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!

Newscorp Web sites to start charging users

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by mustangj17, May 7, 2009.

  1. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    So why not go deeper? Just shut down all newspaper websites? Put nothing out there in the vast WWW. Yes, very mid-'90s thinking, but ... what happens if newspapers do that?
     
  2. Not to pick a fight, seriously not what I'm after, but if our two options are 1) all papers join together to go pay, or 2) all papers join together to charge 10 times the current rate for ads, I don't like our prospects either way. Honestly, to 90 percent of our readership we've always been filler wrapped around coupons and classifieds and their kids' names. I'm not sure I like our chances at any rate.

    Basically what I'm saying is, if the problems can be solved, I'm not sure anyone has the answer yet. And now I've made myself depressed thinking about it so I'm going to go drink for a while.
     
  3. The argument is that people will forget we exist at all (which wasn't much of a problem pre-internet), or that people will be so fed up with a lack of digital delivery that they'll go out and start their own specialized citizen journalism blogs ... ie. there will be a group of 2-3 people who run a City Council blog for all who are interested. Of course there will need to be two city council blogs to cover both sides "impartially" but that's no matter.
     
  4. Every newspaper on the planet can charge for content. People who rely on the Internet for news will continue to get it for free.
     
  5. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    I'd say "Don't hold your breath," but it might be entertaining.

    Go ahead, hold your breath.
     
  6. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member

    It should be interesting to see what happens over here in the UK. If the Times and the Sunday Times go behind a pay wall, will readers flock to the websites of the other national newspapers? All of the upmarket papers (the Independent, the Telegraph, the Guardian/Sunday Observer, Times) provide a comprehensive mix of national/international news, along with a thick grab-bag of news and arts features every day. The Times is actually a pretty good paper, a good read but I wouldn't say it's miles ahead (or ahead at all) of everyone else.
     
  7. Appgrad05

    Appgrad05 Active Member

    My paper's web site is paid. It's about 5.95 a month, but if you're a print subscriber your online account is included. We're a 25k daily in a very educated town.
    It works. We made about $150k last year off of it, which does not seem like much. But we have not had one round of buyouts, layoffs or furloughs, so I am not complaining.
    We do offer free content on the blogs, and all multimedia content (videos, photo galleries, audio slideshows, live chats) is free.
    We could certainly do a better job of promoting the value of having a subscription, but our community adapted to it. Some complain, but they are the types that will always find something to complain about.
     
  8. The last part of your post made my day.
     
  9. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    I believe your paper rarely, if ever, gave away its content, so it would be a strong argument that if newspapers never had never done so, they might have had some financial success online. It also sounds like you've struck a nice balance between what's paid and what's free. The stuff you can see about anymore is free. The hyperlocal stuff -- police reports, real estate sales, local news -- goes behind the wall at a fairly reasonable price. It's stuff like this as to why I can see the argument that smaller papers or hyperlocal sites have a chance at making this work, while large metros and national organizations are going to have trouble with it. It's worth $6 a month to me to see where the police runs were, or what the local city council is going to do about repairing the sewage system that floods my basement every time it rains. I'm not sure how big of a draw local sports would be outside the immediate participants, but there should be enough stuff going on locally that affects people's lives enough to make them think about paying.

    As for that $150,000, is that over and above your print circulation revenue? Or does that include new print circulation that includes online access?

    I'd be curious to hear what your advertising numbers are. Are advertisers amenable to this model? Are they buying onto your site? Does your paper have package print-online deals?

    I know I've sounded a lot like I'm against charging for content, but to me that's not the issue. It's forcing people to pay for stuff they can get elsewhere, or charging just out of spite. App, it sounds like your paper has thought a lot about it and has come up with a mix that just might work, particularly for other small papers that have less competition (no TV, little radio, etc.) for local advertising.
     
  10. But how long will a blog like that last? Especially if someone is doing it for free?
    They would be doing it free and council meetings - you may heard this before - can be tedious and boring.

    And just city council or just tennis results isn't going to lure someone to pay for a subscription. But the combinaiton of those things - of local things might.

    I don't think one paper or a handful papers can hold the fort on that.
    It has to be an all or nothing. You have to force readers, or people who want local news, to pay for it.
    We can not give our product away. And that should also include the AP and anyone who uses AP content.
     
  11. Appgrad05

    Appgrad05 Active Member

    The $150k is purely web-subscription revenue.
    I think you're right in that it does work for the hyperlocal, but why couldn't it work for the major metro? There, I think you're touting the investigative coverage, the "expert" beat work and the like. You market what you have, whether that be the police calls or the five-part series on corruption at city hall.
     
  12. Grimace

    Grimace Guest

    If online ad revenue isn't enough, then what does it matter in the long run? Or, papers are dying, but with ad revenues they'll die a little bit less quickly? I don't get it.

    I agree, though. This has to be an all-or-nothing type of deal.

    What about the AP and other news services? What would happen if they started micro-charging?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page