A letter from the National Business Review's publisher

I'll pay when you get real stories that make a difference in the business world. Not just hashed stories that have no base.
What story has the NBR lifted the lid on in the last 12 months that has made a difference??

I would be prepared to give this a go for $89 for 6 months BUT TRY AS I MIGHT I CANNOT FIND ANYWHERE ON THE WEBSITE THAT LETS ME DO SO. I am offered print subsciption or digital replica - neither of which matches Barry's proposal. Am I missing something (apart from the blocked conent)?

As a subscriber to your print edition for over 10 years I am seriously contemplating dropping my subscription. I agree with Aardvark above, that the path you are taking is a rocky one indeed.

I have ardently supported the NBR brand with advertising my company in it frequently and reading the daily emails. This is a blatant mechanism to screw over your loyal supporters. Why not provide the online stories as complimentary to subscribers??? Hight have been a good idea! Too late now.

There must be a better way and we do expect more from you. Try harder.

I wont be subscribing, the simple reason is I have a news bookmark with 10 newspaper websites with free content and the stories you publish will eventually appear on one of these sites, Also as an interested property person I find Bob deys website a lot more informative on the subject. A quick google search finds the stories you what me to subscribe to are available on http://newsriver.co.nz/.

For what? News I can get for free anywhere else, good luck LMAO. It is so rare that there is a story on here that isnt on Stuff, NZ Herald, Business Day, or Bob Dey.

Barry,
There is no indication today that the 'subscriber only' content is worth $89. Since we are unable to access it, how do we know that it is oinin to be ' a consistently superior news service' .
A one month subscribed trial period is teh way to introduce a 'new product', whihc may only be the old dressed up in 'drag'.

AND as for yhour paragrahs reading :-
Worse still the model has spawned a huge band of amateur, untrained, unqualified bloggers who have swarmed over the internet pouring out columns of unsubstantiated “facts” and hysterical opinion.

Most of these “citizen journalists” don’t have access to decision makers and are infamous for their biased and inaccurate reporting on almost any subject under the sun (while invariably criticising professional news coverage whose original material they depend on to base their diatribes).

This is the very sort of drivel that has brought newsmedia editors into disrepute, and is largely responsible for the demise of the 'Daily newspaper circulation'.

Some of the most inaccurate, and certainly most politically biased reporting I have read has been from your 'proffessional trained reporters'.
Sensationalisim is not the same as reporting facts.

Most bloggers make intelligent comment. The fact that it may not suit the ideology of the editorial p[olicy does not make it ill-informed. Remember Barry, we actually live out in the real world, and are the movers and shakers of commerce; the ones who are trying to create employment, and in many cases succeding despite the sensationalist politically biased reporting which is so common today, both in new papers and on TV.

This move by NBR may well be the 'nail in the coffin'

Happy to continue with my other free online news services without NBR - only use it to ensure that one of my dozen or so online news feeds gets the news to me quickest - NBR seldom does.

I don't buy into your arguments at all - this is simply a revenue shortfall issue and you're annoyed that you have to pay people when others don't. Get off your high horses, start delivering high quality news that leads the market and I might consider renewing my hard copy subscription.

But up until yesterday, your online service looked like you were the the aggregation site!

Please label your Subscriber Only stories in the RSS feed so I don't bother clicking on them. Better yet, create a feed that doesn't even include them.

I think these should be free for print subscribers. I really don't see how this is worth $89.

Funny how at least two of the items in the 'Most Popular' side bar are paid content, there must have been a lot of sign-ups already..... I think not.
This model is flawed - it annoys your readers then they leave.

My guess is the ex CEO at Fairfax & RWC87 winning captain has had a word in your ear & thats why your running with it.

However It doesnt work for the Fin Rev (afr.com) site. You just copy the headline into google & most times its on some other site.

It hasnrt worked for them & it didnt work for the WSJ.

Anyway in Aus people just buy the Fin Rev 6 days a week for $3 or most cafes have a fresh copy daily.

One company who will be happy is Media Monitors. For business clients why bother paying and logging in when they will just forward any stuff you need to your inbox

Obviously not! Not only have you decided to introduce a subscription charge but there was hardly any notification of it's introduction.

I don't see any value in the subscription charge. I've previously read the NBR emails to keep up to date with what is happening, but will now rely on other free services. No point in receiving the NBR service if you can't read half of it.

I feel aggrieved that our organisation pays for multiple print subsciptions each week, and are now expected to pay on-line subscriptions as well. I would have thought the on-line service could be free for those already providing you with significant revenue.

We won't be paying any on-line subscriptions, and will review our print subscriptions.

As one of those horrible bloggers who leach off the content of the NBR's hard work, I've published a column on the topic of NBR's step backwards today.

Oh dear.

I'm sure that the average NBR reader will be smart enough to work out where to find it.

Cheerio Bazzer - NBR has just been taken off my site list.

By the way your comments about the role of bloggers are excremental - I have lost count of the number of poorly researched and clearly biased pieces turned out here by your so-called professional journos. The truth IS out there - but relatively little is available mainstream sites anymore.

This does not seem to be an innovative step at all.

The NBR seemed to be heading towards quite an interesting model, which had more and more reader feedback, and interesting content.

The $149/six months is a regressive step. This is very steep for content, and does not seem to cater for those interested in reading a little of the content. There are far more innovative models that could have been taken, especially as the NBR was becoming a good forum for feedback. (For me a micropayment (e.g. 2c per page) would have been much more palatable.)

Good luck - but this could be the start of a death spiral. BTW - the NBR is not the WSJ....

Interesting how views of pages that are locked (subscriber only) count towards highest view counts. Does that mean that most people have decided to pay?