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

You cannot force people to read the print edition instead of the stories online. But they are one and the same. You need to find an appealing way to get readers to pay for what they read online. Or else we drop the for-profit model and go NPR.

 

You'd be surprised how much good PR it is in a small community like mine. Makes people believe you care. And when you're like me, a single guy in a small college town (with no college students these days) who doesn't drink and is new enough that he doesn't know anyone, why the hell not? I've found a lot more people want to read that than another wire story about Baseball Player X who failed a drug test.

 

Not sure this is the place to put this, but some interesting thoughts on the "Free" concept from Gladwell in this book review.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=1

 

That was good.

A lot of theorists take the concept of "free" too far, IMO. You can get free food, clothing and shelter down at the rescue mission, too, but most people opt to pay for the upgrade.

 

Our paper announced today that, starting tomorrow, most of our online content will no longer be free. Only blogs and separate entities of the Web site, such as our social/entertainment web page and our business journal web page, as well as blogs, will be free. But all stories will not. Readers will click on the headline and it will take them to the log-in page for subscribers.

I'm anxious to see how this works out.

 

I was reading Connie Schulz's column, because she's good enough to work for the Plain Dealer, and then some of the reaction of it on Jeff Jarvis's site.
Our very own Jim Carty waded into the fray, and noted that Jarvis might be considered a new media guru, he completely sank the ship at Advance? when he was brought in a a consultant for the newspapers' websites.
Anyway, you can find them if you want, I no longer provide links to Jarvis and his insanity.
But it made me think about something.
If you want to read tomorrow's paper today, why don't you pay for that privilege? If you subscribe, or pay for an online subscription, you get the stories as they are completed, or in NewsEdit parlance, when they are ready to place.
Everything. Weekend advances down on Thursday, can be read Thursday, if you pay. If you don't have an online subscription, you can pay by the story.
So let's say that you are the State and you put up on the site: EXCLUSIVE: State reporter tracks down governor at Atlanta airport.
Click here if you're an online subscriber, if not, but want to read the story? It will cost you 49 cents. Click here to pay.
AP is no longer entitled to breaking news content and then the compnay website gets updated at say 10 a.m. on the day of publication.
Some people, and I think many, would pay to get the stories in advance, so why hasn't that been done?

 

Welcome to community journalism, defined as "journalism practiced by 5K-circ weeklies or semi-weeklies that don't have wire, along with some CNHI dailies."

 

We're a paper of about 18K, and we do them on a consistent basis in the summertime. Little league is huge in my area. Even though the tournament directors apparently don't care enough to get scores in, parents and kids go gaga over little league ball.

 

I like to think of it as "don't have to crap my pants every time there's a meeting or mass e-mail near the beginning of a quarter" journalism

 

I'm always amused by the assclowns who bitch about the right to free information, then charge $30 for the hardback edition of their fucking book. Shouldn't I get that for free?

 

The hypocrisy doesn't come in until he complains when someone distributes digital copies for free.

Lots of people believe that information should be free, but don't mind that some people choose to support the authors by buying official copies.

 

Authors don't deserve to be paid for their work?