Gannett going to paywall

Except, of course, that it's an advertising-based revenue structure, so to make money the paper is absolutely dependent on getting as many people as possible to look at it online.

 

Now that's funny.

 

If you want to do something cheesy go ahead. Some of us still have class.

 

mb: I make an exception for the New York Times, and while part of that is for sports, it does involve news, etc., too.

 

Stitch: I would disagree, because in the user agreement, you agree the account is only for your use.

I agree that it's not a huge deal, but in my mind, it's not right.

I think there's a difference between using one of those password services and saying to my wife, hey I have the Times up, did you want to read the haggis recipe?

 

It will be interesting to see how poorly Nashville does with this scheme, since one of the main draws to any Southern paper website is its college football coverage, and the Tennessean has farmed its online coverage out to the Knoxville paper, which is (still) free. I'm pretty confident in saying not many people will pay money just to read a David Climer column on their beloved Vols.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Attitudes towards content change when comparing physical to digital. If newspapers are using cookies to keep people out, that's not a good system, especially as there is nothing immoral or unethical about deleting your cookies. That's why these half-closed paywalls will eventually fail. More people will just use workarounds.

 

Except, of course, that that isn't true. You simply cannot monetize an anonymous audience, and 10 years of giving the product away for free have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Newspapers used to be able to sell print advertising because they were able to tell advertisers exactly who they were reaching. On a free online site, you can't do that.

And if you're not interested enough in a given area's news to pay for it, then you're probably not of all that much worth to an advertiser. And if you're reading from somewhere outside the area, then you're of NO worth to a local advertiser.

 

The Gannett websites in my neck of the woods are so devoid of relevant local content (especially sports) it's a joke. There's absolutely no consistency with their websites. Some days you might find their local hoops roundups online on other days there's nothing. You can't even get a copy of any kind of an e-paper with them, which many papers, including ours, has.

 

I would argue that unless you follow preps sports, or some other obscure team that is only covered in the paper, there's almost no reason that you would need to read the local sports section.

Everything else you can get somewhere else...

As far as the rest of the paper, obits and local politics might be the only reason to read.

 

This.

OK. I shall make sure I never do that, as I too want to have class.

 

I've often thought if web sites much erect a "pay wall," then reading online obits would be the place to do it.

Yes, there would be bitching a-plenty about greed, gouging, etc., but I remember all of that when (small and mid-size) newspapers began charging to run obits in print, and guess what? People eventually paid the money.

You want to read national wire stories, some real estate listings, check the weather on PodunkPress.com? Fine, do it for free.

You want to read something of value, like obits or prep sports? Pay up.