Journal Sentinel Subscriptions

[MUEng92]

I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.

One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo.  I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year.  I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.

[4everwarriors]

Dude, join da 90's and go digital four a fraction of da price. Just won't get the coupon section, if yor inta dat, hey?

[GGGG]

You won't even need a digital subscription if you just use Chrome's incognito windows. 

[Pakuni]

I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.

One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo.  I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year.  I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.

Journalism costs money and newspapers no longer have classifieds (and far fewer display ads) around to foot the bill, so the cost gets passed on to the consumer.
I get that no one wants to pay more for something they've always received for free or dirt cheap (and newspapers get some of the blame here for giving away their product for so long), but that's the economic reality.

[Pakuni]

You won't even need a digital subscription if you just use Chrome's incognito windows.

And here's to killing to local journalism ....

[warriorchick]

I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.

One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo.  I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year.  I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.

I promise that when you call to cancel, they will immediately offer you a lower price.

[GGGG]

And here's to killing to local journalism ....

Don't put it out there for free then.  Regardless, there is plenty of good content out there that is free.  So why should I pay if I don't have to?

[#UnleashSean]

And here's to killing to local journalism ....

It's almost like they are stuck in old ways while trying to compete on the digital space and are being burned for it. Shocking.

[Pakuni]

Don't put it out there for free then.  Regardless, there is plenty of good content out there that is free.  So why should I pay if I don't have to?

1. If you find free content that suits your needs/wishes, by all means consume it. No one is suggesting otherwise.
2. You're using a workaround like going incognito to avoid paying for the content, they're not putting it out there for free. They're asking you to pay for their work and you're gleefully stealing it.

[GGGG]

I am not stealing anything  It is out there for free.  They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing.  I have every right to not allow them to do that.

[Pakuni]

I am not stealing anything  It is out there for free.  They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing.  I have every right to not allow them to do that.

Oh, come on. You just wrote that you go incognito to avoid paying for a subscription.

[WarriorDad]

And here's to killing to local journalism ....

We allow illegal streaming sites here, does that kill television? 

[GGGG]

Oh, come on. You just wrote that you go incognito to avoid paying for a subscription.

Right.  Because I don't have to.  That isn't stealing.

[WarriorDad]

Some sites are starting to eliminate icognito work around

https://digiday.com/media/incognito-no-boston-globes-tightened-paywall-pays-dividends/

[GGGG]

Some sites are starting to eliminate icognito work around

https://digiday.com/media/incognito-no-boston-globes-tightened-paywall-pays-dividends/

And that makes sense to me.  If I can't get good content without paying, I am perfectly willing to pay.  I just have no need to do so right now.

[mu_hilltopper]

One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo.  I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year.  I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.

So .. that $8.67 and $21 are for Sunday's only for you? 

I've subbed 7 days a week, well, since MU offered it delivered to McCormick 31 years ago.  (Whoa.)   It's $220 a year, it's delicately placed on my front stoop at 5am each day encased in a bag.

About 6 months ago, I started reading it on a tablet, though, so half the days the physical paper is going straight to the recycling pile, which pains me but I hate the earth.

[PBRme]

Right.  Because I don't have to.  That isn't stealing.

Rationalize much

Oh Yeah 25,000 post worth

[GB Warrior]

I think the Athletic is the ideal model, but there is obviously game theory here - if anyone doesn't do it and still offers good content, this falls flat.

There's an unfortunate ethical dilemma that comes rising prices that come from lower readership, which is the hit for any chance at an informed electorate at the state and local level. To say nothing of the misinformation that Sinclair Broadcast Group is peddling.

[rocket surgeon]

if they had anything newsworthy to justify the price of their subscription, $8-9-10...21 it would be worth it, eyn'a?  they obviously found their tipping point with you eng.  for me?  even free ain't worth it...just saying.  i haven't received the journal-sentinal nor the waukesha freeman for a long long time.  even when it was "cheap"

[4everwarriors]

Wear due ya get yo obits knews, hey?

[rocket surgeon]

Wear due ya get yo obits knews, hey?

[mu03eng]

And here's to killing to local journalism ....

Or local journalism could figure out a way to generate revenue in both content and a delivery model.

I can get MJS articles for free via incognito but dont even bother because there is hardly anything worth reading that I can't get off Twitter and or TV news

[MU82]

As I have said before (and I said just a little while ago in a thread on the Al), I consider it something of a charitable contribution to pay full price for a subscription to my local daily newspaper.

The Charlotte Observer does some very good work. But there also are some days when the paper has about 16 pages and there's next to nothing in it. I still value their role in our community, and I support the free press in general. I also send an annual check to the free weekly that everybody in my town receives.

Of course, the Scooper who talks gibberish most of the time seemed to think I was making some kind of controversial statement because I said I like to support the free press.

Anyway, to the OP, I guess I'd suggest that if you think it's worthwhile to support the Journal Sentinel, even if mostly for Ben Steele's stuff or Packers news or whatever, then do it and, like me, consider it "charity."

If you don't think it's worthwhile, stop ... and don't feel guilty about it. Or go with the online subscription.

Hey, each of us has to prioritize how to use his or her available $$$ -- whether it's for necessities or wants or charities or what-not.

[Benny B]

I am not stealing anything  It is out there for free.  They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing.  I have every right to not allow them to do that.

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.

So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.”  By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.

Newsflash... you’re stealing.   And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it. 

[WarriorDad]

Or local journalism could figure out a way to generate revenue in both content and a delivery model.

I can get MJS articles for free via incognito but dont even bother because there is hardly anything worth reading that I can't get off Twitter and or TV news

But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content.  Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now.  A take, not just the facts.

 As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.