Boston Globe drops paywall for Marathon coverage

[JRoyal]

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 think by taking it from behind the paywall, all your saying is that when a tragedy strikes, it's more important for you as a newspaper to be part of the community than to make money off the tragedy. Like I said before, there are lots of businesses that donate products or services to charity groups during disasters and other community-rocking events. For newspapers, this is a way to do that. Just because a store donates water to the Red Cross after a flood or hurricane, no one thinks that store is low-rent for charging for it later.

 

[Alma]

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 agree.

Look, I'm not trying to be heartless here. What the Globe did is a kind thing, I suppose. But there's nothing wrong with intrinsically recognizing your own value and trusting others won't. The Boston cops working overtime in their aftermath -- will get their overtime. The Globe has many hard-working professionals doing good work on this story.

 

[Versatile]

Also, why should your Red Sox-Rays coverage be free because there was an unrelated incident in another part of town? Why should a feature about one of the victims be free? Why should exclusive video be free?

Give the people what they need. I can understand that level of compassion. But giving away the cow on the day when you can most easily sell it is a poor strategy, the type that brought us here.

 

[93Devil]

Or, write 100 words or 200 words with the basic facts and link inside to the information and photos that cost money.

 

[93Devil]

Also, why should your Red Sox-Rays coverage be free because there was an unrelated incident in another part of town? Why should a feature about one of the victims be free? Why should exclusive video be free?

Give the people what they need. I can understand that level of compassion. But giving away the cow on the day when you can most easily sell it is a poor strategy, the type that brought us here.

I agree.

 

[Captain Obvious]

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 think by taking it from behind the paywall, all your saying is that when a tragedy strikes, it's more important for you as a newspaper to be part of the community than to make money off the tragedy. Like I said before, there are lots of businesses that donate products or services to charity groups during disasters and other community-rocking events. For newspapers, this is a way to do that. Just because a store donates water to the Red Cross after a flood or hurricane, no one thinks that store is low-rent for charging for it later.

I don't think the Globe was ad-free yesterday afternoon.

 

[JRoyal]

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 think by taking it from behind the paywall, all your saying is that when a tragedy strikes, it's more important for you as a newspaper to be part of the community than to make money off the tragedy. Like I said before, there are lots of businesses that donate products or services to charity groups during disasters and other community-rocking events. For newspapers, this is a way to do that. Just because a store donates water to the Red Cross after a flood or hurricane, no one thinks that store is low-rent for charging for it later.

I don't think the Globe was ad-free yesterday afternoon.

Totally unrelated and you know it.

 

[playthrough]

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.

Ditto. I read the lead today and then clicked through all the photo galleries and probably a half-dozen more stories. But if they had given me the lead for free and then a button to click to see everything else for 50 cents or a buck, I would have pulled out the debit card. Honest. I had my breakfast and for a few minutes was a captive audience.

Like others say, you simply have to train people to pay for this stuff. I still think it can be done, if the quality journalism is there. The Globe right now definitely qualifies.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Not too many people outside of Boston will plunk down money to read stories they can get elsewhere. Dropping the paywall for something this big allows the Globe to at least try to earn ad revenue from page views from outside the region, and from readers around the world.

 

[playthrough]

Not too many people outside of Boston will plunk down money to read stories they can get elsewhere. Dropping the paywall for something this big allows the Globe to at least try to earn ad revenue from page views from outside the region, and from readers around the world.

I'm no ad expert, but the page view revenue can't be that significant -- plus if there are local ads, who cares if I see them in Florida?

As for some of their coverage today, can that be found elsewhere? Maybe some but probably not all. If given the choice at the moment I was interested in reading to pay a quarter or go surfing elsewhere, I still think I'd have dropped the coin. Sooner or later, at the time when the chance to make money is greatest (and, sadly, times like this qualify), papers are going to have to simply resist the temptation to give it away.

 

[Versatile]

Website ad revenue on breaking news, when the specific contracts for maximum exposure can't be drawn up in advance, is rather minimal, unfortunately.

 

[deskslave]

One of the ancillary benefits of paywalls is that you get more of a record of who's reading the website and can sell that specificity to advertisers. Local advertisers in Boston couldn't care less who's seeing their ad anywhere else.

Also, it still baffles me that anyone uses the Internet in such a way as to actually see advertising.

 

[JRoyal]

Not too many people outside of Boston will plunk down money to read stories they can get elsewhere. Dropping the paywall for something this big allows the Globe to at least try to earn ad revenue from page views from outside the region, and from readers around the world.

I'm no ad expert, but the page view revenue can't be that significant -- plus if there are local ads, who cares if I see them in Florida?

As for some of their coverage today, can that be found elsewhere? Maybe some but probably not all. If given the choice at the moment I was interested in reading to pay a quarter or go surfing elsewhere, I still think I'd have dropped the coin. Sooner or later, at the time when the chance to make money is greatest (and, sadly, times like this qualify), papers are going to have to simply resist the temptation to give it away.

I don't think the price would be the deterrent in some ways if it's a small cost like that. It's the hassle of going to get your wallet if you don't have it on you, getting out your card, putting in all the information. If it's linked to some kind of online wallet system or PayPal or something, it could be a much easier process. Otherwise, it could be a headache that a lot of people would skip.

And if it requires a full subscription to the site for a month, then most people wouldn't pay it.

 

[playthrough]

Not too many people outside of Boston will plunk down money to read stories they can get elsewhere. Dropping the paywall for something this big allows the Globe to at least try to earn ad revenue from page views from outside the region, and from readers around the world.

I'm no ad expert, but the page view revenue can't be that significant -- plus if there are local ads, who cares if I see them in Florida?

As for some of their coverage today, can that be found elsewhere? Maybe some but probably not all. If given the choice at the moment I was interested in reading to pay a quarter or go surfing elsewhere, I still think I'd have dropped the coin. Sooner or later, at the time when the chance to make money is greatest (and, sadly, times like this qualify), papers are going to have to simply resist the temptation to give it away.

I don't think the price would be the deterrent in some ways if it's a small cost like that. It's the hassle of going to get your wallet if you don't have it on you, getting out your card, putting in all the information. If it's linked to some kind of online wallet system or PayPal or something, it could be a much easier process. Otherwise, it could be a headache that a lot of people would skip.

And if it requires a full subscription to the site for a month, then most people wouldn't pay it.

Clearly they'd want to have some kind of PayPal/easy pay setup and various pay structures (24-hour access, a week, a month, X number of stories, whatever). I just don't know why this stuff is like rocket science for some news organizations.

 

[Fredrick]

This just shows how the higher-ups don't know what they are doing. So there's a huge story and now it's free? Stupid. I know they are probably "selling" their actions as doing the community a service, but it shouldn't be free just because it's a big story. It just shouldn't. In free enterprise America of old, this might have SOLD SOME ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS. Newspaper higher-ups you failed on this one.

 

[Riptide]

Hurricane and disaster info, free.
True crime in the streets, pay the man.

 

[Fredrick]

Hurricane and disaster info, free.
True crime in the streets, pay the man.

How come stores don't give away free batteries during hurricanes? Or free flashlights. Or free food? The newspaper business lost its way long ago.

 

[Riptide]

Hurricane and disaster info, free.
True crime in the streets, pay the man.

How come stores don't give away free batteries during hurricanes? Or free flashlights. Or free food? The newspaper business lost its way long ago.

After a hurricane, survival information is vital.
You gonna shake down people in the streets? Sometimes they have nothing.

 

[Fredrick]

Hurricane and disaster info, free.
True crime in the streets, pay the man.

How come stores don't give away free batteries during hurricanes? Or free flashlights. Or free food? The newspaper business lost its way long ago.

After a hurricane, survival information is vital.
You gonna shake down people in the streets? Sometimes they have nothing.

Sorry I think I misunderstood. You are all for making people pay for this crime stuff regarding the marathon. I can see your point about a natural disaster. I still sort of disagree but I can see your point.

 

[BillyT]

I see it as a valid community service and an important one.

Especially for the Globe, because people in Boston do depend on it, and see this as a "We are here for you" gesture.

(I subscribe anyway).