Comments on: Newspapers Take Note: BillOReilly.com Offers Paid Content That Works

By: shootfromthehip

shootfromthehip — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:10:37 +0000

Can I buy a loofah or erotic stories about how to properly seduce a hot producer (is that in O’reiilly Factor for Kids?) via phone sex at that website? If so, I’d be happy to pay a monthly fee!

By: Dave Martin

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:58:45 +0000

Bill O’Reilly is Reich-wing douchbag and just another Rupert Murdock sockpuppet.

By: seno3176

seno3176 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:35:57 +0000

Your website was featured on No Spin Zone tonight and I checked it out. You seem to be very measured wich is very good. Keep up the good work.
This country need more people like you.

By: locascioa

locascioa — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:57:09 +0000

Though I have panned the idea of paid content in the past, there are some exceptions. The Wall Street Journal is a perfect example. What do the Journal and O’Reilly have in common? They both offer compelling and most importantly UNIQUE content that cannot be found anywhere else! The stories covered by all the print online media outlets are rarely unique and can usually be found in several places. Why would anyone pay for them when they can find them free elsewhere? Paint a compelling original picture and people pay to see it! Whether you agree with him or not, O’Reilly certainly paints a colorful picture…

By: ChrisNH

ChrisNH — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:26:45 +0000

The ‘paid-for’ model is a horse that left the barn years and years ago. Those that (briefly) tried it were trampled by larger portals, who told the same stories and charged nothing. Newspapers pride themselves in being pseudo political activists. They like to think they help shape public perception with respect to political ideologies, although this is pretty much them believing their own press clippings. In truth, it’s the whole ideology thing that caused the demise of newspapers to begin with. Instead of news, they feasted on bias in order to see ‘helpful’ politicians rise and hurtful ones fall. And once a newspaper has chosen a side, it has pretty much said ‘Sayonara’ to any hope of collecting revenue from the other side. In the end, newspapers have their own little choirs they preach to. Will those choirs pony up subscription fees for content they can find elsewhere? Therin lies the rub. The fact that there’s a whole lot of talking about going to a ‘paid-for’ model and a whole lot less activity actually DOING it convinces me that it’s an idea that has more cost than benefit.

By: William Welfare

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:25:47 +0000

Bill gets the facts before reporting. Simple, he is a straight shooter, works hard to get balanced reporting.

By: Chudi

Chudi — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:23:19 +0000

Saw ur site on O’reilly, and wanted to check it out. Nice article.

By: TfT

TfT — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:12:51 +0000

Bill O’Reilly plugged your site, by name spelled out with your web address and told his viewers about this article!

You should update your story with a clip from his show.!!!

By: Anthony De Rosa

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:29:02 +0000

If you make it as easy to buy content as it is to buy iPhone apps, I can see it working.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:01:12 +0000

Plus, O’Reilly members get one free stalking of the perceived enemy of their choice! Jesse Watters has LOTS of free time.

By: Sharon Henry

Sharon Henry — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:45:22 +0000

I can see something like this working especially well for community online newspapers. Using an iTunes model, 99¢ for a six months subscription to High School sports, 99¢ for six months of a local columnist. Let the reader build their own niche online product. I imagine, once O’Reilly has the users credit card info, the subscription is automatically renewed.