NYT to decide on how to charge for online content

Could you show me another example of any web site, it doesn't even have to be a newspaper's, where the content is free, ad-supported, and created just for that site by full-time, paid employees?

 

Who said anything about FREE content?

Here's what I said:

"My point was that you continue to push the home delivery (subscription) while also offering the subscriber access to the online content."

Nowhere did I say you give everything or anything away for free. I don't know if you read that somewhere else, but I sure didn't say it.

Look, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you over this...it's really not that important to me. But I know if my job/livelihood was on the line I'd be helping my paper to do whatever it could to survive.

So, whether we agree or agree to disagree, it doesn't matter to me. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and so far we've seen a lot of the wrong ways. We can continue to watch that happen or do something about it.

 

I don’t know of a large, successful site that has pure original content. If someone has an example, I’d love to see it.

Most of the national news and sports sites integrate their parent publication’s content while using original and wire content to keep up to date. They have excellent Web designs, keep on top of the news and seamlessly integrate multimedia. The same cannot be said for most newspapers.

Even ESPN, with its Insider subscription, has the majority of its content ad supported with the exception of fantasy games, which are a blend of free and subscription based models.

The following sites may also have Insider areas but I haven’t run across them recently (CNN used to have one). As a result, they rely on ads and revenues from their parent publication.

www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com
www.msnbc.com
www.usatoday.com
www.si.com
www.sportingnews.com
www.cbssports.com
www.yahoosports.com
www.nbcsports.com

Off the top of my head, Yahoo, SportingNews.com and NBCSports.com have had layoffs of some sort (likely each site has trimmed personnel).

So, no, Web sites aren’t immune or some silver bullet to solving all the problems. But I look at ESPN.com and USAToday.com and compare their designs and ease of use to NYTimes.com, LATimes.com, ChicagoTribune.com or Chron.com.

We can argue about quality of content but ESPN.com and USAToday.com are much better laid out and seem to be on better financial footing than those newspapers.

Also, CNN and FOX News make an effort to find AP content relevant to their respective audiences. At times, they create a different headline than suggested to grab the audience’s attention. I don’t see the same amount of effort being made by newspaper sites.

 

My original comments were mostly geared to the news of the Freedom paper putting up a paywall. I think the NYT could justify it because they create a quality online experience for the most part. Still, that would not be the route I'd suggest.

Look at any Freedom Web site the Orange County Register on down. They are all templated and hardly a great user experience. I wouldn't pay for that.

If you got a chance to read the Valley Morning Star's story about the switch to a paywall, the publisher's comments were pretty laughable. He talked about charging online in order to bring value to the print subscribers.

Sorry, that's backwards. Your print subscribers get a physical product delivered every morning at their doorstep, that's their value.

The means matter to the ends in this scenario. If you are going to charge online, at least have a better reason for it. Don't mock your online readers. To me, strategies like this are based on a flawed notion that the distribution monopoly newspapers and other media industries had should continue on into eternity.

How much time and effort do you think most newspapers put into the Web version? I know at my small paper we are suppose to share a Web person with our sister paper but that never happens. It's all just a template that reporters dump their stories up on after they get the editor's OK. There's no creativity. There's nothing unique about it.

Why would anyone pay for that?

Editorially, newspaper have tried a ton. I think there's a lot to be proud of and still a lot of evolution to do. However, I'm not so convinced on the ad side. I do not believe most ad reps have the training, knowledge or infrastructure to sell for the web. Look at the ads on most of our Web sites. You'll find a bunch of junk no one cares about. Almost all of it looks cheap and like spam to me. Aside from the fact that the supply of space is unlimited on the Internet, this further devalues the space you have. If I'm a traditional advertiser, I don't want my product being confused with spam. Valuable ads are part of the over all package in the print product.

Don't know if this is a new rumor or not, but Jobs has scoffed at such an idea in the past. Someone asked him about it once and he said something like, "Nobody reads anymore."

I wouldn't depend on Apple for our salvation. They make great products, but in situations like this, they have the leverage. Same goes for Amazon. You're better off developing your own system.

I would also argue that just cause iTunes is serviceable for music, it wouldn't translate to journalism. What's an individual story worth? Five cents? Ten cents? At some point you have to charge enough to cover the transaction costs and that might put you ahead of what most people will pay.

I disagree. So much stuff is free on the Web. Yes, it's a mixed lot, but there are services that I find plenty valuable for free. That doesn't solve the problem of cash flow, but I think free doesn't automatically mean no value.