Comments on: Would you pay $13 a month for LA Times online subscription?

By: Iris

Iris — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:22:54 +0000

The LA Times has made itself irrelevant. People are always willing to pay for what they want, and few find the Times worth a quarter.

By: Mike Winder

Mike Winder — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:15:55 +0000

Er, I’d do it for for $49.95 or $39.95 per year.

By: Mike Winder

Mike Winder — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:15:00 +0000

Yet they offer it for $9.99/month on Kindle? That’s pretty overpriced. I’d do it for $49.95 or $39.95. I don’t like getting a physical paper, but I like seeing the layout of the physical paper. Make sense?

By: Matt Mason

Matt Mason — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:37:00 +0000

Not that Arianna Huffington is the guru of online media, but here's what she says in a recent Technorati interview: "I would advise an ad-supported model rather than a subscription model. I can't believe a number of newspapers and other sites are still trying to figure out how to close off their content and charge for it. I don't think it will work unless you are offering something very special that people can't get anywhere else."

By: frazgo

frazgo — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:54:47 +0000

Funny they chose “13″ as the dollar amount to charge. Seriously, why pay that when it can come with a regular subscription?

I’ll take my New York Times online, its free everyday in my email box.

By: nathan

nathan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:57:00 +0000

I also get it delivered and click-in on latimes.com routinely, I like the Los Angeles Times.

I can’t see the benefit of this. It’s redundant and the idea you have to flip through pages on the eedition as you would with a newspaper is clunky. I see no advantage to this over the current latimes.com, however if the goal is to get the public used to paying for news online, perhaps this is a way to introduce that.