Opinions about online newspaper access fees

Can see your point, nm. Maybe it's the very big boys and then the micro boys who could succeed, with the vast middle in trouble. Kind of the same as with print.

 

It's mainly been the small market publications that have been willing to post the link (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/newspapers). The large market newspapers have mostly either ignored requests to post the link, or they've taken the time to write an e-mail about why they don't want to make the survey known to their online readers.

 

Our online edition, the one that takes "plastic money" to purchase, is $6 per week or $10 per month, and we even have a pdf-type viewer that you can scroll through the full print version of the paper with.
The print edition is $14 per month. If you want print and online, it's $15 a month.
We also have some free content on the site and are trying to pimp the site more with football season starting, so that might increase subscriptions some.
In the three or four months behind the paywall, I think we've gotten around 500 online subscribers and it seems like nearly as many complaints. I believe it really boils down to the "why should I pay for what I've been getting for free" mentality. Finding a way to break people out of that mindset is the key to everything.

 

What's your print circ?

 

We're around 13K on Sunday, about 12K during the week.

 

I don't understand why journalism Ph.D people spend so much time researching things like this.

"Could newspapers make revenue by charging?!?!"

"I don't know . . . wish we would have been asking that question a decade ago!"

So much of this type of research feels like it's looking backward. But I guess it's a lot tougher than saying, "OK, let's figure out ways journalists will still have jobs in five years!"

And no, newspapers charging for content isn't going to keep things afloat. As has been hashed out many times here, people will simply find information elsewhere.

 

How much money do print subscriptions and rack sales actually generate? I don't think they have ever been a great revenue generator. It's why the paper still costs 50 cents and it's even cheaper if you subscribe. Newspapers are practically given away already and it's been the case almost since the birth of newspapers.
I can't see how charging people to view newspaper content online is going to be some great revenue generator. It seems like a lot of effort's being put into something that has little reward.

 

Q: Let's say I was the best football writer in the country bar none, OK one of the best.
Let's say I worked in football country.
Could I make a living by selling my own niche website: Bama football by Barry!
Could I get a few stores and car dealers in my town to support my site?
Would this work?
Just asking. And I'm being serious. Thanks for your takes.
If it's all Internet now, why can't I sell my own brand? Can I do this? Would it work?
Is this the future of newspapers when all the good writers get laid off? Why wouldn't Bama football by Barry! be better than the stuff the local paper is churning out if Barry is THE EXPERT?

 

Some writers probably could sell their brand. But you'd be putting in the same effort as a Patch.com editor (Always on call, working 60-70 hours per week) making sure the site is constantly updated and selling ads.

I wonder about some major metro areas and prep coverage. Any successful online-only operations?

 

Isn't Simmons and Kiper and others kind of proof that this sort of model works? I'm not calling them the best in their respective fields, but they started writing to a niche, and just kept building and building until ESPN came calling. If they stayed local, I imagine they could get sponsored by those places and ads and what not.

 

Unless online advertising starts gaining traction, subscriptions may be the only hope. Our print product is supported by roughly 30 percent circulation, 70 percent advertising. That's probably going to have to be inverted for online to work. And if it doesn't then we may be out of jobs (those of us who aren't already).

 

You're exactly right; newspapers always survived in large part due to advertising. However; online advertising just didn't bring in that kind of revenue, which is just one of several reasons newspapers are experimenting with access fees in the first place. The free mentality of many online news consumers is pretty large.

How do you convince them to shell out money for something they can get for free on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and the big-time free news sites such as cnn.com and msnbc.com? If newspapers knew the answer, they would all be charging access fees by now.

Thanks to all of you who have taken the survey and/or passed along this link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/newspapers.