Entire Rolling Stone Archive Online

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

All 43 years of interviews, reviews, and other articles from Rolling Stone magazine will soon be available online for a price.

According to AFP, Rolling Stone plans on making most of their content free, but in order to see all of the content a user would pay $3.95 per month or $2.50 per month with a yearly subscription. The magazine will also be redesigning its Website, adding more audio and video.

Mashable writer Brenna Ehrlich argues that Rolling Stone is setting up its paywall in a smart way. Rolling Stone not only released more content, they also added a lot of new content.

She points out that putting up 43 years worth of content online is "no small feat." When media consumers are considering whether or not to drop $30 a year into a subscription, they will have to take this work into consideration also.

Ehrlich makes a good point, but will consumers agree with her?


Leslie Hanson April 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM  

What a great option. The price of $3.95 per month or $2.50 with a yearly subscription is a steal these days. You can't go to the super market and pick one up for this price. Knowing that you are getting the published story and possibly more is worth the cost if you are a following of the Rolling Stone magazine.
I think that this is a trend that we will see many more magazines go to in the future. Certain things will be free, but the meat and potatoes of the articles you will need to pay for.

Tyler Lloyd April 20, 2010 at 9:24 PM  

I agree with Leslie it is a steal. I looked up the current yearly subscription for Rolling Stone and it is $19.95. I assume this fee would encompass articles that are in the new releases as well, and if so then it is a even better deal. As a reader of the magazine would you rather pay $2.50 a year and have access to everything or $19.95 for just the magazines of that year? I think the answer is obvious.

Kari.Ratkovich April 21, 2010 at 8:26 PM  

I think this is interesting. While I think they are seeking to gain more revenue in a smart way, they seem to have to justify it. I understand that putting up 43 years of content is no small feet, why do they feel they need to do it in the first place? Is anyone ever going to really take advantage of all of that information? It just seems like one more thing to be charged for.

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP