There are some things that I am just willing to put a little
more cash towards. I buy local honey because I don't support carbon footprint
that happens when honey is transported from the far corners of the world. I buy
my bread at Great Harvest because I know and I like the workers. I buy the $2.19 can of organic tomato
sauce because it just plain tastes better than the 99 cent generic can.In summary, I reach a little deeper into my pocket because of my social convictions, because I know and trust the producers of certain products and because of the quality of the expensive product is just better. Those are three reasons that people should consider paying for great news service like that of the New York Times.
Millions of readers tune in to the New York Times every day. It is a trusted source that has only embraced the challenges of the advent of technology by treating their readers to videos, photos, slideshows, interactive graphics and audio. Currently, any reader with internet access can view these treasures for free. But is that the best idea for the company?
In Romanescko's last entry on PoynterOnline, he suggested this unique business model for the New York Times. He suggested that with just a $1 a month (or 3.3 cents a day) contribution from its visitors, the Times could earn $240 million in new annual revenue.
In this age of struggling newspapers, Romanescko's plan may be more than a business model for the Times, it may be a lifeline.
So, in conclusion, I want to say--why not? Shouldn't we be
willing to pay for the press that is the best of the best? I know that it's
worth it to me. I'll make the small sacrifice to enjoy the freedom of having a
press that I can trust. If my 3.3
cents a day protects transmission of knowledge, and therefore democracy, than I
am game.
