Sunday, December 21, 2008

This former publisher asked and answered the question I have been asking for the past 8 years, both in and out of the newspaper business.

"How can the newspaper charge one group of subscribers a fee and yet, give the same information away on the Internet for free? The answer was always: "We have to have a presence there." Well, yes, but don't you need to charge for it?," I would ask.

Well here's a column that sums up how I felt and still feel about that issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/the-slow-death-of-america_b_152591.html
Posted by at

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've always thought that the paper should give a code/password for each subscriber so they could view the website as part of the home delivery deal. You could then also have a daily code/password for in store sales. That code would only be good till midnight that day (or whenever..) and it would change each day.

Perhaps all newspapers need to get together and start charging Google/ Drudge for using their stories too?

22 December, 2008 18:07
Anonymous said...

Something like 95 percent of a newspaper's online audience is different than its print audience, so by doing what you suggest, you are eliminating a potentially huge audience for your product. Way to stay relevant.

22 December, 2008 22:00
Jim of L-Town said...

So Anonymous 2200 you are saying that the online product is so lame and insignificant that the 95 percent of people that go there that are different from the print version will not pay for it.
What is the market on a website for local advertisers if many of its visitors don't even live close enough to use their products.
GM could certainly increase their auto market share by giving away every other car it makes, but how would that help the bottom line?
I'm open to an explanation how a free Internet newspaper product provides enough cash to support a staff of reporters and advertising folks, but no one has shown me one yet.
Your argument is more a defense of keeping intact the print product as it is the only one that people actually pay for.
What if a grocery store had an online store where you could log on and have your food shipped to you for free. What do you suppose that would do to the store where people actually have to drive to and pay for food?
Someone, somewhere must pay for the folks who find and report the news. Eventually, when the pyramid collapses, readers and news junkies will realize the free net has killed the Goose that laid the Golden Egg.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

23 December, 2008 07:55
Eric said...

The second comment is absolutely correct. The print audience is declining because the people who buy print newspapers are declining, not because the papers are on the Web. Very few people who read the paper in print are going to cancel their subscription to read it online...and those that do will increase your circulation online, but the number that jump is going to be small. Regardless of whether or not papers go online, print news is dying. The Internet is the cause, for the most part, but it has nothing to do with papers being online. It has to do with the fact that the younger generation does not pick up a book, they pick up a MacBook, or a Blackberry.

Secondly, if a paper is going to rely on national news to stay alive online, they will fail. Why would a person go to the local paper's Web site to read what President Bush is doing when they can go to CNN.com? The reason local papers are dying is because they aren't covering their local news, they aren't local enough. Going online won't change that. There are too many sources for people to get their national news, however, those people still want to know what's going on locally. As long as the papers keep neglecting local news, they will die.

It's just like radio. XM and Sirius started Satellite radio, which was going to destroy local radio...only it didn't, because despite the fact that the service is FAR superior, people want to hear those they know locally. Same with television.

If your LOCAL paper has 75-80 percent of the front page filled with AP stories, it is doomed. ESPECIALLY PRINT. Especially if your paper comes out in the afternoon! Those stories you are printing are VERY OLD NEWS by the time people pick up that paper, because they already found out on MSNBC, CNN, Google, Yahoo, or any million other places.

23 December, 2008 08:03
Anonymous said...

If it's between giving away the only thing a newspaper has going for it free vs. making money and staying in business I don't care about those 95%..

23 December, 2008 09:56
Anonymous said...

No, that audience online will shrink drastically if you charge. It's just a matter of newspaper companies understanding the medium.

There are sites that are profitable and their content is free. Gawker makes money and has decently paid writers, to name the most well-known example.

There is advertising to sustain free online content, but you can't keep putting print advertising people or print editorial people in charge of figuring out how to make money online and attract more users.

23 December, 2008 10:35
Anonymous said...

Here's a good example of Flint Journal weirdness. They post this story at 7am on Thursday morning:

http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/12/real_can_you_hear_me_now_guy_f.html

It doesn't hit the street in the Friday edition until around 11pm Thursday night.

Now I can understand getting a big story up on the website ASAP. You know.. Any story that the local TV news is also chasing, a guy in a Santa Claus suit shooting people etc.. (I don't think Mlive has this one up yet either..)

But this story is not much more than an ad for Verizon Wireless and it fills up about 1/3 of the front page of the paper. There was no hurry in getting this out there. Angie Hendershot is not hot on this story. So why post it more than a half day before it hits newstands? And if this was a regular Friday the story would have been out there almost 27 hours before being printed.

26 December, 2008 05:19

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)