paywall

I am not angry. I'm just confused and disappointed which, rather than anger, is probably what most non-paying readers are feeling.

Disappointment is only what one would expect. We became accustomed to the QoD as a free read, the same free read we continue to enjoy at Salon.com, Politico, The Guardian, the R-J (5 free articles a month), the Sun (10 free per month, iirc) and Vital Vegas etc. as well as almost all blogs, forums and informational websites devoted to travel where paywalls are a rarity.

So it's a bit disingenuous to be surprised that after offering the QoD for free for decades, many readers would be upset with the termination of a reading habit that you, yourself, created and nurtured for so long. 

I have to say, though, that *you* are the one who sounds a little peeved with us "freeloaders" as you now deprecate non-LVA-members even though they are the same cohort that for the last 30 years you described as valued readers but whom you now rhetorically throw under the bus.

To wit:

"What really made choosing this path so satisfying for us is that it didn't hurt our customers one bit. It's only those who aren't customers, and are now losing something that they apparently want, who are angry. Why is it our job to placate them? It isn't."

Not only do you not apologize for removing the decades-long free option, but you seem to be taking some pleasure in the disappointment resulting from the imposition of the paywall.

What I am confused about is what your pre-paywall business plan was. Since, as you've said, ads didn't pay the bills, have you been running LVA as a vanity project or as a charity for the past 30 years? How long has LVA been operating in the red?

Almost all sites that do have paywalls adopt the freemium model where some or most of the site is free with some paid features for advanced users, or (like the New York Times, currently the same price for unlimited access as LVA: $50) allow a modest number of monthly reads for those with limited need or interest in the site's content.

The "ten cents a day" pitch sounds like a Ron  Popeil infomercial: "Just 5 easy payments of $39.99" to hide the true cost. What it is is another $50 a year bill. Not much for most people, but not nothing either, especially for those with tight budgets who have used LVA as a source of interesting anecdotes, trivia, and history but not for saving money when visiting Vegas.

Finally, by taking the highly unusual step of putting the entire site behind a paywall with no free reads as teasers, I don't see where your new subscribers will come from. Current readers will initially subscribe, but there will be inevitable attrition. But I guess you must know what you're doing

Ditto on what David wrote. 

I've been a member for at least 15+ years and LVA is the best value of any Las Vegas publication I've seen.  Over the years I've saved many times my membership in the coupons alone, not to mention all savings I've had based on the Happy Hours I found based on LVA information.

       Amazing - 10 cents a day apparently is asking too much. To put into perspective, one cup of coffee @ Starbucks would pay for 2 months of the LVA. Or, at today's prices, 6 gallons of gas would pay for  12 months of the LVA.

Have you never heard of someone cancelling their Netflix account after Netflix raises its fees by only $3 a month (.10 a day), or buying a product on sale to save a dollar or two even though another brand that's not on sale is preferred? 

Managing one's personal finances involves making hundreds (maybe thousands) of seemingly trivial daily, weekly, and monthly buying decisions any one of which won't affect a family's financial well-being in the slightest but which in the aggregate will either stress the family budget or keep it healthy.

     It is true that it is all about choices. My opinion, if paying 10 cents a day for the most worthwile source of Vegas information will be reason for adversly impacting a family's financial well being, then one probably should not visit Vegas. Maybe that 10 cents would be better spent elsewhere and hopefully will enhance a family's financial well being.

Better yet, how about all the crazy tipping you see in Vegas and people thinking nothing if it. Valet person gets $10-20, beverage server gets $5 for a water and on and on. Think of all the places and how much you throw away without even thinking of it. LVA is worth it.

> LVA is worth it.

LVA is certainly worth it for many people, especially those who currently visit Vegas, however some people read LVA who never go to Vegas (ever or anymore). They read LVA for Vegas nostalgia, history, or just to keep up vicariously with what's happening there. For them, there is no cost savings in subscribing to LVA, and since they can't afford to pay for every interesting site on the internet that they'd like to read, they must limit their subscriptions, even though each one only costs a pittance.

Contrary to what Mr. Miller wrote above, I was not writing about the usefulness of LVA for those who go to Vegas. It certainly is worth the money for many people.

I also stated quite clearly, contrary to what he wrote,  that paying 10 cents a day for LVA would not adversley impact any family's financial health.

My point was solely that daily, weekly, and monthly, we all have to make hundreds of individual decisions about micro expenses that while not by themselves, but in the aggregate, affect a family's finances.

This echos much of what I've been saying. We're offering a commodity that everyone can make their own decision about. If you don't want it, don't buy it. No reason to be angry or hurl insults. 

For starters, I really appreciate the link to the photos of the lighting, bleachers, etc. going up for the race.  I'd read all about it, but couldn't wrap my mind around how it would actually be built, how it would look.  Now I get the picture!  Thanks so much. 

Candy

The fact remains that LVA is 1) a source of information that you can't get anywhere else, and 2) a source of information that while available elsewhere, is collated and organized so that it's actually useful. I think 2) is actually more important than 1). Many's the time when I've referred to LVA for info that I would have had to root through a dozen casino websites to get otherwise.