Interesting take on saving/reviving newspapers

Depends on the paper. L.A. Times, probably not. But the skinny daily in the sticks that charges 50 cents makes significant revenue off that and can't afford to engage in groupthink. Most big-city tabloids make money on circulation.

That's the problem with these vast proclamations about "what newspapers should do." Every newspaper's case is different. In some cases, people WILL pay for news if they get value for their money.

 

I liked the E&P piece comparing the golf and newspaper industries better.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again: We may not know for sure what will work, but we sure as hell know that giving it away for free doesn't work. And we keep doing it.

 

I don't know, I've seen plenty of papers left behind at airports, on trains, etc. I'm guessing most people can flip through a free alternative weekly while on the john, but not so with a newspaper (well, at least most of them ).

 

I admire the consistency by those hitting the same point over and over, but again: we are the only news provider that directly charges its customers for content. The day we start charging for content online is the day our hit count goes down the shitter. If CNN, ESPN, the N.Y. Times and the WaPo don't charge for the preponderance of their online content, the rest of us don't have a chance.

 

so, people only read for national news, meat?

 

There's no fucking way I'm ever paying for a newspaper subscription.

Here's why: The content simply isn't that good.

1) Most newspaper reporters aren't good enough to make want copy specifically from them. For every Joe Posnanski, there are 2,000 scrubs like me.

2) Most newspaper stories aren't interesting to me.
I don't want to pay $10 a month for access to a publication that writes about everything from old ladies and their doll collections to local politics to the pro baseball team in my area. I'm probably only going to read 1/30 of the stories the paper produces, so why pay for all of them?

3) You're forcing me to choose which paper I want to read.
What if I want to read stories from all three papers that cover my college? I have to subscribe to all three? I resent that.

4) I was born in the 80s. People in my generation just don't think we should have to pay for music or information. And we're not changing our minds about this. Sorry.

5) Newspapers keep producing shittier and shittier products. I'm not paying for that.

 

There's still outlets for local news that don't cost. Plus TV stations are putting more effort into their web sites. But the bigger issue is that most people figure their monthly debit/check to their ISP is their ticket to the Internet, and they aren't going to pay more unless it's really worth the money. And by "it" I of course mean "porn". And even that's pretty easy to find gratis.

It'd be like paying $50 to get into Cedar Point or Hersheypark or Busch Gardens, then finding out the teacups cost $5 a ride. If you really like the teacups, you'll pony up the money, but everyone else will go on the battering ram or one of the coasters.

 

and now i know why newspapers are going in the shitter. generation stupid thinks it's entitled to a free ride.

and, btw, in a recent study, 18 percent of generation stupid said their main source of news comes from leno and/or letterman.

i guess one generation saved us from hitler, and another is saving us from being smart. good work guys, keep up the good work.

 

so the answer is make people pay to read your website?

 

The answer is hybrid technology.

You subscribe to a newspaper. You make a deposit and receive a lightweight, 8 x 11 electronic device similar to the Amazon Kindle. When you dock it, you get an e-newspaper, complete with touch screen that allows you to "turn pages" and read it like a newspaper. The subscription entitles you to exclusive "breaking news" updates sent during the day -- things you can't get on the Web site. All that whining about the price of print, delivery trucks, paper -- gone. Ads can be creatively integrated, and because it still reads like a paper, ads can still be involved in the page.

All this would take is one goddamn creative mind anywhere in the publishing world. The end.

 

It's going to have to have a lot more functionality than an e-reader. It'd have to be iPhone/iPod touch-esque in its versatility. It needs multimedia abilities, since I highly doubt newspapers are going to drop the audio and visual elements. And I don't know anyone with a Kindle (nor have I seen one live and in living color black-and-white, but it's a lot smaller than a newspaper page, so it's going to be harder to read.

There's potential, but it's going to be a lot harder than "one goddamn creative mind anywhere in the publishing world. The end"