Reuters, CNN add website paywalls

[Cpvr]

On Tuesday, both CNN and Reuters introduced paywalls, marking a shift from the recent trend of major news outlets stepping away from paid content.


Why it matters: With large online audiences, these platforms see minimal risk in charging their most dedicated readers for access.


The reality: The traditional media ad market slowdown has made it harder for news sites to sell out their ad inventory. Trading millions of ad impressions for the possibility of steady subscription revenue may prove to be a smart financial move.





By the numbers: CNN attracted an average of 159 million unique visitors monthly across mobile and desktop in 2023, making it one of the most popular news platforms. Reuters’ consumer site reaches up to 50 million unique visitors each month.





Zoom in: Both companies will offer a limited number of free articles before prompting users to subscribe. CNN’s subscription will be priced at $3.99 per month, while Reuters will charge $1 per week.





Notably, both CNN and Reuters have already been gathering user data via registration walls that require email addresses for free content access. These data collection strategies help publishers fine-tune subscription pricing models.





The big picture: The shift toward more affordable paywalls, in contrast to premium sites like The New York Times, reflects a broader trend within the industry toward flexible subscription models.





• Last year, The Atlantic adopted a more dynamic paywall approach.


• Gannett, the largest U.S. local newspaper chain, began easing restrictions on its paywall in late 2022 to boost ad revenue.


• Time magazine removed its digital paywall entirely, opting for ad-supported content to expand its audience.


Source: https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/reuters-cnn-website-paywalls

 

[Shawn Gossman]

Our local paper The Southern pay gates everything on their website.

Now we have a few "alternative" news groups popping up. It's free news and they report on stuff no one else will.

That's the future.

 

[ken_gitahi]

I do a ton of research for different reasons. If I need to read one article, I have to pay a subscription? How many people will say no to paying just to read less than five articles on these sites per year? However, I am sure it will be worth it for those who rely on these outlets much more than people like me do.

There's a news website, cant remember which at this time, that lets you "purchase" to read one article for a few pennies. I can see myself paying for something like that if it's on a research website or an article that I really need and cannot find the information elsewhere.

 

[Bryn]

Money, money, money... that's all they care about these days

 

[Cedric]

Money, money, money... that's all they care about these days

That’s correct. Without sustaining their future, they wouldn’t exist to begin with. But more than often these things are not for the better of the client/user or in this case the reader/viewer.

Where I live, media is actually subsidized by our government. Dunno how that is in other countries, but you’d think that’s enough, since most of those media corporations are a non profit organization.

 

[Ravenfreak]

My local newspaper website does this same thing and it's always annoying when people link to their site. I stick to getting my news from 1440 Daily Digest which is a free unbiased news source. I'm surprised these two sites haven't done this yet, makes me wonder if Fox News will eventually do the same thing.

 

[Cpvr]

Money, money, money... that's all they care about these days

It’s possible that they’re not earning enough money to sustain their business and keep their employees paid, especially considering that they rely on advertisements. Their CPC and CPM rates could have declined significantly over the years, which may have led them to decide to put their content behind a paywall.