I've been a subscriber to your print edition for 38 years. I resent the Gazette requiring me to pay for an on-line subscription, simply to read the obituaries. It is obvious they are being withheld for financial gain. If you printed them free for the families of the deceased, it might shed a different light on this. However, your "double-dipping is outrageous. Aren't the payments for publishing the obituaries and all your site advertising more than enough to cover the publishing of the obits? If not, perhaps you should hire the Times Union's financial advisers - they obviously have a better handle on the books!
Posted on August 9 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been a subscriber to your print edition for 38 years. I resent the Gazette requiring me to pay for an on-line subscription, simply to read the obituaries. It is obvious they are being withheld for financial gain. If you printed them free for the families of the deceased, it might shed a different light on this. However, your "double-dipping is outrageous. Aren't the payments for publishing the obituaries and all your site advertising more than enough to cover the publishing of the obits? If not, perhaps you should hire the Times Union's financial advisers - they obviously have a better handle on the books!
On How are we doing?