[Irongirl1]

Ok, now go do this for newspapers...and then convince everybody else that this. is. the. way. Please? I am so sick of having to sign up for a monthly charge when I only need one article...and then forgetting to cancel and getting another ding in the next billing cycle. It sucks. If newspapers would just sell credits or a package of articles that never expire, it would be great. I've had to hold onto research I've been working on so I can do them all at once and it is always some ridiculous number like #127 articles that I had bookmarked from BI over the course of a few years. So then you are left with the Herculean task of trying to print #127 articles in a 30 day period.

The one time a company did this here it was beautiful. Loopnet was set up this way in the beginning. So if you only needed one report, you could just buy that one and not have to worry about recurring charges or unused time. The alternative is to never sign up for anything and watch as promising, potentially useful stuff dies on the vine. That's been my approach lately as the other way is too much hassle for a small scale, single-user. If all of SaaS is only meant for corps with 50 seats or more...it's going to get nasty out there because people aren't forming companies like they used to..and lean teams are the future.

[JonanJ]

I am trying. Closest I've got to is the Boston Globe. They took it (semi)-seriously , but ended up not going through.

It is a huge issue. Newspapers give everyone 90% off for a whole year in hopes of conversion (or customers forgetting to cancel), but they do not see this as an issue.

I don't think they'll do very well in the future if they refuse to change.

Another company that I know about who successfully sold/partnered with big news companies told me that it's almost impossible. The execs refuse to change and the only reason they got those partnerships were because of their advisors who were ex-media execs.

It's going to be an uphill battle, but I'm not writing it off just yet.

[Irongirl1]

Snort

Not do well in future....hahahahah.

They don't officially have a future. And this is from a wannabe reporter..who once won a placement in a special edition of The Boston Globe. They gave up everything they are supposed to stand for and shot their supposed integrity in the face. The Buzzfeed/Gawker years finished them off. They should have paid for a mercenary team to rescue Daniel Pearl...instead the World watched his execution and expressed their sadness and shock PFFt!!!

Instead of investing in Timberland and ink factories-did you know ink sells for over $1k an ounce?-and whatever was growing laterally, they dug their heels in and now they are dead in all but name. Most of the "stories" they print are nothing more than ads and even the WSJ gutted itself after Murdoch bought them. The Personal finance section was one of the best with the best copywritten sales letter ever. They cut that too. But occasionally, I need a story and having to pile them up for several months to make the buy worthwhile is exceedingly annoying.