Paywalls

The Washington Post has initiated its online paywall. Online access to the newspaper is now $14.99 per month. For those who don't subscribe, you can read twenty articles in a month, and then the paywall will prevent you from reading further (although you will be able to access articles that friends post via social media, such as Facebook or Twitter). This mimics The New York Times paywall implemented a couple years ago for $15 per month.

There's this part of me that says, Pay up, freeloaders! 

There is no such thing as free. Free doesn't exist. There is always a cost. If you didn't pay for something, it means that someone else paid the bill. And without book buyers or newspaper subscribers, it becomes less financially tenable for people to write books or publish newspapers. Reporters and writers need to be able to make a living. Without subscribers, papers like the Post can't do the vital Fourth Estate work of investigative journalism, such as uncovering the Watergate break in. All these things have a real financial cost. 

One thing I am looking forward to through the Post's paywall is how it weeds out the online "trolls" (see the Wikipedia definition, which nails it). Many trolls are freeloaders, and without paying for an online subscription, they won't be able to comment. The New York Times has had advantage, not only in enlisting a paywall, but also in moderating comments to its articles. The Washington Post does not do so. The comments can be scathing and blood pressure raising. 

I will readily admit that the Post isn't the paper that it was ten years ago. Buyouts have weakened the news room, and it now outsources much more of its content to AP and Bloomberg. The Post has cut back significantly on the number of books it reviews. For us authors, seeing the demise of the Book World section was tragic. Only the New York Times has a dedicated book review section.

And the price for the Post has risen significantly: it is now $55.60 for eight weeks of home delivery. The Post has lost so many subscribers that it takes in less revenue for advertising, meaning that the remaining subscribers have to pick up the bill.

Consumers have gotten accustomed to content being free. They read blogs for free. Until now, they've been able to read most newspapers online for free. Or they expect a big, big discount to buy a book, thanks to Amazon's reduced pricing. At book signings over the years, I have seen numerous people who have told me to my face, "Oh, I'll just go buy your book on Amazon." All to save themselves a couple dollars. While I've never shamed anyone publicly over this, I have immediately thought: Frickin' cheapskate. You come to a bookstore, use their electricity and restroom, take up the staff's time, and yet you contribute nothing other than to add to their costs. The nerve!

You go to a restaurant and order food, or go to bar and order drinks. You don't expect your food or beer (or service for that matter) to be free, do you? Then why is content expected to be free? It isn't. By not purchasing a book, or by not subscribing to the newspaper, you are contributing to the demise of an vital industry and compromising people's livelihoods.

If you want good content, pay up.

Garrett Peck
www.garrettpeck.com