I went there tonight and I got a pop-up that I said I reached my limit of "free monthly content"
Former Member
Outside of porn and dating sites, has there ever been a successful website that required viewers to pay to access unlimited content?
I think SW is shooting themselves in the foot. I really like John Lohn's observations and I will miss the semi-insane article comments by those who even more obsessed with the sport than I am, but I'm not paying $40 a year to find out Phelps/Lochte splits when I can get them for free by simply going to a myriad of other sites.
It's been a free site for years.I believe Swimming World has had premium subscription for a number of years, with some content provided for free and some provided at a fee.
I can access Swimming World just fine.
As the message said you have likely reached the monthly limit of “free content”. As a suggestion, if you like www.swimmingworldmagazine.com then you may wish to subscribe. For $40/year you get the magazine and complete access to their content. Brent, Jason and the entire SW staff do a phenomenal job of informing our swimming community. Our subscriptions allow them to continue this service.
It's been a free site for years. I'm a little suspicious that a few days before the trials they require a subscription to enter.
I believe Swimming World has had premium subscription for a number of years, with some content provided for free and some provided at a fee.
That's right, but now the entire site is inaccessible.
If you have IE8 or 9, try going to a "inprivate" browsing session and see if you can access the site again from within that browser window. I get around newspaper "5 free articles only" nag screens with this workaround, lol. Unethical, maybe but it works.
Prior to the internet all content came at a cost, unless you went to your local library. Now with the internet and "free" content newspapers and magazines are disappearing at an amazing rate.
That's the new world order and there's nothing that going to change it. Another decade and virtually all print media will have gone the way of the dinosaur.
...and "just say no" to the Wall Street Journal (whose editorial positions are completely counter to most of my positions anyway, so I would never give them my $$).
Skip
:rolleyes: ... :mooning:
Must admit that I do use the work-around for NYT of "liking" it on FB and then clicking on the links there. They don't seem to "count" even after I've viewed my ten articles.
And yet I can understand where Brian Stack is coming from. Niche magazines/newspapers in particular deserve the support.
Also, I'm a free-lancer (not for SW, although I'm willing if they have a check for me). ;)
And the problem with free content is that often newspapers have laid off so many writers that the market for our services gets more and more competitive, while pay is harder to come by. (So many craigslist ads for "writing gigs" that say, "no pay but looks great on your resume": nice, but I also like things to look great in my wallet.)
All of which makes me rethink my approach to the NYT.
Without writers, there is no content. And as the scriptural saying goes, "the laborer is worthy of wage."
I was referring specifically to NYT workarounds and "just say no" to the Wall Street Journal (whose editorial positions are completely counter to most of my positions anyway, so I would never give them my $$). News outlets like the NYT and its ilk have far too many competitors for them to pretend that they offer something so unique that many/most users will pay for the content. They have to find some other way to make their nut each month.
I don't have a problem with SW charging for their content, though it will have to provide fairly unique editorial and reporting content to make it. There's no reason to use them for objective stats like meet results. Also, I was honestly unaware of their monthly free download limit. I've never used the SW site enough to bump into it.
Skip
