Would you be willing to pay for a subscription to a newspaper online?

no

Nope. If I had an iPad, I would consider buying a subscription to one of their newspaper apps, but most content is available online for free.

And if it’s not, someone else (possibly with a less profit-driven agenda) has probably covered the same story.

no

Eventually, Ithink that’s where they’re all going to be heading and at that point, I probably will if I am not still getting the paper Times.

Why pay for what you can get for free? It’s not like the newspaper is any less biased and spun as any other writer’s point of view.

As a part of my taxes for a public news organisation like the BBC, yes.
For a private one, no. They can do that with advertising, especially considering that they save huge amounts of money by not having to run printing presses, employ people at printing presses, or to buy massive amounts of paper, or employing people who dispense the newspapers among the readers.

I get my local paper delivered every day. If the day ever comes when they stop putting out a paper edition I wouldn’t be happy about it because I’m a newspaper person, but I would most likely subscribe to their online edition because The News Journal is the only place that I can get news specific to my city and state.

I won’t even read a newspaper online. I signed up for the NYT and the Washington Post, and the minute I try to read an article the rubiconproject and other audience-targeting software is so busy profiling me that it interferes with my reading the story. I like print, however sadly it has declined.
And I doubt that would be removed even for a paid subscription.

I would not pay for anything online other than goods that are physically being sent to me.
I think that they can make enough pay for their work through advertising.

Paying for anything you get online is almost universally absurd. If it’s news, you can bet someone has it for free somewhere.

Hell no.

I have paid for newspapers, hard copy, online. I don’t pay for online news as it’s been said here, you can find it at no cost.

No, and I am not alone. Except for the Wall Street Journal, all major attempts at a paywall have failed.

Not surprising. Decades before the Internet, my dad said subscriptions didn’t even cover the cost of paper and ink at his newspaper. Advertising was the moneymaker.

I dont agree with paying to watch my computer.
If they cant cover their costs through attracting advertising, then its a flawed business plan.

No for two reasons, one, you can always get it delivered to your house and what if you internet breaks down, hense having the paper delivered to your door. Two, Sunday is one of the biggest days to buy the newspaper, and they only cost like what $1.50. Another thing, why would you want to stare at your computer for hours. Its stupid.

Would newspapers be willing to make paid subscriptions free of all audience-targeting/marketing programs such as rubiconproject?

They aren’t making enough from ads? This pisses me off, knowing that the NY Times is going to start charging soon.

The New York Times is $2/day here and $5 for the Sunday edition, so I’d prefer having it online if I were going to read it at all. I hardly read enough of it to justify buying it, frankly. I’ll take the BBC, thanks.

Nope

AND ANOTHER THING!!

If they don’t ship the paper anymore, where the hell am I going to get my Sunday coupons?