I think you should make it more explicit that the ability to comment on editorial policy is just that, and not a binding "vote". I appreciate that the idea is to have a large subscriber base, so that editorial influence is democratic. I share the concern of Bernard Ehringa and np on this matter, though unlike np, I think the potential a more democratic editorial policy could be possible, but you'll need that critical mass. I pay over $100 for my Listener subscription, so I'd be prepared to pay around that for a membership. A 3-monthly DD or AP could be the best option.
np - 12 years ago
I think I would consider paying a set rate for the opportunity to post comments as part of an informed debate on a matter - ie. using the fee to screen out the loonies. I wouldn't want to pay a fee for invites to events (prefer to purchase a ticket), or be able to influence editorial policy.
Bernhard Eringa - 12 years ago
The combination of moderation and "Paid For" comments, will be something you need to address with some kind of site policy.
Adding a membership fee implies certain rights, which need to be clarified.
If you leave it to late, then you will most likely end up with a Politically Biased membership base, which is not the intention as far as I can see.
Good luck we need Journalists that are focused.
holdteus - 12 years ago
Looking forward to the site, I voted for $100 per year but have you thought of monthly or weekly AP contributions? $10 a month for example would be much easier for us on low incomes, with an option for those on salaries/waged to pay say $15 or $20 per month - four or five coffees equivalent.
Molly - 12 years ago
I voted $100 per year - this would make your site accessible to a wide range of people including people on low incomes, whose ideas and experience are barely reported in traditional media; they are no more than fodder for sensational reporting on the increasingly "tabloid" media. I intend to promote your site amongst my colleagues.
Steve Withers - 12 years ago
To support good, independent journalism not beholden to corporate interests or slanting the news to favour political allies, I'd pay $50 / month....and maybe more. People need to get behind 'real' journalism....or be happy to be propagandised by the Herald and the DomPost in aid of their 'business-friendly' (myopic, short-ermist, crony-fied) political allies.
Jane A - 12 years ago
I have voted for $50, but what is financially viable for you? This breaks down to 90 odd cents a week. It would be interesting to know how you build up a viable figure and maybe it would have some bearing on how willing people would be to support the cost of it.
Ann - 12 years ago
I voted for $50. I would happily pay more, but I think accessibiility is really important. How about $50 + optional donation?
Andrew R - 12 years ago
I voted for $50 but would consider paying more -- in the $60 - 90 range within monthly payments.
I think you should make it more explicit that the ability to comment on editorial policy is just that, and not a binding "vote". I appreciate that the idea is to have a large subscriber base, so that editorial influence is democratic. I share the concern of Bernard Ehringa and np on this matter, though unlike np, I think the potential a more democratic editorial policy could be possible, but you'll need that critical mass. I pay over $100 for my Listener subscription, so I'd be prepared to pay around that for a membership. A 3-monthly DD or AP could be the best option.
I think I would consider paying a set rate for the opportunity to post comments as part of an informed debate on a matter - ie. using the fee to screen out the loonies. I wouldn't want to pay a fee for invites to events (prefer to purchase a ticket), or be able to influence editorial policy.
The combination of moderation and "Paid For" comments, will be something you need to address with some kind of site policy.
Adding a membership fee implies certain rights, which need to be clarified.
If you leave it to late, then you will most likely end up with a Politically Biased membership base, which is not the intention as far as I can see.
Good luck we need Journalists that are focused.
Looking forward to the site, I voted for $100 per year but have you thought of monthly or weekly AP contributions? $10 a month for example would be much easier for us on low incomes, with an option for those on salaries/waged to pay say $15 or $20 per month - four or five coffees equivalent.
I voted $100 per year - this would make your site accessible to a wide range of people including people on low incomes, whose ideas and experience are barely reported in traditional media; they are no more than fodder for sensational reporting on the increasingly "tabloid" media. I intend to promote your site amongst my colleagues.
To support good, independent journalism not beholden to corporate interests or slanting the news to favour political allies, I'd pay $50 / month....and maybe more. People need to get behind 'real' journalism....or be happy to be propagandised by the Herald and the DomPost in aid of their 'business-friendly' (myopic, short-ermist, crony-fied) political allies.
I have voted for $50, but what is financially viable for you? This breaks down to 90 odd cents a week. It would be interesting to know how you build up a viable figure and maybe it would have some bearing on how willing people would be to support the cost of it.
I voted for $50. I would happily pay more, but I think accessibiility is really important. How about $50 + optional donation?
I voted for $50 but would consider paying more -- in the $60 - 90 range within monthly payments.
I donate $15 per month to Werewolf, so an equivalent annual amount ($150-170) is fine with me.