What is your paper's approach to the web?

Indifference (at a 100K-circ daily). The copy desks post stories to the website, which means what gets posted and the timeliness of posting depends on who's doing it that night. A lot of times whoever is posting will just use the headline that's in the paper, so a feature-style head that works in print doesn't work online (since there's no subhed). We also technically have premium content for subscribers, but 99 percent of what's posted isn't set up as premium.

 

This sounds like a good option...I get people liking the convenience of reading online newspapers, but they should be paying for that product.

I'm working on adding more snippets and print content that never goes to the web...limit the web to capsules of breaking news...if you want the bulk of it pick up a newspaper. Or our company should bring in a similar online subscription option.

 

We are an 8,500 circ. and have been doing this for about 2-3 years. People hate it. We don't care. Buy the f-ing paper!
We did just cave a bit and will run all opinion pieces and letters to the ed in full along with weddings, anniversaries and engagements. But then we push those pieces on our facebook site to generate hits.

 

yes, I have our sports section hooked up on Facebook and that's been great...let people know what's coming up, a place to post extra photos of events and a place for easy comments or discussions. That seems like the way to go for me...allow subscribers that sort of free access via the web, instead of spending hours giving away our product for free.

The worst complainers were get are the web-whiners looking for their news without paying us their 50 cents. I am much more willing to listen to a concerned subscriber than a web-whiner.

 

Why do people say readers should be paying for the product? Subscriptions and rack sales pay for distribution, if that. It's all about advertising, so stop thinking readers are freeloading.

If anything, the reason paywalls don't work is because newspapers don't produce online content that people value. Blame your self, editor and publisher for that.

 

I would think most smaller community papers could survive just fine without a website. Or with a very basic website with few updates and basic FAQ info.

As you say advertising brings in most of the bucks, and I can't imagine our sites are selling enough ads to counter-balance the hours we are being asked to put into it -- valuable hours that could be used to enhance our print products.

 

Even if your paper or most others shut down their website, you'd still see a decline in circulation. People have other hings to do than sit down and read a paper.

 

Bingo. Advertisers still prefer the print version, overwhelmingly. That's the only thing that's kept entire newsrooms from being sent to the unemployment office.

If advertisers suddenly discover (or believe) that online ads work, there would be ZERO print editions of the paper within a couple months. ZERO.

 

@ Stitch...I think it would work at a community news level, because readers in our smaller regions aren't going to get their local news anywhere else.

A neighboring big paper may put a score in its agate and run a playoff gamer once or twice a year, but that's going to be it.

Sure, you can hit any number of news sources for New York Jets coverage, but we're often the only real source of information for readers wanting to know what's going on in Suburb City.

 

Not enough people care about local news. Get rid of the website and circulation would not go up by much.

 

THANK you!

In my suburban home, I get three free weeklies tossed in my driveway and mailbox. Didn't ask for them but don't dislike them enough to call to cancel a free paper. (I did it for the Examiner, though -- have to draw the line somewhere.)

I find it funny that people producing a daily print sports section with 1-2 ads for strip clubs or "enlargement" can complain that their content is being "given away" online.

The biggest problem with paywalls is SEO -- an abbreviation you need to know if you don't already. If people can't find and read your content online, your reach is drastically limited.

 

Skimming through this thread, with the emphasis on skimming, I've noticed that pay walls seem to have been approached with an all-or-nothing attitude.

I think ESPN, Rivals and others have a better approach that's probably our future: Premium content.

Get that quick, AP-style gamer up for free, but the full featured gamer goes up behind a pay wall for premium subscribers...or those who buy the paper. Most basic news -- breaking news that will be everywhere, advances, etc. -- are free. Enterprise work and special projects (complete game day coverage, as opposed to just the advance, for example) are premium.

Of course, if you are at a paper that's in the advance-gamer-follow rut with your coverage, you might find that you have no premium content to offer. But that's what your writers get paid for.

Other forms of media must be approached with an open mind. I cringe when I hear "video!" or "chats!" thrown around like some sort of a publisher's mantra. Some videos work. Some chats work. Some don't.

I recently hosted our first live, during-the-game chat during the local team's bowl game and it was promising. Our Friday afternoon chat, hasn't worked. We think readers are burned out from the talk and are ready for the game by then (the Tuesday chat does well).

Video is the same way. Nobody wants to watch a video blog of an ugly middle-aged sports writer on Tuesday. But I find that they love the game night postmortem involving the beat writer and the columnist. At that time, the reader is usually outraged over something that happened and they are are curious over what the local Rick Reilly has to say about it. Did the beat writer think that pass interference was a bad call too? They'll click on a post-game video chat to check that out.

The key word is discretion. It's not a one-size-fits-all deal. My fear where I am is we'll try something that works for one beat and we'll try to force feed it to other beats to be equitable.