1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Sneed, Jun 20, 2009.

  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    I wish there was a way to quantify this.

    Because there are two main reasons I see why someone would stop reading the newspaper:

    1. "The internet is better."

    2. "My newspaper no longer has anything in it."

    Now, there is nothing we can do about "1." But we are 100 percent responsible for "2".

    And I cannot help but wonder how much less my paper's circulation would have plummeted had it kept all the sections, features, space and writers that have been jettisoned --- not to mention the deadlines we used to have.
     
  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    There's like four roads where I live, total. But I thought GPS devices were amazing in California when I visited my sister.

    Going down the list:
    "Encylopedia ... or wikipedia?"

    Wikipedia

    "Land line ... or cell phone?"

    Land line if I could convince my wife. It's the difference between a phone being there for your convenience and for others'.

    "Terrestrial radio ... or satellite?"

    Terrestrial. I've never been impressed with satellite radio relative to the cost.

    "Garage sale ... or eBay?"

    Both have their place. Garage sales offer better deals for buyers and easier clearance of a large volume of stuff you want to get rid of.

    "Classifieds ... or Craigslist?"

    I'm noticing a strong anti-Craiglist backlash among more serious advertisers.

    "Standard cable ... or digital?"

    Both are a waste of money.

    "CD walkman ... or iPod?"

    iPod

    "Check book ... or debit card?"

    For me? Neither. But I know a lot of people who prefer checkbooks, because swiping a debit card is just a bit too psychologically easy.

    "Music store ... or Limewire?"

    I'd say music store or iTunes, and that depends on whether I know what I'm looking for or just want to browse.

    "Blockbuster ... or Netflix?"

    Neither.

    "Address book ... or Facebook?"

    Both have their place.

    "Pickup ... or delivery?"

    Generally pickup, for me.
     
  3. Colton

    Colton Active Member

    Very well put, BTE.
     
  4. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    I'm convinced there is no solution to this problem. Very few papers and very few sites will survive. Probably some hyper local, and some national. And that's it.

    I feel like in 10 years we will all be choosing to get our news from the Podunk Press or CNN. There won't be 50 Gannett paper sites to choose from.
     
  5. this is what is done in some other countries.

    put a six-paragraph story on the web. if you want the entire deal pay for it at the newsstand.

    i get that internet penetration is not that heavy in some of the nations this happens (india)...

    one of my old stops had it about right-- three grafs of the a-1 stories on there until about three years ago. then they went and screwed it up by launching a really nice web site. revenue cuts, staff cuts and other crap followed.
     
  6. pressmurphy

    pressmurphy Member

    To the contrary, those 50 Gannett sites will still have web sites. They just won't necessarily have newspapers anymore.

    There is a potentially successful business model in which the 150K-circ newspaper goes away and is replaced by a web site manned by a 40-person crew, 10-12 of whom are in IT, advertising and other non-editorial roles.

    I'm not saying the width and depth of the coverage would be anything to write home about, but it has a chance at financial success since it's not saddled wit the overhead needed to produce a print product.
     
  7. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    Forty person crew would be a huge crew. Think more like 20. You could still do a great job.

    I also think the 150k circ papers are the ones that fall the hardest. The 20k circ ones may still have a chance.
     
  8. jackfinarelli

    jackfinarelli Well-Known Member

    I don't pretend to be an expert in Internet financing, but my understanding is that Internet advertising rates are tied to things like the number of individual visitors to a website on a daily basis and the number of things that a visitor might view on that website while he/she is there.

    IF that is correct, then my "hypothetical" example about the Seattle Times is based in reality. In fact, I visit the Seattle Times website at least 4 times a week because I enjoy reading Dwight Perry's column, Sideline Chatter, and that column appears 4 days a week. While I am there, I sometimes look at other columns or news items. And so, I count as a "clicking customer" for the Seattle Times website even though I live 3000 miles away and will never subscribe to the paper. ON average, I estimate I am on that website an average of 5 days a week and I probably read two or three different items on the site - from the paper - each time I am there.

    In addition, I do visit Seattle every summer to see friends who have season tix to the Mariners and spend a long weekend there going to Mariner games with them. I buy - - and read - - the Seattle Times when I am there.

    Let me reiterate what I said before.

    If the Seattle Times were to begin the practice of giving me only a teaser of Dwight Perry's column - - or anyone else's for that matter - - I would stop going to their site. There are no conditionals in that statement; I would stop going to the site. That would reduce their traffic ever so slightly - - but if other folks think the way I do, it will reduce their traffic significantly.

    In no way do I believe that I am going to "rescue" the Seattle Times. The folks who publish the Seattle Times should not be worried about my loyalty to thier paper or their site as they ponder their "business model going forward". At the same time, they should not come up with ways to reduce the number of folks who visit their website because that will reduce the revenue they can derive from it. The advertisers there - the ones who are local businesses and restaurants who don't give a rat's ass about me personnally as a website visitor - don't know that I visit from afar every day. I am just a "clicker" as far as they are concerned. And the more "clickers" there are the more attractive that website will be to advertisers - - local and national.

    That is my understanding of web marketing and advertising and that understanding comes from lots of discussions with people who are in the web marketing "business" and with other folks who do advertising placement in various media including the Internet.

    That is why I maintain that it would not be a good idea for newspapers to adopt the idea that began this thread. Maybe if that had been the way they started doing web-based business a decade ago, it might be a palatable scenario today. But for them to change now will only drive away "clickers" and that is not the direction they should want to go.
     
  9. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Here's something I thought about and I'll just throw it out there.
    Remember when the Dallas Morning News announced that its circulation had dropped by nearly 100,000 and people thought, "Oh no, the News is about to go under." Then it was revealed that what the News had done was actually cut what is commonly called "vanity circulation" and meaning that circ trucks from the News would no longer be traveling to New Mexico, among other places, every night to drop off bundles.
    I would submit that online viewing has become the new "vanity circulation" and that "link economy" is, precisely, a bunch of shit, because if all another site does is link one story, that doesn't get people to stay at your site and linger to look at other articles or click the ads.
    Yeah, I know it is super cool for the web nerds when Drudge links to a column and crashes your server because you get so much traffic, but what does that mean to the bottom line?
    Not really that much, a spike in daily traffic means little when you average it out for the month. As the tracking software becomes more sophisticated, you'll get a better sense of where visitors are coming from and it could help with more targeted advertising, the general approach of people are clicking so that's all that matters, goes away.
     
  10. ScribePharisee

    ScribePharisee New Member

    Who the holy hell runs little league writeups? Sheesh.
     
  11. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Tiny paper, nothing else going on in the summer. We don't go out of our way to do it, but we'll write something up if we get it.
     
  12. lantaur

    lantaur Well-Known Member

    The tracking software already is pretty complicated, at least if your company uses Omniture, which tracks pretty much everything.

    Also, views/visits is not the end all anymore. Time spent on site is also a valuable matrix.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page