Bloomberg.com to start charging fees...

Overnight

Overnight

In case you missed it, Bloomies announced a couple weeks ago that you now only get 10 free news articles before you have to pay $10 for 6 months, then $35 PER MONTH after that.

Really? They feel justified charging that much even if I just want to read articles, without wanting all the other fluff like mobile apps, video streaming, newsletter spam and articles-on-tape?

*clucks* Mreh.

Helpful handy tip. You can avoid that by just clicking the article links with the InPrivate window (Edge), incognito window (Chrome) or Private window (Firefox).
 
In the internet era, readers are spoilt for choices. If a news company charges for content, readers go elsewhere. We are overloaded with what to read. Might as well choose to read stuff that are free. A lot of financial blogs are free and just as good, if not better, than articles written by journalists.

A business model that goes with the time is one that charges for advertisement, not one that charges readers who serve as bait to bring in the advertising revenue.
 
Overnight said:
In case you missed it, Bloomies announced a couple weeks ago that you now only get 10 free news articles before you have to pay $10 for 6 months, then $35 PER MONTH after that.

Really? They feel justified charging that much even if I just want to read articles, without wanting all the other fluff like mobile apps, video streaming, newsletter spam and articles-on-tape?

*clucks* Mreh.

Helpful handy tip. You can avoid that by just clicking the article links with the InPrivate window (Edge), incognito window (Chrome) or Private window (Firefox).
More...

It's a free country and they can charge whatever they want. I just don't think that strategy will work out for them. Too many free alternatives.
 
helpme_please said:
In the internet era, readers are spoilt for choices. If a news company charges for content, readers go elsewhere. We are overloaded with what to read. Might as well choose to read stuff that are free. A lot of financial blogs are free and just as good, if not better, than articles written by journalists.

A business model that goes with the time is one that charges for advertisement, not one that charges readers who serve as bait to bring in the advertising revenue.
More...
You make an interesting point. The internet originally democratized news access, which leveled the trading information assymetry a good deal. Now we have self-selecting ignorance, where a good portion of the trader population doesn't grasp the difference between commoditized information and the in-depth analysis and reporting that differentiates say the WSJ from Reuters. Which brings us back to the pre-internet trader have and have nots. Just this time the have-nots are that way by a combination of ignorance and choice.
 
Sig said:
You make an interesting point. The internet originally democratized news access, which leveled the trading information assymetry a good deal. Now we have self-selecting ignorance, where a good portion of the trader population doesn't grasp the difference between commoditized information and the in-depth analysis and reporting that differentiates say the WSJ from Reuters. Which brings us back to the pre-internet trader have and have nots. Just this time the have-nots are that way by a combination of ignorance and choice.
More...

For serious investors who rely on good information to make money, they should neither rely neither on paid WSJ or free Reuters. Read the unadulterated source. Read the financial statements, the footnotes and make your own conclusion. Don't be defeated by a combination of ignorance, choice and laziness.

For those who are less serious and merely wants some form of entertainment, there is no need to pay for news like WSJ. Lots of free stuff out there.
 
helpme_please said:
For serious investors who rely on good information to make money, they should neither rely neither on paid WSJ or free Reuters. Read the unadulterated source. Read the financial statements, the footnotes and make your own conclusion. Don't be defeated by a combination of ignorance, choice and laziness.

For those who are less serious and merely wants some form of entertainment, there is no need to pay for news like WSJ. Lots of free stuff out there.
More...

Financial footnotes don’t tell you want a ceo said at a conference yesterday.

Nor do financial footnotes tell you what is happening in another stock that is affecting the price of your interested stock.
 
newwurldmn said:
Financial footnotes don’t tell you want a ceo said at a conference yesterday.

Nor do financial footnotes tell you what is happening in another stock that is affecting the price of your interested stock.
More...
Nor do they tell you which of the thousands of companies you may be interested in taking the time to look at said footnotes for!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top