As I was blocked from looking at an article the other day, and I schemed to try to figure out how to get around it, (which really isn't that hard) I realized that I was basically wandering into that "cheap" territory that I despise so much. I love The New York Times, and I don't want them to go under, so I should probably give them some cash. After all, I can cancel at any time.
But then, there's the other side of the argument. Yes, the newspaper industry is in trouble, but is my $15 a month really going to make that much of a difference? Is my $15 even going to support the newspaper, or is it just going to go to a greedy shareholder? Does saying things like greedy shareholder make me sound totally paranoid?
It's tricky because I like to spend my money well and on things that make me truly happy, and not be a tightwad, but I also don't want to spend $195/year reading articles I can get for free with a little side-stepping. Maybe I just need to suck it up, read my 20 articles, and stick with The Guardian for the rest though I feel like that's bound to effect my spelling at some point...
The $15 doesn't make a difference, just like buying a newstand copy does. What makes a difference is the number of subscribers impacts advertising dollars, which do make a difference.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for being frugal. There's nothing I detest more than excess, but I'm all for paying the price of admission, too. That said, I haven't exceeded my 20 clicks/month yet.
I like to think of it as voting with your dollars. You'll never really know where your $15/mo is going. And if you did, you would probably be disgusted.
ReplyDeleteBut you are entitled to what you want in life. If you are accustomed to a certain type of journalism, then why shouldn't you have? You could talk yourself into reading day-old papers by candlelight in the same clothes from 2008 if you wanted. But I think there is something for quality of life... says the woman who only buys organic berries.