AZ Republic going behind paywall

[PCLoadLetter]

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/07/27/20120727arizona-republic-content-access.html

They make a big effort to point out that all the various print subscription options include full online access. What they don't point out quite as clearly: they're jacking the prices up ridiculously.

I pay $11 a month for a Republic subscription now. Under the new plan, the same subscription will be $24 a month.

Honestly, if you want to kill the print edition, just sack up and kill the print edition. Don't raise the price by more than double so you can pretend you are responding to reader demand when you shut it down next year.

As someone who works for a different news outlet in town this is nothing but good for me professionally, but I hate seeing newspapers make moves like this. This is beyond foolish.

 

[I Should Coco]

That's very interesting ... and frustrating, PC.

My parents, sister and other extended family members live in metro Phoenix, and I always thought The Republic had done a good job keeping the quality up despite (I'm sure) the usual Gannett cutbacks.

This graph buried in the FAQs section is the crux of the problem:

If I currently subscribe but don't want online access, will I be affected?

There is no longer a subscription offer to just a portion of The Republic's content. The subscription offers are to full access to The Republic's news and information content on all platforms. You still will have subscription offers that include home delivery of the print edition. The rates for these subscription plans in most cases will increase. Most subscribers will see an increase of 7 cents to 25 cents a day.

Twenty-five cents more PER DAY?? Just do the math on that one, and I can see why print subscribers will be pissed off.

My parents get the Republic delivered -- at least some days of the week (I think there's some partial subscription plans, like Wednesday plus the weekend). I'll have to ask them about their "letter" and see if they're willing to pay more.

 

[LongTimeListener]

This might have made sense quite a few years ago when they were still trying as a news organization and there was a good chance you'd find something to read for your money.

Of late it has been trying half-assedly to be a newspaper and a celebrity site, and doing neither particularly well.

 

[Tarheel316]

Print subscribers should definitely be pissed off.

 

[J-School Blue]

My parents subscribe, and I talked about this a bit with my dad this weekend. I'm generally pro-paywall - too little, too late though it may be - but I was surprised when he told me how much they were charging subscribers.

He seems willing to pay for now, but my folks are people who will never not get the newspaper. They used to get the Tribune, which still delivers in their area, and even though it's a shell of its former self he mentioned looking into it again. 25 cents a day is obscene.

 

[DanOregon]

I know of many papers (like the NYT and several chains) that are doing the modified thing (allowing up to 10 "free stories" a month, before you are blocked.

I would think what Phoenix should do is make the initial entry point very low and then gradually move it up (see cable/sat TV plans).

Or maybe this is the opening salvo and they'll say Wait! For the next 7 days we will lower the rate to $X before it goes back to the regular price?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/07/27/20120727arizona-republic-content-access.html

They make a big effort to point out that all the various print subscription options include full online access. What they don't point out quite as clearly: they're jacking the prices up ridiculously.

I pay $11 a month for a Republic subscription now. Under the new plan, the same subscription will be $24 a month.

Honestly, if you want to kill the print edition, just sack up and kill the print edition. Don't raise the price by more than double so you can pretend you are responding to reader demand when you shut it down next year.

As someone who works for a different news outlet in town this is nothing but good for me professionally, but I hate seeing newspapers make moves like this. This is beyond foolish.

My paper charges $23.80 (oddly, no employee discount here) and the truth is that if I didn't work here, I still would be willing to pay triple that. The $23.80 is a little less than half than I pay to go to a gym, and being informed about my locale is (OK, sadly) far more important to me than the condition of my body.

No one covers my locale better than my newspaper, and I thought that even when I worked for competing papers, although I would not have said so. You can't be an informed citizen of my state without reading us. There are zero realistic alternatives. The paper is a bargain at $23.80.

Our circulation department now makes a profit, BTW. This wasn't the case until very recently. We would be in far deeper **** without this.

Also, I believe that readers willing to pay $24 should be viewed as more valuable to advertisers than people who draw the line at $12.

 

[steveu]

The plan, according to what I read, is to add new sections to the print edition. Might be worth the higher price if the new Republic has a higher page count.

$10 for the e-edition of the Republic isn't bad at all, IMHO.

 

[silvercharm]

"People are much more used to paying to access information and entertainment than they were a few years ago," said L. Gordon Crovitz, co-founder of Press+, a company that helps publishers build online-subscription models. "By the end of 2012, we think it will be the exception for a U.S. newspaper to be free on the Web anymore."

Let's put the overstating-our-case on overdrive, OK? By the end of 2012...will be the exception? Someone is full of ****. Are newspapers leaning in this direction? Sure. But Crovitz might want to check the calendar and notice there are less than five months remaining in 2012. It won't be until at least 2014 that there's a majority, let alone "the exception."

 

[PCLoadLetter]

"People are much more used to paying to access information and entertainment than they were a few years ago," said L. Gordon Crovitz, co-founder of Press+, a company that helps publishers build online-subscription models. "By the end of 2012, we think it will be the exception for a U.S. newspaper to be free on the Web anymore."

Let's put the overstating-our-case on overdrive, OK? By the end of 2012...will be the exception? Someone is full of ****. Are newspapers leaning in this direction? Sure. But Crovitz might want to check the calendar and notice there are less than five months remaining in 2012. It won't be until at least 2014 that there's a majority, let alone "the exception."

And here's part of the equation that is going to make this very hard for the Republic: there are four TV station in town with news on the web, and I can guarantee you they will not be charging for the web by the end of 2012. There is not as big a gap in quality between azcentral.com and the TV stations as you might expect, and I can tell you our website is updated much more aggressively than azcentral is. Those stations will all be making a major push to steal readers from azcentral, and I suspect they'll make a pretty good dent. Much of our web content is generated by newspaper vets with decades of experience. Azcentral relies largely on interns, from everything I've seen. It will still be the go-to for the slideshow on the Valley's Hottest Bartenders, though.

I'd love the think the paper is really going to add content. I've been handed religious tracts that are thicker than today's Republic. I'll believe it when I see it.

And again, while anything that hurts the Republic tends to benefit me professionally, the whole thing makes me sad. I like reading a good newspaper, and I believe a strong newspaper presence is a great benefit to the community. The last traces of that are fading here.

 

[Den1983]

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/07/27/20120727arizona-republic-content-access.html

They make a big effort to point out that all the various print subscription options include full online access. What they don't point out quite as clearly: they're jacking the prices up ridiculously.

I pay $11 a month for a Republic subscription now. Under the new plan, the same subscription will be $24 a month.

Honestly, if you want to kill the print edition, just sack up and kill the print edition. Don't raise the price by more than double so you can pretend you are responding to reader demand when you shut it down next year.

As someone who works for a different news outlet in town this is nothing but good for me professionally, but I hate seeing newspapers make moves like this. This is beyond foolish.

My paper charges $23.80 (oddly, no employee discount here) and the truth is that if I didn't work here, I still would be willing to pay triple that. The $23.80 is a little less than half than I pay to go to a gym, and being informed about my locale is (OK, sadly) far more important to me than the condition of my body.

I am willing to bet you are in the very, very minority. People don't like it when something they used to get for free is now something they have to pay for, no matter what the cost.

I don't think pay wells - particularly done the way the Republic is doing - can necessarily be effective in big markets. People will move on; as someone said, TV could very well take advantage. There are other ways to get your news. If you're in a small market, yes, a pay wall may be effective; in fact, if I was a publisher in a small market, I WOULD put in a pay wall. But in a big market like Arizona? You're pretty much digging your own grave.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/07/27/20120727arizona-republic-content-access.html

They make a big effort to point out that all the various print subscription options include full online access. What they don't point out quite as clearly: they're jacking the prices up ridiculously.

I pay $11 a month for a Republic subscription now. Under the new plan, the same subscription will be $24 a month.

Honestly, if you want to kill the print edition, just sack up and kill the print edition. Don't raise the price by more than double so you can pretend you are responding to reader demand when you shut it down next year.

As someone who works for a different news outlet in town this is nothing but good for me professionally, but I hate seeing newspapers make moves like this. This is beyond foolish.

My paper charges $23.80 (oddly, no employee discount here) and the truth is that if I didn't work here, I still would be willing to pay triple that. The $23.80 is a little less than half than I pay to go to a gym, and being informed about my locale is (OK, sadly) far more important to me than the condition of my body.

I am willing to bet you are in the very, very minority. People don't like it when something they used to get for free is now something they have to pay for, no matter what the cost.

I don't think pay wells - particularly done the way the Republic is doing - can necessarily be effective in big markets. People will move on; as someone said, TV could very well take advantage. There are other ways to get your news. If you're in a small market, yes, a pay wall may be effective; in fact, if I was a publisher in a small market, I WOULD put in a pay wall. But in a big market like Arizona? You're pretty much digging your own grave.

My market is larger than Phoenix's. We don't have a pay wall -- I'm talking the price of the newspaper.

TV people obviously are not going to agree that newspapers offer a superior news product, but can they deny that newspaper readers see it that way? They've been paying for the paper for decades, and they did this why? Because they were unaware of this device called a television? Or because TV's local news was vastly inferior to the newspaper's and unsatisflying even when it was free pre-cable and bundled with other content now? The local TV staffs are always smaller than the newspaper's, and in all but the largest markets, usually less experienced, too. In no way can TV offer a competitive news product online.

 

[J-School Blue]

I would love to believe that but I'm not sure, given the current state of the media market in Phoenix, that it holds true anymore. I think it used to, but not anymore.

And again, while anything that hurts the Republic tends to benefit me professionally, the whole thing makes me sad. I like reading a good newspaper, and I believe a strong newspaper presence is a great benefit to the community. The last traces of that are fading here.

This has all made me think about how the landscape used to look here when I was coming out of college, when the Trib was still a competitive daily and the Republic a much meatier product. So much has changed.

I do hope this works, though I'm not optimistic. I don't want Phoenix to become another city without a daily newspaper, but I more and more feel like these efforts are just warm-ups to cutting back the print product entirely and generating built-in excuses to do so. But, again, I hope this isn't the case.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

My market is larger than Phoenix's. We don't have a pay wall -- I'm talking the price of the newspaper.

TV people obviously are not going to agree that newspapers offer a superior news product, but can they deny that newspaper readers see it that way? They've been paying for the paper for decades, and they did this why? Because they were unaware of this device called a television? Or because TV's local news was vastly inferior to the newspaper's and unsatisflying even when it was free pre-cable and bundled with other content now? The local TV staffs are always smaller than the newspaper's, and in all but the largest markets, usually less experienced, too. In no way can TV offer a competitive news product online.

Pretty simplistic view there, Frank. I wouldn't take the fact that people subscribe to newspapers as evidence that TV news is "vastly inferior." Major papers are killing off editions -- or shuttering completely -- while TV stations are increasing the number of hour devoted to news each day. Not sure that fits your view too neatly.

Newspapers and TV are indirect competitors. Their strong points are different. Newspapers can offer greater depth and greater variety. Any story that's even slightly visual can be better conveyed on TV, though, and TV is a vastly better medium for any breaking story.

But going head-to-head, online? With the web product the newspaper has in this town, you bet your ass we can compete. It's dominated by bimbo slideshows and old news. Any breaking news is (poorly) written by interns. It should be deeper in local content than the TV sites, but it's clunky to navigate and rarely updated. It had better improve dramatically if they're going to expect people to shell out $10 a month for it.

 

[JPW]

As someone who grew up in Phoenix, has the Republic's Dbacks champions cover hanging on my wall, checks AZcentral daily, this is very sad news. My parents still get the paper and probably still will, but living out of state I'm sure this will change my consumption of the writers and teams I enjoy following as well as news about home. Haven't really thought about how well it will work, but my initial feeling is disappointment that this cycle is starting for a paper I dreamed about working for.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

PCLL, the latest stats I see, released this summer, say TV newsrooms in Top-25 markets average 68 full-timers and 7.3 part-timers. The Arizona Republic lists more than 400 newsroom staffers. I am skeptical that it's either an old list or includes some Hub people. Let's be conservative and say the Republic outstaffs you 3-1 to 4-1 rather than 6-1. Not a ratio you can overcome with customers who prefer to read the news, not merely passively look at it. Some of their readers may well become annoyed with the Republic site, but they will perceive the TV websites as being essentially useless, same way newspaper readers largely view the TV local broadcasts.

Unless you are among those who believe you can do more with less ... My experience is that in news-gathering, staff size almost always decides who wins consistently.

And again, I don't think $24 is much. If that's not worth it simply for the coupons, let alone all the content, I can't help you. I can't remember exactly what my publisher said, but it was along the lines of now we are down to the readers who really want us. Everyone's paying full-price, etc. The readers we lost are made up for by those willing to pay something approaching a realistic price for the traditional newspaper.

I predict this will work for the Republic, although perhaps not immediately.

 

[J-School Blue]

I predict this is part of Gannett's overall strategy to make some quick hit-and-run cash off its newspapers in the next couple years before killing them.

But I am deeply pessimistic.

ETA: Also, while I generally think newspaper websites are superior to TV sites, PC is correct in this instance. The Republic's print product is still, I think, quite strong. It's still a decent paper. Part of why I find this ominous is because I'm afraid it's a sign the print edition will be gutted even more than it already has. But azcentral is often irritatingly nonsensical to navigate and actively drives me to other local news sites to find what I originally came to look for. And, yeah, the T&A photo galleries are ridiculous. I would not, as a user, envision myself having any trouble at all surviving without it given the other options in Phoenix-Metro media market.

 

[podunk press]

We're doing this as well. But we're not upping the prices like the Republic. That's freaking crazy.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Frank,

The TV newsroom number is certainly in the ballpark. I suspect the Republic newsroom number is high, but can't say with any certainty. Either way, your point is correct -- the Republic staff is far larger than any TV newsroom in town.

That's an important thing for the print product, but I'm not sure how important it is on the web. Go to the front pages of the web sites and I don't think you'll see much of a difference. The content and look are quite similar. Once you really dig into the sub-pages you'll certainly find more locally-produced content on the Republic's site, but I don't think many readers do that online.

I'm not a big believer that you can do more with less -- but I think we can be competitive with the Republic's web product, and we're not charging $10 a month for it.

There's a case to be made that $24 isn't too much for a daily metro newspaper. You'll have a very hard time convincing someone who's currently paying $11 a month for it, while watching the quality (and size) of the paper plummet over the past few years. In a market with so many newsrooms at work I don't think this is likely to succeed, and I'll be very surprised if the paper still offers a print product more than 3 days a week by the end of next year.

Also, I suspect your notion that newspaper reader view TV newscasts as essentially useless is a bit off the mark. Newspaper readers also watch TV news. It's not an either/or proposition, and I would bet the crossover audience is very high.

 

[jemaz]

My market is larger than Phoenix's. We don't have a pay wall -- I'm talking the price of the newspaper.

TV people obviously are not going to agree that newspapers offer a superior news product, but can they deny that newspaper readers see it that way? They've been paying for the paper for decades, and they did this why? Because they were unaware of this device called a television? Or because TV's local news was vastly inferior to the newspaper's and unsatisflying even when it was free pre-cable and bundled with other content now? The local TV staffs are always smaller than the newspaper's, and in all but the largest markets, usually less experienced, too. In no way can TV offer a competitive news product online.

Pretty simplistic view there, Frank. I wouldn't take the fact that people subscribe to newspapers as evidence that TV news is "vastly inferior." Major papers are killing off editions -- or shuttering completely -- while TV stations are increasing the number of hour devoted to news each day. Not sure that fits your view too neatly.

Newspapers and TV are indirect competitors. Their strong points are different. Newspapers can offer greater depth and greater variety. Any story that's even slightly visual can be better conveyed on TV, though, and TV is a vastly better medium for any breaking story.

But going head-to-head, online? With the web product the newspaper has in this town, you bet your ass we can compete. It's dominated by bimbo slideshows and old news. Any breaking news is (poorly) written by interns. It should be deeper in local content than the TV sites, but it's clunky to navigate and rarely updated. It had better improve dramatically if they're going to expect people to shell out $10 a month for it.

You and I must be reading different websites. az central (and the Arizona Republic print edition) is very comprehensive, very respected and clearly to go-to place for news in Arizona. Nothing else comes close -- on-line or elsewhere. I do not see that changing anytime soon. I get the paper delivered and I read the website. I'll pay for access to both going forward -- just like I pay for the New York Times.