Charging for online content: IT WORKS

This is a dangerously cynical way to look at it. So if they get 2,500 subscribers back in the first week, would you grumble about the other 1,500?

By no means does it prove anything. But it is a small step in the right direction, and I would love to hear updates in the coming months on how it trends.

 

I'll update any information I have. I'm not necessarily in that loop and the circulation manager didn't come running over to tell me about the new subscribers the other day. It was just sort of a passing "Hey, guess what?" type of thing.

 

We charge online and it has stopped people from unsubscribing. But, it has killed us competitively with the free metro website that was also better. We have limited our reach to just our subscribers. It's a reactionary measure that doesn't solve any long term issues with revenue and business model. It has made us irrelevant and damaged our brand. Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

Charging for online content still won't keep subscribers. Habits have changed and too many outlets for free news. Even if you live in Podunk, there is always a way to find news for free.

 

Good for your paper. It is too late, though, like somebody said. Newspapers dug their own grave years ago by giving it away for free. Small to medium sized dailies might be able to save themselves by charging, however. Those in the camp of "YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE" should enjoy all the pay freezes across the country and furloughs and layoffs.

 

The thing we have going for us is that we are an upper-smallish/lower-midsized daily. We have no true competition other than the local radio station. Of the four bordering papers, two are owned by our company. The other two don't cover stuff here because they have no reason to. We basically have a hammerlock on our local content. You want it, subscribe. You don't subscribe, sorry. What is someone going to do, threaten to stop reading it for free?

 

I'm not so sure about that, at least in Podunk. Most small-market TV news, even the decent stations, fundamentally don't cover communities like the papers do. Nobody else cares about Nowheresville, PA. In communities like the one that seems to be the case here, I absolutely think people would pay for online content (or subscribe for the right to view it).

Different matter in the major metro areas that larger outlets actually give a damn about, however. Sadly, there it probably is too late.

 

People just don't care as much anymore about local content. It's not just about newspapers giving away content online for free. Habits have changed.

 

As of this morning, we've taken in/back right at 800 subscribers plus single copy sales out of the vending boxes are up.

As for people not caring about local content, I don't see that at all.
From a sports perspective, people around here care far more about their local high school teams than they do any pro league. From a news standpoint, they want to no if their taxes are changing, a new road is being built, who has died, their neighbor is making meth. So yeah, at least in our area, local content is very important.

 

Shoeless, now those are some encouraging numbers. Good on your shop for doing things the right way - or at least doing something.

I still think you need a good mix of local and national content to be relevant.

 

Here's my question. How can a web-only organization, not backed by any other form of media, out-report ("was also better," you said) a conventional newspaper, with superior revenue stream, even in this day and age when print revenue streams are outdated?

I think part of the reason why a print product that puts at least "premium" content behind a paywalll online SHOULD be a superior gatherer of news is it has a more diverse and, as a result, greater revenue stream to pay for the news gathering than an online only in a similar market. If you could produce enough revenue online only to support a viable news organization, far more newspapers would have turned online only already.

That would seem to be the case, but you're saying it's not in your market. What gives?