Boston Globe drops paywall for Marathon coverage

[SnarkShark]

From the @BostonGlobe Twitter account...

Note to our readers: All http://BostonGlobe.com stories are open and free to everyone. http://www.bostonglobe.com/

 

[SnarkShark]

New York Times and Wall Street Journal follow suit...

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/210370/bostonglobe-com-other-sites-drop-paywalls-for-marathon-coverage/

 

[IHateSpringSports2013]

It's a nice gesture, in all reality just because it's big breaking news doesn't mean people shouldn't have to pay, but I guess it's a good thing overall.

 

[LongTimeListener]

This is a tough one, but this is their product. People don't give their product away in times of need. That's how they become known as businesses.

All they are doing is conditioning people (or at least continuing with people who have already been conditioned) to believe that if there's anything ***really*** important, you can get it for free.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Or it builds good will and makes it more likely people will come to you at other times and maybe see value in paying for access in general. Not saying that's how it works out, but it isn't some random act of kindness.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Or it builds good will and makes it more likely people will come to you at other times and maybe see value in paying for access in general. Not saying that's how it works out, but it isn't some random act of kindness.

That doesn't work. The last 15 years should be proof enough.

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's a difference between everything free in 14 of those years and the increase of paywalls in the past year. I'd say we just don't know yet.

 

[Alma]

This is a tough one, but this is their product. People don't give their product away in times of need. That's how they become known as businesses.

All they are doing is conditioning people (or at least continuing with people who have already been conditioned) to believe that if there's anything ***really*** important, you can get it for free.

I agree. You will not see your cable company deducting money from your bill for all the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC you might have watched. The papers at the gas stations around Boston won't be free, will they?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Well, because they know apples aren't oranges

 

[SnarkShark]

I really didn't have an opinion on this when I posted this, but the arguments for not taking down the paywall just make more sense.

 

[Versatile]

This is a tough one, but this is their product. People don't give their product away in times of need. That's how they become known as businesses.

All they are doing is conditioning people (or at least continuing with people who have already been conditioned) to believe that if there's anything ***really*** important, you can get it for free.

I agree. You will not see your cable company deducting money from your bill for all the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC you might have watched. The papers at the gas stations around Boston won't be free, will they?

Furthermore, this is the time when people will shell out for that credible local news source. The biggest thing for any subscription-based company is figuring out how to get the credit-card information the first time. People generally will stick with a product once they don't have to remember to pay for it. It's about getting them to buy it in the first place.

Giving away your product when it is at peak demand is a terrible business strategy.

 

[deskslave]

There is an element of civic responsibility at play, particularly with some of what the Globe was doing as far as setting up ways for people to contact each other, find places to stay, etc.

That being said, when a hurricane hits Florida, Publix doesn't give away water and Home Depot doesn't give away generators. And all those emergency responders are going to get paid for the hours they worked too.

 

[93Devil]

If a newspaper is a charity, then this is a good idea.

If a separate URL needs to be created for emergency information, then create that, or set up the front page with basic details. Have people pay to read more in depth information.

 

[JRoyal]

There is an element of civic responsibility at play, particularly with some of what the Globe was doing as far as setting up ways for people to contact each other, find places to stay, etc.

That being said, when a hurricane hits Florida, Publix doesn't give away water and Home Depot doesn't give away generators. And all those emergency responders are going to get paid for the hours they worked too.

I've seen plenty of businesses donate water and food and other items after tornadoes and other major disasters. If you think no businesses donated items from their stores after the Joplin tornado, for example, you didn't read much coverage of the Joplin tornado.

When their is a major disaster/event in a newspaper's circulation area, it is good, responsible business sense to make access free. Not doing so would simply drive potential readers to free sites for TV stations, drive a wedge between the paper and the community, and, most importantly, pretty much ignore every important tenet of journalism about serving the public.

Sometimes it's not about money. And sometimes that's good for business.

 

[FileNotFound]

On Sept. 11, 2001, the metropolitan newspaper for which I worked at the time did in fact give away the afternoon Extra edition we did.

 

[Captain Obvious]

There is an element of civic responsibility at play, particularly with some of what the Globe was doing as far as setting up ways for people to contact each other, find places to stay, etc.

That being said, when a hurricane hits Florida, Publix doesn't give away water and Home Depot doesn't give away generators. And all those emergency responders are going to get paid for the hours they worked too.

Some element of civic responsibility, as well as knowing the website will attract a whole bunch of eyeballs from around the world.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Good arguments on both sides here. I understand the civic responsibility angle. I understand the idea that you don't want to marginalize yourself by putting your content behind a paywall. I also understand the idea that you are conditioning people to expect news for free.

Here's an issue I have with it: By rescuing this particular story from behind the paywall, are you implying that this is the moral/ethical/right way to do things? That charging people for the news - your product - is somehow, if not reprehensible, at the very least low-rent?

I'm curious, because I don't remember: Did the WSJ and NYT take down the paywall for Newtown coverage?

 

[Versatile]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

I think this is probably the best solution.

 

[JRoyal]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

I think this is probably the best solution.

I could see doing something like this, but I think it would need to be a handful of stories -- the main news story, a separate page with lists of places stranded runners can stay, maybe one or two more with running updates on information in a feed like they had on their main page yesterday.

Then you can still limit access to photo galleries and videos and the rest of the content on your site that isn't bombing related.