"I can get it free on the Web" -- just an idea

i wouldn't exactly call this a new approach.

i'm guessing the seattle times isn't counting on you in d.c. to save their print or web product so this argument is silly.

how many markets have a 24-hour cable outlet dedicated to local coverage? and once you get past major markets, the answer approaches zero.

 

What if that describes 40 percent of the people in your marketing not currently subscribing to the paper? Assuming a penetration rate of 50 percent for your publication, that means print advertisers are now shut out of access to 20 percent of their customers in print and aren't likely to reach 40 percent through you on line.

That's not how you want to be making the transition to the online revenue model,

 

You are correct. But new ones are popping up at a rate at least coinciding with the number of newspapers that are closing up shop.

In the interim, there are still all those other media outlets that will continue to serve up content for free while the paper attempts to retreat to the pay wall.

 

There is no reason at all to have a print newspaper anymore since newspapers are putting everything for free on the Web. It was the dumbest decision EVER in the history of the business world.
So newspapers should continue to put everything free on the Web. No money will be made of course and small entrepreneurs in suburbs and smaller towns will begin publications that cover local sports PRINT ONLY and will get advertising and make a nice profit.
It's obvious Gannett and others want to go Web only. They should do it now and speed up this process.

Good newspapers that cover local sports heavily would still be valued by readers if they got rid of the Web product entirely. People would buy the papers to read the local columnists' take and beat writers' take and read about their kiddies playing sports and their high school alma maters playing sports. They would. Problem is the suits have long devalued the work of their writers and layout people and because they think their local coverage is shit (when in reality it is damn good) they feel nobody would pay for it. It's been a long drawn out process to get to this point but we are here.
I just wish papers would go Web only like they will ultimately do and speed up the process!!!

 

For a year of online only for us its 88 bucks. That equals 25 cents an issue. At the newsstand its 50 cents

 

Encylopedia ... or wikipedia?
Land line ... or cell phone?
Terrestrial radio ... or satellite?
Garage sale ... or eBay?
Classifieds ... or Craigslist?
Standard cable ... or digital?
CD walkman ... or iPod?
Check book ... or debit card?
Music store ... or Limewire?
Blockbuster ... or Netflix?
Address book ... or Facebook?
Pickup ... or delivery?

Now ask yourself.
Newspaper. Or Internet?

Some of us will quite obviously say newspaper. And that's fine. But many more folks have come to the conclusion that the Internet is better. And they are probably right. It's up-to-the-minute. It's easy. It's accessible. It can be on a screen. It can be printed. It can be audio or video or a slideshow or a Twitter or a blog or a message board or whatever.

Newspapers leave ink on your hands.

 

Were those supposed to be easy choices? Because I chose the former on a lot, and I'm only 27.

Besides, newspapers don't need to beat the internet to stay in business. We don't need to be the most popular.

 

Latest brainstorm by the bigwigs at my shop is to not have anything released until 10 a.m. each day on our site.

 

Internet. Why shouldn't I? I follow three papers regularly (not including my own). One I could subscribe to, the other two are far out of my physical reach. But I don't pay for them. Why? It's free on the Web. No one has asked me to pay, so why should I pay? I can spend my money on other things. If they asked me to pay a reasonable fee of say $10 per month, I may weed my selection down, but I'd pay. But I may be the exception to the rule when thinking about the average consumer.

I subscribe to my paper only because I'm required. Every one of them (unless they have coupons) goes straight to the recycle bin. I read it the night before. Online. For free.

 

Sneed, this isn't a knock or anything like it, just an observation. Back when the Internet was first starting out, this was an idea that guys like Bill Dwyre (L.A. Times) insisted was the way to go. Put something short on the Web to get people to buy the paper.

It might have been a hell of an idea, and he might have been way ahead of his time. But I think it's too late now.

 

AP had an interesting interview a couple weeks ago with the founder of Five Guys Burgers and Fries. He said there's certainly a huge market for cheaper burgers, but it's not his market. He's not interested in going there and, by the way, ruining his product in the process.

I don't think there's good reason to fear what local TV, etc., puts on its Web site because it will be a vastly inferior product. That will appeal to some people -- probably the same type of people who have preferred TV to newsprint for the past 50 years anyway. They will be satisfied with a 30-second clip or an AP story.

The people who want more, well, they should pay for it. And they will, if there's no other option for extensive staff coverage.

 

Yeah, I know people like you. Why print out Mapquest directions or use a GPS device when you can thumb through a handy road atlas!