of them are very inaccurate. You can find a lot of data for free, with a simple search, and avoid paying for editorial and for market research info. No way you can save the newspapers or magazines. Print is dead...

I agree that online newspapers have to rethink the business model. The poll is too biased to respond to. IF the reader pays, then he cannot be forced to watch ads. Having an advertisement display active content while reading an article is very annoying. Some publication do this now....

"infgormation" ??, no spell check at EDN? The choices in this poll are certainly biased. I would have certainly responded favorably to: "Yes, but only if the information has value to me and it's simple/easy to pay for."

I already pay for the Wall Street Journal. Can access all of it anytime, anywhere, without searching for which shop carries it. Also, it's easy to read online, unlike EDN's impossible (and slow) format.

Hi Rick, You may like the conversation going on at techdirt.com. Much of the recent conversation has been around the need for changing business models in journalism. Also, why is the only "no" option qualified with "information wants to be free"? I do believe that journalists need to eat but they need to change their business model to the new marketplace.