Newsday to charge for Web access

You've heard the expression "there's no free lunch." And you probably know it dates from a time when saloons offered free lunch as a way of getting people in there to drink, figuring they'd make money on the high profit margin on liquor, so actually the lunch wasn't really free, it was paid for by booze sales. And then the bars learned that people who drink at noon don't need a lot of incentive; they'll drink at noon whether or not you give them a sandwich. The "genie was out of the bottle," the "toothpaste was out of the tube" and the "horse had already left the barn" -- whatever you want to call it. But somehow, free lunch ended anyway.

You can still find free food at Happy Hour, especially in certain parts of the country, but most people buy dinner instead. Eating free food that was going to sprout mold in another day or two appeals to only some people. The rest of the people want to eat human food. And they'll walk right past the warming trays, sit at a table and order something from the menu.

So as more newspapers start to charge online, some people will be willing to pay for the good stuff. And some won't -- but that's been the case long before the Internet. Those are the same kinds of people who were satisfied with the TV news in 1960. It was free, it was entertaining, but it was second-rate.

It would help if the premium content were really premium, though. No one's gonna want to pay $20 for the menu meal if the waiter just scoops up shit from the free Happy Hour buffet, serves it to you and tries to tell you it came straight from the kitchen. (Don't order the fish there.)

 

The way I see it, the response from the Post or Daily News wouldn't be to stock Long Island with reporters and compete for readers who don't want to pay. It would be a deep breath and a bunch of awkward hi-fives, because this means that the Post and the Daily News can charge now, too. Everyone is dying to charge, because no one is making any money. This domino effect will be unbelievable. Watch how many papers follow suit and charge now. And you don't think, if ESPN.com and Yahoo continue their current downturn, they wouldn't like to charge, too?
If they can figure out a way to charge without making readers feel crappy about it (something unobtrusive or a one-time monthly charge), this will save our industry.
Optimism for everyone!

 

artists have never made much coin from cd/album sales even under the old system unless they had publishing rights through writing the song. labels make their money from cd/album sales while artists make theirs on tour.

 

For instance, maybe someone would pay us for sports content if it wasn't just regurgitated "both teams played hard" quotes and warmed-over player profiles. We used to have a captive audience, geographically. Your local newspaper was any other source for news and information and store coupons. Now we might actually have to produce good content to earn a consumer's dollar. It's no different than buying foreign cars or hiring smarter workers for less overseas.

 

Well, no shit. If you're writing tripe, you get what you deserve. I don't think most papers are writing tripe, though. Every city I go on my beat, I pick up the local paper to see what's written about the team I'm about to play. I'd say 90 percent of the time, it's the time of in-depth stuff Marc Stein isn't going to touch on ESPN.com.

If you're a Hawks fan, you probably care deeply about the backup point guard battle. You're not going to get that level of depth anywhere else but the local newspaper.

In that sense, we DO have a captive audience.

Eventually, people will figure that out. Unfortunately, that day might come to late for us.

 

I didn't mean to sound combative or sarcastic before. Sorry if I did.

But most sports coverage isn't the high-quality stuff you get from NBA beat writers. Those guys are the top echelon. I refer more to the sweaty masses of stained-shirt guys who've made a living pumping out stale copy.

Of course, the whole industry is getting dragged down together. Being high-quality doesn't help the Nuggets beat writer at the Rocky Mountain News.

And I know, it's too easy to rip on the stained-shirt masses; I'm not a top-echelon guy myself.

...

The crux of my point seems to be that this industry isn't going to have a place for half-assed sports guys anymore. That's probably not a mind-blowing observation.

 

The flip side of the coin is, if you're covering Podunk High School ... there REALLY is no other place for readers to get that. ESPN.com ain't touching it, that's for damn.

 

And made a living airing other people's dirty laundry.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Fuckin' slobs. Hahaha.

 

They won't be able to get it elsewhere, but does that mean it will continue? Is it making money?

I wonder if we should reevaluate the idea of what "needs" to get covered and what "covering" it means -- though I don't mean to decree that Podunk sports coverage is pointless. Regardless of the subject, is our audience still willing to financially support the usual advance-feature-gamer-follow coverage?

I don't have any answers, really. Just questions.

 

Having once lived in Podunk, Texas ... I can say without equivocation that Podunk High football is what sold the paper.

 

Are circulation and revenue declining in Podunk too? Surely they use the Internet too, right?

(We should have an anti-sarcasm font. I hate feeling likely everything I post sounds sarcastic.)

 

Understand your point, and don't think you're being combative. But I think our problem is supporting what we do financially in the new world order, not what we're doing, per se.

There is still tons of quality work being done, by those in the upper echelon, and those considered not to be at that level.

Other than that, our problem may be just the opposite of what you're saying.

Most of today's readers' expectations, time and work ethic, for lack of a better term, are lacking, not because of what they get from us but because of what they, themselves, are, or are not, willing to take the time and effort to read and understand.

People think they would rather read worthless crap that's regurgitated and lacks depth or analysis...i.e. is easier, takes less time and thought, and is really all most people want, at least until they realize otherwise.

And that's what I think we need to show them. Readers are asleep at the wheel as to what these changes in the journalism mean, or will mean, both to themselves, and to society as a whole.