Ditch all websites

[clutchcargo]

Just throwing this out there----what if all primarily print publications and broadcast media simply took down their websites completely? ALL newspapers, ESPN, SI, Fox, AP, everyone whose basis for existence preceeded the Internet in another form of content distribution. I think the overall loss of genuinely professional content would be staggering.

Google would lose a whole bunch of its news sources to steal and cobble. Ditto for dozens of other virtual-existence entities. Free-loading bloggers would REALLY be on their own researching and generating content.

Print, especially, would then go back to focusing on delivering content that people simply can't get anywhere else. If the 20/30-something stoned slacker generation still won't buy our print products, then we'll do like what TSN does daily and send them an electronic version of our products via email and a monthly fee. If they still don't bite, then, hey, they don't care about getitng information, period, and let them play their online socialing-site crap all day and speed up the braincell-killing process all they want.

Just go cold turkey and see how the market works itself out over the next year.

 

[ETN814]

If there was a fee for the PDF version, all that would happen is that someone would buy it and distribute it like they do with music.

 

[goalmouth]

This is a bit what Cuban suggested, sites barring Google search bots. It's not difficult. Unfortunately, classifieds, movies and much other advertising that pays for newspaper production has found a permanent home online, so you'd have to fix that. Or, as one of my first editors said as I argued over a word on deadline, "Stop. It's all just filler between the ads."

 

[Stitch]

Just throwing this out there----what if all primarily print publications and broadcast media simply took down their websites completely? ALL newspapers, ESPN, SI, Fox, AP, everyone whose basis for existence preceeded the Internet in another form of content distribution. I think the overall loss of genuinely professional content would be staggering.

Google would lose a whole bunch of its news sources to steal and cobble. Ditto for dozens of other virtual-existence entities. Free-loading bloggers would REALLY be on their own researching and generating content.

Print, especially, would then go back to focusing on delivering content that people simply can't get anywhere else. If the 20/30-something stoned slacker generation still won't buy our print products, then we'll do like what TSN does daily and send them an electronic version of our products via email and a monthly fee. If they still don't bite, then, hey, they don't care about getitng information, period, and let them play their online socialing-site crap all day and speed up the braincell-killing process all they want.

Just go cold turkey and see how the market works itself out over the next year.

There wouldn't be a rush of new print subscriptions. There will be at least one major outlet that will put out news for free on the Web. With one, there's an urge to join in to get some of that ad money.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

The people in charge are generally deathly afraid of appearing to be old, so the last impression they would want to give is that they are heading back to the cave to paint on a wall. It is safer for them to declare: In Twitter We Trust! They would sooner give up their Hair Club For Men than pull the plug on anything "new media."

 

[NoOneYouKnow]

While you're at it, why don't we just turn out the lights and forget about the invention of electricity? This has to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Newspapers need to buck up or get out the kitchen completely. Stop trying to blame tech-savy companies for newspapers' problems.

 

[Boom_70]

While you're at it, why don't we just turn out the lights and forget about the invention of electricity? This has to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Newspapers need to buck up or get out the kitchen completely. Stop trying to blame tech-savy companies for newspapers' problems.

That would certainly help global warming.

We could also stop selling gas. Then everyone would have to buy electric car.

 

[RickStain]

Organizations that have profitable web sites should keep them. But a lot of papers don't make anything on their sites vs. what they put into them.

 

[SF_Express]

Unless every single web content entity in a single niche (like sports) did it -- and they won't -- this idea is DOA. Sorry, CC.

Actually, let me take it a step further. Say all the "whose basis for existence preceded the Internet" sites did this.

Thank you, says CBSSports.com (despite its CBS affiliation, started on the web, with no print or TV ancestry). Thank you, says 100s of niche websites with no print or TV basis.

Thank you, says Yahoo! Sports.

Etc.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

ProFootballTalk screeches to a halt if that happened. It would be all podcasts.

If the host cell isn't providing the yummy goodness then the parasite is going to have to feed somewhere else.

Or dies.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

If the host cell isn't providing the yummy goodness then the parasite is going to have to feed somewhere else.

Or dies.

Bingo.

Which is why pay walls are a must.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Yes . . . . This will save traditional media!

THAT was the equation!! SURVIVAL!!!!!

 

[clutchcargo]

Yes . . . . This will save traditional media!

THAT was the equation!! SURVIVAL!!!!!

lol. Ted Cassidy puts the pinch on Bill Shatner.

 

[Fredrick]

The people in charge are generally deathly afraid of appearing to be old, so the last impression they would want to give is that they are heading back to the cave to paint on a wall. It is safer for them to declare: In Twitter We Trust! They would sooner give up their Hair Club For Men than pull the plug on anything "new media."

One of my favorite posts of the last 2 years.
In Twitter We Trust ... priceless.

Really I would give up my job today if I knew all newspapers would fail tomorrow. I'm that sick of the morons who run this business. But I want them to be out of jobs, as well.

 

[flexmaster33]

An interesting theory, but it's pretty much impossible to get everyone on board with that. You'd have a 50-50 split at best and that would defeat the purpose.

I agree there needs to be some way of charging for online information, but changing public perception 20 years into free sites is a big mountain to climb. Most of your average readers don't understand why they should have to pay a minimal amount to get reliable information.

 

[CUinthenewsroom]

Wow. Ditch the Interwebs. Brilliant idea.

Honestly, if newspaper folk weren't so darn afraid of the Internet and, you know, embraced it there could be some good things to come from it.

Instead of ditching sites, here is a novel idea: Make them more than just a free port of the print product. We scoop ourselves but why? Because no one running this industry has realized that the online product and the print product should be distinct. We just post our stories online before they run in the print edition.

 

[Fredrick]

Honestly, if newspaper folk weren't so darn afraid of the Internet and, you know, embraced it there could be some good things to come from it.

Get over yourself. Newspaper folk aren't afraid of the Internet. Newspaper folk are way too into the internet. Newspapers have embraced the internet. That's the problem.
I talked to somebody who said his newspaper is kicking ****ing ass. That paper never changed its commitment to SELLING ADS. They are selling ads and doing great.
Everybody else has given up. Yes his website charges money. Nothing is free.

 

[CUinthenewsroom]

Honestly, if newspaper folk weren't so darn afraid of the Internet and, you know, embraced it there could be some good things to come from it.

Get over yourself. Newspaper folk aren't afraid of the Internet. Newspaper folk are way too into the internet. Newspapers have embraced the internet. That's the problem.
I talked to somebody who said his newspaper is kicking ****ing ass. That paper never changed its commitment to SELLING ADS. They are selling ads and doing great.
Everybody else has given up. Yes his website charges money. Nothing is free.

Are you serious? Newspapers have embraced the Internet? No, they haven't. Posting print stories online isn't embracing the Internet. The Internet is all about speed and interactivity. Check out most newspaper sites - they are stagnant most of the day and are basically just a rehash of the print product (although, usually put up before the paper is out ...). Doing one or two blogs and a chat or two isn't embracing the Internet.

As I said if news organizations were smart they'd have two very different products: breaking news and interactive elements online and then detailed, in-depth analysis in the print edition. You can go after two unique audiences from the same newsroom.

The Interwebs aren't a fad. Ignoring them won't make the problem go away.

 

[RickStain]

Are you serious? Newspapers have embraced the Internet? No, they haven't. Posting print stories online isn't embracing the Internet. The Internet is all about speed and interactivity. Check out most newspaper sites - they are stagnant most of the day and are basically just a rehash of the print product (although, usually put up before the paper is out ...). Doing one or two blogs and a chat or two isn't embracing the Internet.

As I said if news organizations were smart they'd have two very different products: breaking news and interactive elements online and then detailed, in-depth analysis in the print edition. You can go after two unique audiences from the same newsroom.

The Interwebs aren't a fad. Ignoring them won't make the problem go away.

Newspapers have done nothing but fall all over themselves to embrace every single web fad that goes around to appease people like you, who want to ignore the fact that there's no money in it.

 

[CUinthenewsroom]

Are you serious? Newspapers have embraced the Internet? No, they haven't. Posting print stories online isn't embracing the Internet. The Internet is all about speed and interactivity. Check out most newspaper sites - they are stagnant most of the day and are basically just a rehash of the print product (although, usually put up before the paper is out ...). Doing one or two blogs and a chat or two isn't embracing the Internet.

As I said if news organizations were smart they'd have two very different products: breaking news and interactive elements online and then detailed, in-depth analysis in the print edition. You can go after two unique audiences from the same newsroom.

The Interwebs aren't a fad. Ignoring them won't make the problem go away.

Newspapers have done nothing but fall all over themselves to embrace every single web fad that goes around to appease people like you, who want to ignore the fact that there's no money in it.

There is no money in it because the content is the EXACT same as the print product, just free.

Will the Internet ever make as much money as the print product? No. But that doesn't mean it needs to be ignored and that it can't, at some point, make enough money to turn a profit.