# Globe and Mail Digital Subscription



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i subscribe to the new york times for $9.90 a month for basic digital access (no paper)

i started a globe digital subscription about 6 months ago on a half price promo for 4 months with no intention of renewing since i think $26 a month (or whatever the current full price rate is) is just way too much

when my sub ended and they started charging me full price i called to cancel and they somewhat "hard sold" me into staying on at 18.75 a month for a year ... the csr really wasn't in the mood to see me leave 

since i read the times more than the globe and pay 50% more (and have more than enough to read on my agenda), i decided to cancel yet again

this time they dropped the sub to $12.58 for 4 months

i told the csr that i would probably cancel in 4 months since i thought that $10 bucks is about a fair price for globe digital ... i pay $10+ for netflix and $10 for apple music and i pay the times about $10 so i am kind of getting used to $10 as a standard digital price for content

we'll see what they do in 4 months, if they raise it i will call in again, if they leave it the same, i guess i might just keep it since i want the globe to survive

long story short, if you have been putting off getting a globe subscription because of the cost, we are closing in the $10 mark and it is a much better value than before

nice to not have to deal with the 10 article limit and more ads and so on


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

fatcat said:


> i told the csr that i would probably cancel in 4 months since i thought that $10 bucks is about a fair price for globe digital ... i pay $10+ for netflix and $10 for apple music and i pay the times about $10 so i am kind of getting used to $10 as a standard digital price for content


Yea all the $10/month subscription fees start to feel like death by 1000 cuts imo

I like how amazon is trying to consolidate a bunch of them under a $100/year subscription (home delivery, video, music, cloud storage etc) Maybe they should include a digital newspaper subscription

I don't think digital newsprint subscription model will survive on generation z or millennials. If they get access to all music for $10/month, and most any video, they would expect to get access to all newspaper for that price


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think newspapers,especially those like the WSJ should accommodate selling single issues the same as going out to Macs & buying today's newspaper. It's very annoying for those of us that like to read news from many sources so don't want to pay 20 subscriptions. Perhaps the Globe will have an epiphany and make additional money selling today's issue for say $1.50 each...$2.50 weekends.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I have long felt Globe charges too much for their subscription. I also feel it's a business model that will fail as long as the next guy is selling his wares for free, as is the case for news on the internet. They need to find another way to monetize their product.

ltr


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

You guys pay for news? Seriously. I will never pay for that biased crap. 

Here is how I get dozens of free articles. I installed 3 different browsers plus the G&M app on my phone. I just rotate between devices and clean the cookies regularly. You can read just about everything you want to for free.

Also, here is another trick, take the headline of the article and type it into google. Sometimes it brings up a back door to the article or a syndicated site that G&M sold it to. 

Dont pay for news.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

tygrus said:


> You guys pay for news? Seriously. I will never pay for that biased crap. ...
> 
> Dont pay for news.


Hi Tygrus. 
If it's "biased crap" why do you keep reading it? Curiously, you seem to have gone to some lengths to create an access workaround. That surely makes it appear that you value it.
The OP was talking about relative value for online subscriptions. You've jumped in to advise cheating the system.
Do you dine-and-dash at restaurants? Do you hop the turnstiles to get on the subway?
If you truly don't value the G&M, don't read it. If you do value it a little bit, accept that you should pay some modest amount for it.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> I have long felt Globe charges too much for their subscription. I also feel it's a business model that will fail as long as the next guy is selling his wares for free, as is the case for news on the internet. They need to find another way to monetize their product.
> 
> ltr


In my opinion, the Globe has by far the best business, economic, and industry news articles available in Canada, both in quantity and quality. There is no real alternative and that includes Google News. CBC is brutal. Financial Post has some good ones but rarely more than one or two a day. Globe isn't perfect, but you get several logins with each membership, so you can share the cost with someone. Definitely worth it. I am a subscriber.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

doctrine said:


> In my opinion, the Globe has by far the best business, economic, and industry news articles available in Canada, both in quantity and quality. There is no real alternative and that includes Google News. CBC is brutal. Financial Post has some good ones but rarely more than one or two a day. Globe isn't perfect, but you get several logins with each membership, so you can share the cost with someone. Definitely worth it. I am a subscriber.


I agree. They seem to have the best selection of investing articles. There are daily articles using stock screeners for various strategies for stock recommendations. Rob Carrick is probably the most knowledgeable writer on ETFs and every year has a 6 part series of reviews of ETFs by category. Information on everything financial really.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

doctrine said:


> In my opinion, the Globe has by far the best business, economic, and industry news articles available in Canada, both in quantity and quality. There is no real alternative and that includes Google News. CBC is brutal. Financial Post has some good ones but rarely more than one or two a day. Globe isn't perfect, but you get several logins with each membership, so you can share the cost with someone. Definitely worth it. I am a subscriber.


i mostly agree though they seem to do a lot of fluff as well ... "6 overlooked dividend payers !", kind of buzz-feedy listicles that are basically just screens written as articles

i tried to find free alternatives to the globe and really couldn't ... the investing section is the main reason i subscribe ... i think they will get to $10 a month and that will be a fair deal for the content

both the globe and the times are going to kill their paper editions within 5 years i bet except maybe in toronto and new york perhaps


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I have noticed an annoying increase in the number of links lately while using Google News to the Globe and Mail. Clicking any of these Google News links results in a Globe and Mail banner asking for subscription money and not being allowed to read the article that Google News linked toward. What a waste, those advertisers don't get my eyeballs. Their loss, not mine, since the stories are available elsewhere.

It was back in October that Google News decided to end their decade-old policy that asked publishers to open up their paywalls to Google News users, or see their traffic from the search giant drop. And it announced that it would work with publishers to help them promote their digital subscriptions. Too bad for us.

Google's original "first-click free" was replaced a with "flexible sampling" policy. 
_Google's policy, known as "first click free," mandated that publishers with subscription-based websites must allow users clicking on links in Google News to bypass their paywalls on a minimum number of articles each day. Those who did not participate saw their Google News listings ranked lower. It will now replace "first click free" with what it calls "flexible sampling," which will allow publishers to decide how many stories Google News users can read for free before being asked to subscribe. The change is based on tests Google did with the Financial Times and the New York Times._

That seemed to work fine for some time, but in the last while I notice that any click on Google News to Globe and Mail is met with their pay wall request banner for money and no story.

I've said it before and I will again. I have long felt Globe charges too much for their subscription. I also feel it's a business model that will fail as long as the next guy is selling their wares for free, as is the case for news on the internet. They need to find another way to monetize their product. Everyone seems to want your $10 a month. Death by a thousand cuts if you give in to all of them or any of them for that matter. Fund your news through advertising, not through subscriptions.

Personally, I avoid any paywall news outlets (and especially the Globe since they're just in your face all the time it seems) and as a result they lose my views to their advertisers. Their loss, not mine. I hope the advertisers realize this. 

I think the best method employed so far has been by The National Post where they won't let you view unless you turn off your ad blocker. No problem, that makes perfect sense. I turn mine off and I read The National Post (which is, by the way, the best newspaper by far IMO) and I see every advertisement. We all win...........

ltr


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

like_to_retire said:


> Fund your news through advertising, not through subscriptions.
> ...
> I think the best method employed so far has been by The National Post where they won't let you view unless you turn off your ad blocker. No problem, that makes perfect sense. I turn mine off and I read The National Post (which is, by the way, the best newspaper by far IMO) and I see every advertisement. We all win...........
> 
> ltr


Actually, we all lose. Selling digital banner ads brings in pennies -- actually fractions of pennies -- to publishers. Turning off your ad blocker will never raise enough revenue to fund journalism.
The Post has already gone through virtual bankruptcy once -- wiping out the equity holders. Digital ads won't keep it afloat. 
The only online advertising that nets decent fees is search-term or profile-based ads sold by Google or Facebook. Publishers don't get that money for their ads. Hence the embrace of paywalls.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

fireseeker said:


> Digital ads won't keep it afloat.


Then news is doomed I'm afraid.

ltr


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the new york times is doing fine and the globe is building its subscription base, you can get the globe for $6.00 a month, this will start to add up as people get used to paying for things online 

this is the new model for all kinds of things, magazines, apps, papers ... it will work in the long run


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

fatcat said:


> the new york times is doing fine and the globe is building its subscription base, you can get the globe for $6.00 a month, this will start to add up as people get used to paying for things online
> 
> this is the new model for all kinds of things, magazines, apps, papers ... it will work in the long run


FatCat, you seemed pretty convinced. I'm afraid I'm not really a believer that the subscription model will work. The New York Times has a unique product that appeals to most everyone in a huge country. The Globe and Mail is not the New York Times. General news or even general financial news isn't unique. Users can get the same news for free from the next site by simply clicking a button. You might argue that everyone use to pay for newspapers, but that was in a time with very little, if any, competition. Given the competition and size of the internet, it quite easy to find the same information from multiple sources without leaving your chair. If I go to the grocer and there's a bin of apples charging $6.00 and another identical bin next to it offering it for free, which do people choose?

I think paywalls are driving users away, at least the casual reader, and for sure the poor reader who can't afford it. How many subscriptions a month are people willing to pay? One for news, one for music, one for magazines, one for video, one for forums, etc, etc. Who can afford those bills every month? As you've pointed out, I suspect competition will drive the price down as Globe's price has dropped from something like $30 when it started. No doubt they had very few takers at that price. But the subscription still creates a divide between those that pay and the casual reader. If all papers went to subscription, I suspect casual readers would get their news from fake news outlets. Probably not a great end result.

I don't know the answer as you seem to. If online media can't make a profit from the traditional advertising model, and no one wants to pay, I see legitimate news failing. I know the models are different, but Google and Facebook seemed to find a model that worked, so why not newspapers coming up with a new unheard of method of monetizing the news dispensing business.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> The New York Times has a unique product that appeals to most everyone in a huge country. The Globe and Mail is not the New York Times. General news or even general financial news isn't unique. Users can get the same news for free from the next site by simply clicking a button.



it's true that the globe is a canadian news media, therefore should not be compared to the american NYT

however the globe is canada's newspaper of record. It's a serious publication. It prizes accuracy, investigation & independence. Its roster includes the pride of canadian journalism.

although the globe has always been regarded as pro-PC & small-"c"-conservative, nevertheless i am often astonished at the even-handedness & the impartiality of its reportage. This media is nothing if not reliable. For this reason, i'm happy to pay $1.50 a week for the globe as newspaper of record, & i'll take my chances at scrounging up pieces from other media for free.

daily media all over the world are turning or have already turned to the user-pay approach, it seems to have become a fact of life.







> Given the competition and size of the internet, it quite easy to find the same information from multiple sources without leaving your chair



me i'm not finding those easy freebie pieces - well-written, unbiased, authoritative news stories without charge - nearly as easily these days. Increasingly, reliable media are paid media. The "free" websites remaining tend to be slutspeaks and/or hard-core propaganda, as you so accurately mention below.

because there is a concern with dissemination of accurate, truthful news to citizens on a timely basis, whether or not citizens can afford to pay, the question has arisen as to whether gummints should subsidize big media in some fashion. IMHO this is an unappealing prospect. So for me, the issue of how to provide well-researched quality news to all citizens remains a giant unsolved problem. Another challenge for energetic young citizens to work out!






> If all papers went to subscription, I suspect casual readers would get their news from fake news outlets. Probably not a great end result ...
> 
> If online media can't make a profit from the traditional advertising model, and no one wants to pay, I see legitimate news failing. I know the models are different, but Google and Facebook seemed to find a model that worked, so why not newspapers coming up with a new unheard of method of monetizing the news dispensing business.



as we can see right here in cmf forum, the internet has weaponized the troll propaganda industry. We are seeing fake news & falsehoods commercialized on a never-before-seen scale at every level, right up to & including the sitting american president himself. IMHO it's an understatement to class alt-extreme freebie websites authored by certifiables as "not a great end result" for honest citizens who are simply seeking to keep themselves well-informed at low cost.

i like your last sentence, where you call for newspapers to "come up with a new unheard of method of monetizing the news dispensing business." I think you're on the right track here.


.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> FatCat, you seemed pretty convinced. I'm afraid I'm not really a believer that the subscription model will work. The New York Times has a unique product that appeals to most everyone in a huge country. The Globe and Mail is not the New York Times. General news or even general financial news isn't unique. *Users can get the same news for free from the next site by simply clicking a button.* You might argue that everyone use to pay for newspapers, but that was in a time with very little, if any, competition. Given the competition and size of the internet, it quite easy to find the same information from multiple sources without leaving your chair. If I go to the grocer and there's a bin of apples charging $6.00 and another identical bin next to it offering it for free, which do people choose?
> 
> *I think paywalls are driving users away, at least the casual reader, and for sure the poor reader who can't afford it. *How many subscriptions a month are people willing to pay? One for news, one for music, one for magazines, one for video, one for forums, etc, etc. *Who can afford those bills every month?* As you've pointed out, I suspect competition will drive the price down as Globe's price has dropped from something like $30 when it started. No doubt they had very few takers at that price. But the subscription still creates a divide between those that pay and the casual reader. If all papers went to subscription, I suspect casual readers would get their news from fake news outlets. Probably not a great end result.
> 
> ...


to the first bolded comment, the news that you can get from another site is taken from newspapers like the globe and the times and the wall street journal, these are the sources producing original content and the other sites are simply citing their material or licensing it or stealing it

second, i can get the globes content for example for $6 a months where the paper cost me $25 a month ... people will pay for good content ... i have access to stories on the globe that i can't find anywhere else even with hard searching ... and i know how to search

most paywalls allow 10 free articles which seems fair and then at some point, if we want high quality journalism we have to pay

there will be a balance between content and cost ... don't forget that the model is simple ... if the globe could get a million new subscribers overnight for example, it could lower the subscription price to $1.00 a month and still make money

more subscribers, lower cost ... it will happen ... competition works ... if i can get the nytimes for $6, i expect the globe ... and eventually the national post and guardian (which i read for free and love) will get on board and offer me a subscription that i can afford and will buy


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Everyone will have their perception of value. Many don't think twice about paying $10/month for Spotify and $11/month for Netflix, to mention ones I subscribe too. 

So why don't I pay about $6-7/month (if that is right for digital) for the G&M? I could argue too much stuff I have zero interest in, including Toronto or Ontario centric stuff. I might also argue for basic news, the BBC and to a lesser extent, CBC, gives me headline news. At one time, the business section of G&M which I do believe is outstanding would have paid for itself when I was a serious investor, but twelve years into withdrawal, not nearly as important. I am slowly winding down my holdings.

Seems to me though there is a threshold, perhaps $5/month, that a national paper like G&M is definitely worth it, if for no other reason than to support the viability of the organization. Perhaps I will make the plunge anyway for this reason alone.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Everyone will have their perception of value. Many don't think twice about paying $10/month for Spotify and $11/month for Netflix, to mention ones I subscribe too.
> 
> So why don't I pay about $6-7/month (if that is right for digital) for the G&M? I could argue too much stuff I have zero interest in, including Toronto or Ontario centric stuff. I might also argue for basic news, the BBC and to a lesser extent, CBC, gives me headline news. At one time, the business section of G&M which I do believe is outstanding would have paid for itself when I was a serious investor, but twelve years into withdrawal, not nearly as important. I am slowly winding down my holdings.
> 
> Seems to me though there is a threshold, perhaps $5/month, that a national paper like G&M is definitely worth it, if for no other reason than to support the viability of the organization. Perhaps I will make the plunge anyway for this reason alone.


exactly, we all determine value for ourselves but digital subscriptions of various kinds are here to stay ...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

fatcat said:


> exactly, we all determine value for ourselves but digital subscriptions of various kinds are here to stay ...


The G&M teaser of $1.50/week for a year might be justifiable as the regular rate....really. $6/week regular subscription is 'out of this world' unless it can be written off against business expenses, as in professional money managers, institutional investors and the like. I doubt they can survive on business accounts alone.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Seems to me though there is a threshold, perhaps $5/month, that a national paper like G&M is definitely worth it, if for no other reason than to support the viability of the organization. Perhaps I will make the plunge anyway for this reason alone.





*take the pluunge!
*
.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

fatcat said:


> ....to the first bolded comment, the news that you can get from another site is taken from newspapers like the globe and the times and the wall street journal, these are the sources producing original content and the other sites are simply citing their material or licensing it or stealing it


Yep, for sure when I read all my news in the morning, I see the same story over and over and over on different sites, and written in the same pen, so it's obviously lifted. I just happen to read the free version. Is that stealing, or I suppose just not fair to the organization that created the original content (that they normally charge you for each month)? I don't know. AltaRed seems ready to step up so I can read it for free once it's bumped down the line. It seems like a terrible model to me.



fatcat said:


> ....second, i can get the globes content for example for $6 a months where the paper cost me $25 a month ... people will pay for good content ... i have access to stories on the globe that i can't find anywhere else even with hard searching ... and i know how to search


Well, I don't understand the "paper" reference since no one reads a paper anymore. That's dead. And I don't know if there's too much original information that I haven't been exposed to already, so stories from the Globe that I would find newly illuminating after all these years of investing is a stretch.

I think the entire question in my mind with regard to the future of paywalls is a bit different from your edict that _"people will pay for good content"_. Will they? I'm not so sure, given the new paradigm of the internet. We're in uncharted waters. As you've already pointed out, others will just take material and post it on their site for free and reap the rewards of advertising without having to do the legwork for the material they post. You can say that _"if we want high quality journalism we have to pay"_, but maybe not in the wild west of the internet.

fatcat, since you do indeed subscribe to the Globe, I'd be interested to know if your subscription relieves you from being exposed to any advertising on the Globe site that you view with your subscription status? I have always wondered this, and it's something that they never make clear in their relentless attempts to get everyone to subscribe. No one likes looking at advertisements. I hate it, but see it as my payment for getting information free. If they told me that I would be relieved of this annoying hand waving child in front of my face while I read my paper, it might be a bit more of an enticement. So, can you tell me if the ads are all removed with your paid subscription?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> Yep, for sure when I read all my news in the morning, I see the same story over and over and over on different sites, and written in the same pen, so it's obviously lifted. I just happen to read the free version. Is that stealing, or I suppose just not fair to the organization that created the original content (that they normally charge you for each month)? I don't know. AltaRed seems ready to step up so I can read it for free once it's bumped down the line. It seems like a terrible model to me.


Let's keep this in context. I might be prepared to pay $5/mo, maybe even $1.50/week.... partly for meaty business articles and partly to support our 'national' newspaper. However, $6/week is completely out of the question.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Let's keep this in context. I might be prepared to pay $5/mo, maybe even $1.50/week.... partly for meaty business articles and partly to support our 'national' newspaper. However, $6/week is completely out of the question.




evidently many folks feel the same way. Globe's big haul of new subscribers from this campaign - which ends midnight tonight - should be telling them a lot about which tightrope to walk in the immedia future. People will pay; but not at the rate of near-extinct paper once-upon-a-time delivered to the front door.

need to get costs down even further


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> Yep, for sure when I read all my news in the morning, I see the same story over and over and over on different sites, and written in the same pen, so it's obviously lifted. I just happen to read the free version. Is that stealing, or I suppose just not fair to the organization that created the original content (that they normally charge you for each month)




identical articles appearing in multiple media at the same time are usually from the wire services. If the reader looks up top he will usually see a byline stating that the article is from associated press, or reuters, or bloomberg or canadian press or agence france-presse, etc.

the different media belonging to the wire service networks pay for the right to use an article, of course. The same media may in turn elect to publish a wire-service story without charge in their own (advertising-subsidized) publication, which helps to explain how a story can skip the flock & appear on its own for free. 

none of the big media are stealing these articles though


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> Yep, for sure when I read all my news in the morning, I see the same story over and over and over on different sites, and written in the same pen, so it's obviously lifted. I just happen to read the free version. Is that stealing, or I suppose just not fair to the organization that created the original content (that they normally charge you for each month)? I don't know. AltaRed seems ready to step up so I can read it for free once it's bumped down the line. It seems like a terrible model to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i guess the question is: is $6 a month too much to pay for the globe ? are you watching your pennies that closely ? ... the value is up to you ... 

my reference to the paper was with regards to the subscription for the print version ... people value the news, they like to read the news, the current print subscription to the globe is almost $42 for all 6 days so people will pay good money for a newspaper

i use an ad blocker which i leave turned on at the globe since i pay for it and i see no ads ... the ios version on my iphone has a tiny number of display ads, like, i see one for trans-mountain on the front page but is mostly virtually ad-free

if the globe one day starts routing around my ad blocker and i have to see ads, i am going to take that in to account when i measure their value at re-subscription time

the new york times shows some few ads to subscribers (which get around my ad blocker) when i asked them about them, they just said that the ads are a part of their business model, that's ok with me (i don't currently subscribe to the times)

i read the guardian for free and leave the ad blocker off to support them ... the guardian asks for donations and i may start supporting them with a regular donation


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

For the record, I subscribe to Globe and Mail and I think it's good value, especially for business and industry news. There is no real substitute for solid business information in Canada. You just won't find it. Not in Canada.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

doctrine said:


> For the record, I subscribe to Globe and Mail and I think it's good value, especially for business and industry news. There is no real substitute for solid business information in Canada. You just won't find it. Not in Canada.


What do you do with that business and industry news? Satisfying a need for information? Staying current? Looking for business opportunities? My problem is whether I get value from simply being intellectually informed, especially since none of it is actionable into anything of financial value.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> What do you do with that business and industry news? Satisfying a need for information? Staying current? Looking for business opportunities? My problem is whether I get value from simply being intellectually informed, especially since none of it is actionable into anything of financial value.



?? of course quality data from the globe is actionable into knowledge that has financial value

some who are driving fixed post-retirement portfolios on the ultra KISS principle may be more locked down on their financial choices than others who are more flexible because younger. But imho it's not accurate to claim that big national media such as the globe & the financial post have nothing to offer canadian investors.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My error... I failed to add... none of it is actionable into anything of financial value to me. There is nothing the G&M can write in financial news/information that would change what I am doing. Subscribing for me would be just entertainment/informative value.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> What do you do with that business and industry news? Satisfying a need for information? Staying current? Looking for business opportunities? My problem is whether I get value from simply being intellectually informed, especially since none of it is actionable into anything of financial value.


I subscribe to the Globe and Mail digital version. Why? All of the above. I feel my success in life is partly due to the fact that I made a point of staying informed. Now that I’m retired, I find that I spend more time reading.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> My error... I failed to add... none of it is actionable into anything of financial value to me. There is nothing the G&M can write in financial news/information that would change what I am doing. Subscribing for me would be just entertainment/informative value.


In my case, I have to rely on income from my investments to fund my retirement. I have no pension and do my own investing. Financial information is very important to me.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> My error... I failed to add... none of it is actionable into anything of financial value to me. There is nothing the G&M can write in financial news/information that would change what I am doing. Subscribing for me would be just entertainment/informative value.


not to you but i agree with pie, the globe is packed with useful financial information and they seem comitted to growing out their financial ecosystem offerings ... for a diy investor and especially a newbie, its a great place to start


----------



## seh (Nov 10, 2014)

*Digital News Site Formats*

Slightly off topic, but still connected to paying for an online news site.

As I scroll through the digital Globe & Mail, and other online news sites, I often see the same article repeated once, or several more times. You may see the article first near the top, then again in the "latest news" section, again in "trending", again in "Canada/World/Politics", or other sub headings. I find it a bit annoying, as I'm scrolling top to bottom specifically for articles I haven't already read. It actually encourages me to scroll quickly, not wanting to see the same thing over and over again, but also potentially missing articles not yet read. 

Anyone else find this an issue?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

seh said:


> Anyone else find this an issue?


I find that every newspaper's online browser edition to be a horror show to read. 

To me, the best way to read the news is to subscribe to your favourite newspapers print e-version.

For example, the National Post offers an e-paper version of their print newspaper that works on any device.

To read an online browser version of the paper versus an e-version of the print edition is like night and day.

The online browser version is like trying to read a classic newspaper with a child waving their hands in front of your face while you read. It's impossible to read the online version of any newspaper today while advertisements with their continual distracting kaleidoscope of movement to get your attention is popping up all over the page. The text is in the middle, and all around it is video running to get your attention. How could anyone actually read with this going on? Do the publishers realize how annoying this experience really is?

If you want the news, subscribe to the e-version. It's simply the print version re-created for your device.

ltr


----------



## jwsclark19 (Nov 24, 2014)

Download the "pressreader" app. Your local library may give you free access to a pressreader subscription, which gives you unlimited access to thousands of newspapers and magazines, including WSJ, globe and mail etc. Also, if your local library does not include a free pressreader subscription, there are probably pressreader "hotspots" near you (malls, airports, etc.) where the app will automatically give you unlimited access while you're in that hotspot. I live in Winnipeg, and my local library gives me unlimited access. Most libraries in Canada's major cities do.


----------

