That’s right: The “New and Improved” Tulsa World website is using:
What’s next, animated .gifs?
The really sad thing about this? They expect people to pay for this content. Which, as I’ve mentioned, wouldn’t be so bad if the content/site was better.
On Thursday, the World announced a metered model — not a paywall, all the web folks have told me — will go up on April 4. We’ve known it was coming in the newsroom, but we just announced it after some kinks were worked out.
Of course, this brought on tons of newspaper-bashing, which is to be expected…
This is really interesting to read (and I suggest everyone do). I read the Tulsa World was going to start charging for their online edition the same day I learned the New York Times was doing the same.
It does makes sense. You can’t offer a quality product for free. I hope people will realize that.
My only criticism/question/thought on the subject: if the World plans to start charging for online content, do they plan on reinvesting some of that money into making improvements on their website? I have no issues paying for access to a website, but in my mind it ups the standards a bit; If I’m paying for it I expect a certain level of quality and design (see http://www.nytimes.com/). I’m not saying that the World’s online home is terrible — it could just use some work, especially if people are expected to pay for it. The content is there, but the place could use some sprucing up.
But that’s just my two cents.
(Source: garishchicken.com)
