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!

The iTunes model?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Bullwinkle, Jun 21, 2009.

  1. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    I'm still a firm believer that nobody advertises online because nobody clicks on the ads, but nobody clicks on the ads because they're not for products people want. At the bottom of this page is a banner ad for Credit and Debt Experts, which, to be completely honest, is not something that anyone is going to impulsively click on - or go online to an ad service to find.

    However, if the ads were for things you see in print - like Dick's Sporting Goods offering deals on drivers for Father's Day or Old Navy offering two for $20 tank-tops or whatever, you might finally get some kind of return.
     
  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Is anyone really getting half a cent per hit for a web site? That seems extremely high to me, but I'm not an expert.
     
  3. Bullwinkle

    Bullwinkle Member

    1,000,000 hits = $5,000 ??

    That actually sounds sort of pathetic.
     
  4. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    I'm no expert either but I've come to understand that it's somewhere between a penny and a half penny. However, that does not count the price that advertisers have spent to to put a banner add up. At my 15-20k circ paper they might pay $200 for a banner ad. So that helps slightly. I'm sure its more at bigger papers, but the banner ads don't change often, because nobody has money to spend on ads that nobody reads or clicks.

    Yep. And it is why websites can't survive without the print product unless the people can't get the news ANYWHERE else. And I don't know of a paper that had that kind of content, and a big enough customer base to support it.
     
  5. Mediator

    Mediator Member

    What about a buffet option? You get a consortium of papers and make all their content available for a flat fee, say $10 a month. There might be a lot of internal haggling about how the pie is split up between the papers, but it would be a more reliable return that internet advertising.

    It makes sense to try something, even if there are initial problems, because the alternative is literal bankruptcy.
     
  6. Montezuma's Revenge

    Montezuma's Revenge Active Member

    It's what papers should have done in 1995.
     
  7. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    So lets say a company like Gannett does this and they charge a $10 a month for access to every paper they have.

    From USA Today, to the Freep, to the small weeklies in Ohio to the podunk daily on the East Coast.
    All little papers included they are probably looking at about100 entities.

    If they had 10 million subscribers maybe what 1 million would pay without going elsewhere, because they can get it for free, or cheaper, or through another medium.

    So that's 10 grand per paper per month. Is that enough to keep 'em going?

    I'd hope so, but there's still not proof it will work. Really scary.
     
  8. Mediator

    Mediator Member

    I would say you get a key to the door if you subscribe to any of the physical papers. But I don't think Gannett alone, or any other one entity, is enough. It literally has to be every paper except for the WaPost and NYT, which would probably not agree but should since they have a stake in the survival of this industry.

    It would also mean cracking down on people who try to pull most of a story onto their blog or platform. A link would have to take a reader into the pay site through the front door. You want to read a story about dissent in Iran? Who won the NBA final? Brett Favre's 73rd comeback? Ante up.

    Otherwise, people can read AP copy for free and there aren't enough people who want to pay for access to a local paper to a make it profitable.

    Unite or Die, I am afraid.
     
  9. Bullwinkle

    Bullwinkle Member

    Google needs to buy every paper and create The Google News Network. Once Google owns every paper, they can charge a fee to the Network. In the meantime, every newspaper archive can be put online -- which will destroy sites like newslibrary in the process. Then Google can prepare for its clash against Wal-Mart to determine who gets the naming rights to the United States of America.
     
  10. Mediator

    Mediator Member

    And then I can take my rightful place as Ecclesiastic Emperor of iAmericaPod!
     
  11. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    At the end of the day, we have the egotism that people read the newspaper for the articles. It's why all of us loved the newspaper and why we got into this crazy business. But if you think back 25 years, the newspaper was either the only place or a very easy place to get the following information:

    --Movie times
    --Classified ads
    --Weather report
    --Comics
    --Obituaries
    --School lunch menus
    --TV listings

    The newspaper was a resource -- a disposable and current information guide. Now, in the internet age, obits are probably the only one that the newspaper is still the best resource. And if anyone ever creates a good aggregate obits site, we might as well pack up and shut the door. Until we find a way to replicate that feeling that the entire newspaper is necessary, it is only going to get worse and micropayments will not stop the bleeding.
     
  12. Bullwinkle

    Bullwinkle Member

    Very good points, PDB.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page