To be honest, since they redid their site last year, I actively avoid their site. It used to be that stuff was the site that I avoided as it was slow. I've only been back to the NZ Herald a handful of times since then.

I love how the link about NZME is going to introduce paywalls is also behind NBR paywall.

I also hope if they are planning to do this then they remove the full page ads, random ads that affect scrolling on mobile devices etc.

Best of British luck getting anyone to pay for any of their content.

Way back in the dark ages of the internet NZ Herald had a go at this "paywall", this was back when their journalism standards were much higher and it didn't last too long then.

Now that their standards are heading towards the click bait style of Stuff, asking people people to pay for click bait just isn't going to work

I can see while they are trying it, but doubt it will be a success. But good luck to them.

To succeed they have to have content worth paying for, and they seem to have little of that nowadays (although they do have more than Stuff). Plus, they will need to fix their websites awful UI.

To be honest, I am prepared to pay a subscription for good news. But there are other, better, papers that I would far pay for than the Herald (or Stuff). The NY Times, the Financial Times, Telegraph and the Washington Post all spring to mind. The Heralds only competitive advantage would be good and timely NZ reporting, but at the moment Radio NZ has them well and truly beaten for this.

Long long long overdue.  If it had been introduced years ago and persevered with the maybe the journalistic talent wouldnt have left the building.  If the NY Times (a Murdoch company) can show that a paywall can start to gain traction then maybe there is hope beyond the dumb-downed clickbait we're left with.  

And the sooner that Stuff introduces a paywall the better - both for journalistic content and the hope that it doesnt disappear completely.  The degree of profit decline at Stuff is alarming.  Almost as bad as the profit decline at TVNZ.  NZME is a bit like Mediaworks in that the only thing keeping some companies afloat is earnings from their radio businesses.    

Meanwhile.. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11999465 

tripp:

 

I also hope if they are planning to do this then they remove the full page ads, random ads that affect scrolling on mobile devices etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Ha! You wish.

ockel:

 

And the sooner that Stuff introduces a paywall the better - both for journalistic content and the hope that it doesnt disappear completely.  The degree of profit decline at Stuff is alarming.  Almost as bad as the profit decline at TVNZ.  NZME is a bit like Mediaworks in that the only thing keeping some companies afloat is earnings from their radio businesses.    

 

The problem with NZME's radio business is that, like TVNZ, their audience is ageing. The Mediaworks radio portfolio is more commercially sustainable because they have about twice as much audience share as NZME in the under 45 age brackets. I consider NZME, Fairfax and TVNZ as dying businesses, whereas Mediaworks might still have a bit of life left in it depending on how and when Oaktree Capital decide to divest it.

As for paywalls, I can't see it working. The type of people who enjoy the rubbish currently on NZME/Fairfax web sites are not going to be the type of people who want to pay for their 'news'. If those sites go a bit more upmarket then they would be able to better justify charging a fee, but they would be competing against taxpayer funded RNZ or crowd funded Newsroom.

If NZ herald is, then wouldn't stuff follow? Also this is on top of all the small newspapers which are closing down. Haven't newspapers always largely got their money from advertising? But it the online world, most advertising money goes offshore to google and facebook, and not that much tax seems to be paid back into the NZ economy from this. Google seems to harvest a lot of news from these websites too, which links back to these website, so if they paywall the stories they may not get those link backs. 

Aredwood: Yes you read that right. Although it will only be for some stories.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nzme-heralds-paywall-year-th-p-212996

Apparently the paywalls have been in place for a long time with papers, just waiting to press the go button.  But it was really all about who was going to jump first. But if one paywalls their site, and not the other, that on the surface would appear odd. 

gregmcc:

 

Way back in the dark ages of the internet NZ Herald had a go at this "paywall", this was back when their journalism standards were much higher and it didn't last too long then.

 

 

 

Now that their standards are heading towards the click bait style of Stuff, asking people people to pay for click bait just isn't going to work

 

For sure. I mainly go to Stuff. Newshub is useless. Id be happy to pay for a NEWS website. Right now I get a free website that I have to manually filter for the news. 

It reminds me when I was a kid. Get a spade dig up mud in the mudflats, every now and then I find a worm to go fishing with. 

tdgeek:

 

For sure. I mainly go to Stuff. Newshub is useless. Id be happy to pay for a NEWS website. Right now I get a free website that I have to manually filter for the news. 

As a taxpayer you are already paying for a proper news site - it's called RNZ.

Or, alternatively, go to Newsroom and set up a contribution to their Presspatron account.