Reuters is putting its website behind a paywall

Shawn Knight

Posts: 13,163   +132
Staff member
In brief: Add Reuters to the growing list of major news publications adopting a subscription-based model. The news organization, which got its start way back in 1851, said it is preparing to charge readers $34.99 per month to access stories on its website.

“Reuters.com will remain free for a preview period, but will require users to register after five stories,” the publication said, before admitting it wasn’t clear when it would start charging for access.

That may seem high but apparently, it is par for the course. A quick check of Bloomberg reveals a monthly rate of $34.99 for unlimited digital access. The Wall Street Journal, which has been behind a paywall since it first went online in 1996, currently commands $38.99 a month (both after promo periods expire) while The New York Times goes for $17 every four weeks. If you want to read the Financial Times online, it’ll cost you $40 per month.

Reuters marketing chief Josh London described the move as the “largest digital transformation at Reuters in a decade.”

Bloomberg cited competition from companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon for online advertising as one reason that news outlets are shifting to digital subscriptions.

Reuters earlier this week named Alessandra Galloni as its new editor in chief. When she replaces the outgoing Stephen J. Adler next week, she will become the first woman to lead Reuters in its nearly 170-year history.

Images courtesy ll.studio, mark higgins

Permalink to story.

 

kapital98

Posts: 351   +293
Dang I like reuters, guess I will have to vpn switch a lot to keep reading.

For worse, it just means I'll rely more on second-hand news sites (hey, like Techspot!).

Places like Techspot allow easy access to paywalled materials. However, it's often nice to read the original article. And, sometimes (not often), sites like Techspot don't accurately convey the original article.

Kind of like how every story the NYT's or WaPo puts out that is important gets covered by everyone else. With a simple link to the (paywalled) article that very few people can actually read.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,292   +1,779
$35 a month for one website?

LMFAO Holy **** talk about delusional.

Reuters doesnt publish $5 worth of unique material a year, let alone a month. 99% of what you read there can be found almost anywhere else.

All of these dinosaur news sites are delusional and just don't get it. Why would I pay this when I will end up finding the same stories for free else where. Find another way to generate revenue....
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 726   +616
Damn, I regularly read Reuters, how many of these subscriptions do they think people can have on the go? I don't get my news from just one source, and no way am I subscribing to several news outlets on top of internet, phone, Netflix etc.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 198   +178
I am not surprised since the likes of Bloomberg have been doing this for some time. To be fair, they have overheads and staffs to pay, so having a subscription model makes sense. But having said that, they should also reduce advertisement nonsense since people are paying for it.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,746   +5,480
No, he's saying you can't get around the paywall. If you don't pay you don't get to read anything, period. It has nothing to do with cookies or what VPN you're using.
First, let me say one of my proudest achievements is having attained functional literacy. Thus, I see no need for you to repeat verbatim what was said by another member in another post to me.

Shawn Knight said

“Reuters.com will remain free for a preview period, but will require users to register after five stories,” the publication said, before admitting it wasn’t clear when it would start charging for access".

So for the time being, clearing cookies and using different locations via VPN should work, up to the allotted five times, per location. Unless they register the hardware ID you're using.

But yes, after this grace period expires, you will have to pay, no matter where you're calling from.And's that's only if they cancel the "five looks" protocol.
 
Last edited:

orbital

Posts: 31   +30
Sometimes (unless there also are other protections) paywalls can be jumped through if you disable JavaScript in your browser. It works on many subscription-based websites as the Off-setting prevents scripts and secondary services from being activated. If you do so and since like 90% of the website content depends on JavaScript itself, you won't get the integrated pictures or the layout will be different, however the full text will be readable to the end.

You can do this in the browser settings or via an extension (JavaScript toggle; JavaScript On/Off etc.). In addition, an adblock detection is available on many of the paid (and many free) websites so if you have such there are ready-to-download scripts or even browser extensions that will hide the adblock to the website while actually leaving you to enjoy it.

As many have said above already, information is omnipresent online so Reuters are doing bad to themselves thinking the mass reader won't refer to other reputable and in many case - free sources, only because they are so unique so worth charging for the very same "free" content. There are so many other ways to monetise on your readers that doing it directly...
 

Ludak021

Posts: 438   +299
A lot of news that I read are "according to reuters" or "source: routers" . They don't care if I pay, they want news outlets to pay. I assume. I worked in web news industry, everything we published was investigated and reported by someone from the outside. It was plain regurgitating, ie. stealing news (I told them that and quit).
 

ypsylon

Posts: 348   +270
35$/month - nuts! 35$/year well maybe, but for month? :doinglittlebabynoises:

I like Reuters even if they have heavily skewed news feed on US locale, but most certainly not paying a cent. F subscriptions with capital F. In a way putting news behind a paywall is shooting itself in the foot. It will accelerate growing trend of moving toward lack of objective facts, fictional stories, illusory realities and totally dumbing down the obvious - vide flat earthers, anti-vaxers, q-anon and rest of that derailed lot.

I can understand sites/titles like CNBC or FT or WSJ. All of those titles literally help people earn money so if you're good at it, splashing 200 here 400$ there for some modules/subs can be worth it or is totally inconsequential if you earn millions. But Reuters is not a financial portal entity.