UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ On Track For $27M …
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To …
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For …
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 …
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast …
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M …
Cannes: Music Box Acquires Competition’s …
Cannes: Bruno Wu & Pierre-Ange Le Pogam Kick Up Angel …
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; …
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits …
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B …
John Lesher’s Le Grisbi Teams With DCM Productions …
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV …
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant …
Cannes: Cyrus Nowrasteh To Helm Film On Soviet Dissident …
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At …
Cannes: Cassian Elwes, Robert Ogden Barnum Launch e2b …
SPOILER ALERT! NBC’s ‘The Office’ Finale
‘Modern Family’ Gets Cable Makeover For Launch …
Thanks to FishbowlLA for alerting me to this: LATimes.com will no longer be free. Today, the newsosaur Los Angeles Times announced plans for an online subscription service. It will cost $3.99 a week for non-subscribers. For this you get lazy and irrelevant coverage of Hollywood.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
Nikki Finke, reminding us all this Oscar season that there’s nothing more off-putting than a sore winner.
Good luck with that, LA Times.
There’s only two financial models for online journalism: free, and $1000/year. If you don’t have content that someone will pay $1000 to get, because it’s worth it to them for their livelihood, then your only option is free.
I was waiting for Nikki’s response to this news. Problem with them following the NYT “membership” (their word) model is that they aint no NYT.
No the LAT is definitely not the NYT so 3rd rate critic Charles McNulty can whine all he wants about the lack of “challenging” theatre for him to savage and continue to write his snooze-fest reviews of the Spamalot revivals and 2nd tier Broadway tours that come to town…Charles if you were a real theatre critic you wouldn’t be working in LA
This is why I get my entertainment news from Deadline, TV Line, THR, and Entertainment Weekly. Does Nikki come off tough sometimes? Yes, but that’s why we read her…
I totally agree with you-charging people $3.99 a week-for what!?!? LATimes.com,a so-called entertainment/hollywood website is so out of touch with us-the fans-&- charging a fee on top of that is utterly ridiculous! That’s why I would rather get my entertainment information from you,Nellie and so forth. I depend on you guys a lot. One more thing:most of the time-Nellie and yourself present the information in a way that is not only informative,but,actually quite a lot of fun to read. I am also a somewhat huge television fan and I depend on Nellie on a regular basis for the tv ratings. Just remember-I love you guys and screw LATimes.com. Hopefully,their greed will be the end of them. Thank you.
The LA Times isn’t just “lazy and irrelevant,” they’re also surprisingly uninformed and provide poor analysis…!
again, it seems i need to remind nikki: it is not kind to speak ill of the dead.
** Except paying a subscription fee for shitty content…
FTR, everything about the LAT is lazy & irrelevant.
Nikki, they’re owned by the Tribune…what else did you expect from a company still mired in bankruptcy?
GREED… and lousy paper. I believe the paper home delivery subscription fee a few months ago went from $45 to $60 per month and the phrase, “paper thin” fits them perfectly – ever see some of their daily deliveries? THIN, hardly any news and quite a few articles are rehashed from older news articles. Here (LA Times) you get less for more. No wonder they may go out of business. If you got Deadline Hollywood, you’ve got what you need.
“If the Washington Post covered Washington like the Los Angeles Times covers Hollywood, we’d be out of business.” — Bob Woodward
They had 17 million visitors on the site per month. Ya, no interest at all. Please!
1. I don’t work for the LA Times or any affiliate of theirs.
2. What’s wrong with charging people $3.99?
Daily hard copy price is .75 plus (I think) $1.50 for sunday.
Doing the math that means $7.00 per week (hard copy price.)
(Apologies if my State College math skills are wrong here.)
Asking someone to pay $3.99 per week seems like a savings (as long as their online stuff isn’t “delayed” like their print stuff, right?)
Thoughts?
We all love to speak ill of the press but the simple fact is that they’re dying due to the quick availability of the internet. So if the Times can join that model and bring news more quickly, why not?
You don’t have to pay to read the LA TIMES, simply copy any story headline from their web-site, paste it in the Google search window, Google will display the story in it’s search results, click on it and the LA Times article will be displayed! I’ve been using this technique for several months! It works for me every time! For some reason Google isn’t blocked!