# Globe and Mail paywall



## ShowMeTheMoney (Apr 12, 2009)

I read the G&M quite a bit. More since the NYT went paywall. Now G&M is going paywall at too steep a price, I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but I'm now considering paying for the NYT and getting by Canadian content elsewhere (CBC, Financial Post?). Any other suggestions?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I really like reading the Globe and plan to sign up for the subscription.

I'm a bit biased since I'm a publisher myself, but dishing out expensive-to-produce free content isn't a great business model. Either they charge for it, or lay off all the journalists and hire unpaid interns to produce content.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

Paywall? Do you get 10 free? 

if so just delete the following cookie from your browser and continue reading 

Just delete the PPJOL.com cookie tree. Then add plugin to your browser to block cookies from that site and voila never an issue again.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

jamesbe said:


> Just delete the PPJOL.com cookie tree. Then add plugin to your browser to block cookies from that site and voila never an issue again.


Are you sure they aren't tracking IP addresses as well as using cookies? Seems like relying on cookies alone would lead to lots of "cheating" because many people block cookies on their browsers.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Some sites are getting wise to that, and require you to log in. You can create multiple accounts, perhaps, but is it worth it?

The only news I pay for is a subscription to the Economist. They produce audio editions (the entire magazine recorded, very well done I might add). I listen to it while commuting/washing dishes/doing cardio. It works out to about 6 hours a week of content. I don't think I'd be able to read the whole thing otherwise.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

brad said:


> Are you sure they aren't tracking IP addresses as well as using cookies? Seems like relying on cookies alone would lead to lots of "cheating" because many people block cookies on their browsers.


They aren't tracking IPs. I know this because at work we have 1 IP yet buddy next to me can read 10 and I can read 10 and so on and so forth. Delete the cookie away you go.

Won't work for sites with logins of course.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Some sites are getting wise to that, and require you to log in. You can create multiple accounts, perhaps, but is it worth it?
> 
> The only news I pay for is a subscription to the Economist. They produce audio editions (the entire magazine recorded, very well done I might add). I listen to it while commuting/washing dishes/doing cardio. It works out to about 6 hours a week of content. I don't think I'd be able to read the whole thing otherwise.


Oh, this is awesome! My "cardio" is riding my bike, though; and I don't wear headphones while doing that. I'm "reading" Moby Dick (I did actually read it, several times in fact, when I was in university the first time) in podcast form during walks at work, one chapter at a time. I don't have six hours to listen to Economist content though. Hmmm.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

jamesbe said:


> They aren't tracking IPs. I know this because at work we have 1 IP yet buddy next to me can read 10 and I can read 10 and so on and so forth. Delete the cookie away you go.
> 
> Won't work for sites with logins of course.


I'm sure the cookie method works great for the Globe & Mail now, but what about when they actually put up the pay wall next Monday?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

It's hard to suggest anything if we don't know the type of content you read. There are many free alternatives as well as better paid alternatives. IMO FT.com's subscription is the only one worth paying for.

For 'breaking' world news its best to check one of the global news agencies - AFP, Bloomberg, Reuters. They pay at least 10x as many journalists on the ground than the G&M, and can afford to do so without paywalls. In that category their audience is huge, syndication deals are huge, ad revenue is huge, financial products revenue are huge. A large % of G&M content is republished from these agencies because G&M don't have enough of their own legs to do the work. No need to pay G&M to be a middle-man, just go to their sites directly.

allthingsd, digitimes and eetimes are great for tech and completely free. I get local news from twitter, most up-to-the-minute stories are done by The Star or Metro. It could be different where you live.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

They have _got_ to be kidding...they want us to pay for _that_?
The G&M is a pretty pedestrian and mundane newspaper when it comes to finance.
The Economist and the WSJ, I can understand...but the G&M? Puleeze....


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

There is lots of free news and stories elsewhere. papers are going to die or have to learn to get ad revenue by differentiating themselves.


----------



## ShowMeTheMoney (Apr 12, 2009)

ddkay said:


> It's hard to suggest anything if we don't know the type of content you read. There are many free alternatives as well as better paid alternatives. IMO FT.com's subscription is the only one worth paying for.
> 
> For 'breaking' world news its best to check one of the global news agencies - AFP, Bloomberg, Reuters. They pay at least 10x as many journalists on the ground than the G&M, and can afford to do so without paywalls. In that category their audience is huge, syndication deals are huge, ad revenue is huge, financial products revenue are huge. A large % of G&M content is republished from these agencies because G&M don't have enough of their own legs to do the work. No need to pay G&M to be a middle-man, just go to their sites directly.
> 
> allthingsd, digitimes and eetimes are great for tech and completely free. I get local news from twitter, most up-to-the-minute stories are done by The Star or Metro. It could be different where you live.


Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them. I just have limited time and G&M was pretty convenient in that I got business news, Canada and US news there. For international news I usually go to BBC. I recently subscribed to the CNN "this just in" blog on RSS for breaking news, but it's pretty lame. Twitter is probably the way to go, but I'm resisting joining, I'm afraid it's going to be a huge time sink. /but I like a little analysis, not just headlines. I liked reading the NYT everyday, and so I think their subscription is probably worth it, the quality at G&M isn't there for me to shell out 20$ per month.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I also wouldn't pay for the G&M. I think the NY Times has its reputation as a differentiator and people are willing to pay to view stories online. Whenever I read the G&M (which is rarely), I feel like I'm reading USA Today. I can't explain why, but the G&M has always irritated me.

In general the papers have discovered that it's hard to sustain a large staff of professional, highly trained journalists and editors on advertising revenue alone. The NY Times tried it from 1996-2010 and only instituted the paywall last year.

One good source I've found for international news, just a short synopsis of top stories with very succinct background and analysis, is Evening Edition: http://evening-edition.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Oh, this is awesome! My "cardio" is riding my bike, though; and I don't wear headphones while doing that. I'm "reading" Moby Dick (I did actually read it, several times in fact, when I was in university the first time) in podcast form during walks at work, one chapter at a time. I don't have six hours to listen to Economist content though. Hmmm.


Each article is a separate track, and each section starts with a brief "in this section, story x, story y, story z, and more". You can skip the sections or articles than don't interest you (what, you don't care about the intricacies of Kenyan tribal and sectarian politics?). One thing I like about the Economist is that they do long form journalism--deep dives into a subject you otherwise would never really hear about in the news. About half the issues have a Special Report of 4-10 articles on a broader topic, like the Chinese economy, global warming, financial regulation.

Yes. I'm a huge nerd, but we knew that already.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is a very interesting look inside the NY Times presently on The Movie Network on demand.

One amusing clip showed a panel discussion about the future of news.........and the owner of Newsie.com waxed on about the death of newspapers and how the new media was online.

After he was finished, the reporter from the NY Times showed a copy of the Newsie page on the internet, which was full of news...........and then showed another identical page with all the news gleaned from traditional sources cut out of it. The Newsie page was nothing but empty holes in the paper.

The audience got a big laugh and the Newsie guy looked pretty uncomfortable..........the point was well made.

Much of the internet "news" is nothing more than an aggregate collection gathered from traditional news sources. That is primarily what the Drudge Report and most other "news" sites are as well.

Without traditional news sources, who actually pay people to report from around the world, there would be no news, and a whole lot fewer blogs that do little more than comment on news articles from sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

sags, that's basically what G&M has turned into. It's become a big news aggregator taking stores from Canadian Press, AFP etc etc mixed in with the occasional plagiarised Margarate Wente op-ed. Surely you can add a few interesting news feeds into Google Reader for less than $20 per month.


----------



## Dibs (May 26, 2011)

If anyone is interested in the documentary sags mentioned, it is worth watching.

Page One: Inside The New York Times (2010)


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I was interviewed once by a reporter from the NY Times; he spent an hour on the phone with me and asked me a lot of deep, probing questions. I was one of about a dozen people he interviewed for his story. A couple of days later I was interviewed by a reporter from USA Today. She wrote the article as we spoke, typing into a page template on her computer that dictated the exact space and number of words she had available. She asked me several times to repeat what I'd said, a little more succinctly, so she could quote me without going over her allotted space. The interview took less than 10 minutes and her story was done. The phrase that kept going through my mind was, "All the News That Fits, We Print."


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Won't I just be able to go to the G&M website, note the headings of the articles that I am interested in and then simply 'Google' those headings to read the articles?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Different markets. Most newspapers are written for people with the attention span of a gnat. Many people just read the headline and perhaps a paragraph or two.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Belguy said:


> Won't I just be able to go to the G&M website, note the headings of the articles that I am interested in and then simply 'Google' those headings to read the articles?


it depends what system the globe adopts. We won't know until next week.

if they adopt the postMedia model which is presently spreading throughout the postmedia chain & will finally include the National Post itself, you'll be blocked from slipping in behind the wall through the back door. Perhaps this means the PM system recognizes IP addys.

on the other hand, trespassing in nyt-iht is easy via the back door.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Some very interesting comments here.

I'll accept that the 'news' industry is changing and may yet fade out as we now know it, but the bottom line is that you can't get quality content for free.

I think all big newspapers will go to a pay system which means that all the free volume content will be crap. Will this work? No idea. But either way, the people who aren't willing to pay for quality content won't get any.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

If switching to a paywall system means the globe will have proper long form journalism again then I accept it. All the syndicated and third party pollution they stuff into the pages now just drive more traffic/bots/ad revenue has gave them bad rep here and a world over.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

ddkay said:


> If switching to a paywall system means the globe will have proper long form journalism again then I accept it. All the syndicated and third party pollution they stuff into the pages now just drive more traffic/bots/ad revenue has gave them bad rep here and a world over.


Do you actually read the Globe? They have lots of articles by their own columnists. Rob Carrick? David Shoalts?, Eric Duhatshek? Sure they have syndicated stuff too, but so what? Read the good stuff and decide for yourself if it's worth $20. If not - you know what to do.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't read the globe anymore unless I'm linked there. I just want to see more original content, just like when you sign onto the nytimes, you get a nice editorial written by them instead of reuters


----------



## avrex (Nov 14, 2010)

If you are buying the weekend only 'physical' version of the newspaper, then this article says that you only need to pay an additional $4.99/month for unlimited access to the online version.

The Globe to roll out metered paywall as industry shifts to digital revenue


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

The Saturday-only subscription is $15 a month, so you're paying around $3.50 per physical issue of the paper. That's a pretty darn expensive paper. And the $15 + $5 for online adds up to the same $20/month you'd pay for online-only.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

That G&M article said the following:

_readers who find stories through social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook as well as search engines and blogs won’t have those stories count against their monthly cap_

So does this mean that all you have to do is find the article through Google and click on it?
Or link it through your Facebook and click on it?
That's it?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Harold, think about it for a sec. News happens. When we visit news sites it's because we want to see what happened. We read the list of articles and click on those of interest to us. Most of our news story views are arrived at this way, rather than us searching them out. ie. we need to know something happened to be able to search it out.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

I do like to use globe investor but not enough for $20 a month. 

Maybe when the entire web becomes locked down I will begin to pay but for the moment there are plenty of free alternatives.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the sales department is creative and nimble.........they may be able to find creative ways to attract subscribers......other than "hand over your credit card number".

For example.......pairing a subscription with financial institutions, such as "trade through our platform and receive a free subscription to the Globe Investor".....or perhaps pair up with retailers with card points as a subscription as a redeemable item.

One "good" thing about subscription based content is that the competition for paying customers may increase quality.

We can hope anyways.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> Harold, think about it for a sec. News happens. When we visit news sites it's because we want to see what happened.


But they are not blocking that part of the news.
That will continue to be free and open to the public.
My understanding is that only certain articles, columns, etc. will be subscription driven.
Theoretically, this will be the "premium" columns and articles written by paid in-house journalists (Rob Carrick, etc.)

So if you are navigating through the G&M website and see a couple of articles you are interested in and you click on them.
But you get blocked by the subscription login.
What is there to stop you from flipping over to Google and finding the same article through a search and then clicking on it?
It will take you less than 5 secs. of extra effort to bypass the subscription system (if this is indeed how it is supposed to work).


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Using Google to read articles blocked on pay sites has usually worked for me and so we shall see how it works for G&M articles but they seem to be saying that they will not be blocking their articles for view by accessing them on Google and so what's the point?

For example, to view Rob Carrick's articles, we should be able to simply Google his name to find his latest musings---no??


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags what a good idea. I think i will start agitating at brokers for them to initiate free newspaper subscriptions (paywall is coming to financial post soon) for clients with certain trade order volumes ...


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Didn't TD Waterhouse offer Globeinvestor GOLD access to those who qualified for President's Account in the past?


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I had read this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...try-shifts-to-digital-revenue/article4612259/

But it didn't menton anything about the globeinvestor portfolio content. Not sure if I will be able to access everything next week. I would have no intention to pay to access what I could do on an excel spreadsheet. I do like reading the globeinvestor page, but agree that the economist or wsj has greater content.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> Didn't TD Waterhouse offer Globeinvestor GOLD access to those who qualified for President's Account in the past?


afaik all or nearly all the features of globeinvestor gold are now embedded in tdw's markets & research website. They're available to all clients, not just the pa's.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I read this am in the Globe Unlimited FAQ page "When you visit globeandmail.com through a link from an approved social media channel such as Twitter and Facebook, the viewed article will not count toward your monthly limit of 10 free articles. " My question is how do you do this? Just search for Globe and Mail in FB and click like? Thanks for any help.


----------



## timelessfinance (Aug 24, 2012)

I'll miss Rob Carrick's pieces and the Reader. Other than that, good riddance. The lack of opinions from Globe and Mail writers will improve public discourse.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

If the G&M is offering free views via facebook links, would it still count towards the 10 per month if we simply posted articles here in links, with titles, so we know whether we want to read the article or not.

I don't have facebook, so I really don't know what the difference would be.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Agreed +101% with ddkay that FT is the ONLY business & financial paper worth paying for especially its weekend's edition which offers a great cross section of other topics. 

There is simply too much info overload and plenty are FREE online with cross references to some good investment blogs. One can also get decent articles on Flipboard. Even Newsweek has given up and has decided to end its print editions recently. Since I came to Canada 1.5 years ago I hardly read global news from Canadian sources.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Try this link to read the Report on Business. It still seems to be outside the new paywall.

https://secure.globeadvisor.com/newscentre/article.html?/education/generated/edutgam.html


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Cal said:


> If the G&M is offering free views via facebook links, would it still count towards the 10 per month if we simply posted articles here in links, with titles, so we know whether we want to read the article or not.
> I don't have facebook, so I really don't know what the difference would be.


My rather large assumption is that if someone was paying for it, shared it on their own Facebook page and then posted the resulting link here, it would work. Alternatively someone could be making money by charging $5 a head to be Facebook friends and then share everything from the paper! 

There will be ways around it, many legal, many not. Personally I think they have shot themselves in the foot by setting the price so high. There are too many free alternatives to most of the content to justify the price. Good writers like Carrick might be able to garner a following by offering better writing and insight than what is available elsewhere. A big issue is this - Event X just happened and is covered by 100s of international news organizations, and their articles are available for free. What is the G&M writing about it that makes their article worth that much more than The Guardian? The AP, etc? International news now faces international competition. 


Personally I am hoping that this means people will stop reading Margaret Wente's idiocy.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

The price point is what really gets me. Am I surprised they're moving to a pay for use model? No. Am I surprised at their zero-to-hero pricing? Yes! 
I am truly shocked that they don't have a better teaser rate and that they didn't opt to set a lower price and increase it every six to 12 months for awhile. My spouse and I have decided against, but we were perfectly willing to pay up to $10 a month for it.
Especially given their "sucks to be you" attitude to those of us who cannot have it delivered and therefore get the discounted rate. Their solution? Get a discount by subscribing to our electronic toy version (iPads, tablets, kindles..). Well, we don't have those either!


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

timelessfinance said:


> I'll miss Rob Carrick's pieces.


I can't stand that guy.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> I can't stand that guy.


+1


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Pigzfly said:


> The price point is what really gets me. Am I surprised they're moving to a pay for use model? No. Am I surprised at their zero-to-hero pricing? Yes!
> I am truly shocked that they don't have a better teaser rate and that they didn't opt to set a lower price and increase it every six to 12 months for awhile. My spouse and I have decided against, but we were perfectly willing to pay up to $10 a month for it.
> Especially given their "sucks to be you" attitude to those of us who cannot have it delivered and therefore get the discounted rate. Their solution? Get a discount by subscribing to our electronic toy version (iPads, tablets, kindles..). Well, we don't have those either!


There is a teaser rate, 99c for the 1st month. It is on the globeinvestor page.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes... the key word in that sentence was *better.*


----------



## avrex (Nov 14, 2010)

I guess we had better get used to this 'nag' popup.


----------



## PMREdmonton (Apr 6, 2009)

Already switching to some NYT, some Edmonton Journal and some National Post/Financial Post.


----------



## Maybe Later (Feb 19, 2011)

Anyone had issues with iOS G&M apps? I haven't updated in some time and I haven't had any limit on the number of articles viewed.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I actually think the Globe and Mail is pretty decent. They do have some original reporting, and I've finally realized good reporting is worth paying for. The AP stories posted everywhere aren't really worth it.

Now I just want a better subscription deal, and Android support. 
Sure I understand why they developed the Blackberry and iPhone app, but come on, Android is the leading mobile platform, to not even have a decent app is unacceptable.

In the meantime I'm getting Google Currents, and it's pretty decent.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Looks like Toronto Star is going to follow suit as well.
http://business.financialpost.com/2...introduce-paywall-for-online-content-in-2013/

Hey, look, the Financial Post just became my favorite online paper.


----------



## lofidelity (Oct 30, 2012)

Well I wouldn't mind paying for either newspaper as they both give great coverage and investigative journalism that blogging and newswire services don't do. I just hope they can produce better online content with the money that they receive.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Looks like they've fixed their paywall, darn.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

It would be interesting to see the numbers for globe and mail vs financial post now. Most regular readers that have not paid for the service have probably hit the wall by now. I have.

Thankfully I can still use the globeinvestor service for free, but am using the financial post for my daily reading. I still prefer the g&m, but for the price, the financial post is doing just fine w me.

I wonder if this will help the FP by remaining free, as they may be getting an increased number of site hits and views than in the past, which in turn would help to sell ads in the future. (Curious to see the G&M view count for the same reasons)


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I haven't hit the paywall yet, but I only read when I click through from somewhere else (like here). I don't know if those click-throughs count against the paywall or not.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Cal said:


> (Curious to see the G&M view count for the same reasons)


The views don't mean much if they aren't generating much revenue.

You are better off with 100,000 paying customers at $20 per head than with 1,000,000 'customers' who only generate $1 per head from advertising.

I'm curious about this though (and was thinking of writing a post about it) - why are a lot of people so against paying for an online newspaper? I realize there are free alternatives, although I'm not sure most of them are worth their cost.

People used to pay for newspapers, just like they pay for coffee or gas. Why won't people do it again? Is it because it's been free for so long?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

There are alternative free news sources. It's like setting up a store selling coffee next to a store giving it away. Which will be more popular?


----------



## Woody (Oct 30, 2012)

Spudd said:


> There are alternative free news sources. It's like setting up a store selling coffee next to a store giving it away. Which will be more popular?



The difference is the journalistic integrety. Who's to say that free bloggers are unbiased? A lot just write huge amount of content (Hell, most just reword stuff they find elsewhere) hoping that it will draw people to their site for google ads, or to get noticed by some of the larger papers.

I also value being able to physically hold something to read, rather than burning my eyes out staring at a screen. However, when I'm at work I'll browse the e-versions happily enough.

If there is going to be another dot com bubble burst its with the advertising models. Its simply unsustainable to base a business off selling ads alone (as opposed to accompanying/suplementing the content) that most people ignore and which the majority of actual clicks are accidental.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Spudd said:


> There are alternative free news sources. It's like setting up a store selling coffee next to a store giving it away. Which will be more popular?


But most of the free articles appear to have been written of the course of about 20 minutes. 

At least with a "proper" newspaper like the Globe/Star etc etc, you have journalists who are usually decent writers and will spend the time to do a story -ie 5 hours/10 hours or whatever.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I was referring to sources like CBC & CNN, not blogs. I find they have sufficient journalistic quality to satisfy me.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Spudd said:


> I was referring to sources like CBC & CNN, not blogs.


Fair enough. But how long until they start using a paywall system? 

No guarantee the pay system will work for online newspapers, but if it does - I think they will all do it eventually.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Yeah, I think it depends on how things progress. If the paywall sites lose all their traffic to the free sites, then they'll have to remove the paywall. Vice versa, if the paywall model proves successful, the free sites are likely to follow suit. Once there's no good free alternative, I think people will be happy to pay again. 

I think very prestigious papers such as NYT and WSJ can get away with a paywall because they clearly have a higher level of journalism. But I don't think the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star are in that league, personally.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't know if the journalism level is that much of a factor in terms of the success of a paywall.

A lot of people like to read 'the news', whether it's their local city paper or a national paper and in the past they paid for it, even if the quality wasn't the highest. As evidence - if you look at pretty much any decent sized city (25k+?) and they probably had some sort of newspaper which was profitable at one time. Some may even still have them.

If a Canadian wants to read a national newspaper and they all charge for content (in the future), then I think a lot of people will eventually just pay.

Of course, it might not play out that way. It's possible that there is less demand for news now than there was 10+ years ago and we might just see the 'news' industry shrink accordingly.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Here's a _Free  article on The FT which is for sale. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I doubt CBC would go behind a paywall, unless they are privatized. They are a public broadcaster after all.


----------



## PharmD (Dec 21, 2011)

Has anyone else noticed a quirk whereby I can access unlimited articles through the twitter app on my android phone, however accessing through the twitter app on my iPad counts them towards my 10 views? Last month even I had no problem going through twitter on my iPad, but this month it's locking me out. I can't really complain as its clearly a loophole that I am abusing to read as much for free as I want, but was wondering if anyone else was encountering it and how to get around it.

And yes, for Canadian news I think CBC may become the free source of choice. No more saying the CBC is a waste of our money.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Also, it is starting to make me think I should just use an excel spreadsheet to track my investments rather than globeinvestor.com. I dread the day of transfering it all into an excel spreadsheet. Thankfully it is still free....for now.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I doubt CBC would go behind a paywall, unless they are privatized. They are a public broadcaster after all.


Andrew, I agree with you in theory. However, I'm not convinced that CBC always acts like a public broadcaster. Outbidding privately owned stations for the Olympics and NHL (when applicable) are not things that I think a public broadcaster should be doing.


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

Woody said:


> Its simply unsustainable to base a business off selling ads alone (as opposed to accompanying/suplementing the content) that most people ignore and which the majority of actual clicks are accidental.


Can you explain then, how TV has been able to work for so long? I think an ads only model can (and does) work for a lot of websites. That said, I also think it's totally reasonable and OK for a site to put up a paywall. They're a business and they can choose how they wish to run it. The question will be if enough people think their content is good enough to pay for that it's a net positive for them, revenue-wise.


----------

