Mass. daily becomes first to charge

[bob]

http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1107767997/New-Bedford-Standard-Times-to-charge-for-online-site

As one commenter said about the New Bedford Standard Times pay-to-read strategy: "Good luck with that."

 

[BRoth]

Is it me or has GateHouse typically been more proactive with their papers in Massachusetts on things like this? I know that they did a lot of cleaning house at some of those papers a year or two ago and cut budgets for freelancing and staff coverage. I would assume this is a test for their other shops.

 

[crimsonace]

Many of the smaller dailies in Central Indiana have gone subscriber-only. I know all of the ones in my old chain have been for years.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Is it me or has GateHouse typically been more proactive with their papers in Massachusetts on things like this? I know that they did a lot of cleaning house at some of those papers a year or two ago and cut budgets for freelancing and staff coverage. I would assume this is a test for their other shops.

The Ledger, where this story appeared, is a Gatehouse paper. The Standard Times, which is the one charging, is not.

 

[BillyT]

The Westerly (RI) Sun has been doing this for a while, I believe.

 

[Den1983]

My paper, too, has been doing this for awhile.

 

[golfnut8924]

I'm surprised that this is not more common. I still have yet to get a satisfactory answer about why papers don't charge for online.

 

[Gator]

For small community-driven dailies, this will become the norm.

And I'm with you GN. Why would you give your product away? And why are people (especially those in this industry) so against paying for content? If you want to see your paper continue to sink with nothing but online advertising revenue coming in, fine. Enjoy unemployment.

I'm not saying that charging for online content is going to put everyone in the penthouse, but it's something.

 

[Fredrick]

All these people in small communities who are addicted to local coverage of their teams would pay .25 or more to read a story on the teams they love. If you are a Packer fan, you will pay to read local takes on the Packers.
There should be a system where if you read a story, it costs you a quarter. You pay through paypal or something to where you click, you pay.
That would add up.
If people don't want to read the stories, fine. Giving them away for free cheapens the product.

People should also be charged a dime to post an anonymous comment. It should be free if the person puts his/her real name, verified through a credit card.

Of course, people will find ways to share content and not pay.
I'm not real high on readers these days.

 

[golfnut8924]

The only halfway feasible argument I've been able to come up with for giving it away is this ....

If you charge people to view the website, it decreases the value of the ads. If it's free to visit the site, the ads are valued much higher.

Example: If you have 1,000 subscribers, any ads on there can only reach 1,000 people, therefore the ads are not worth as much. But if it's a free site, than in theory, your ads can reach anyone with a computer. So the newspaper can charge more for ads if it's a free site because they are worth more.

So the newspaper figures they will make more money off of the higher ad prices than they will off of subscription sales. That part is debatable.

In terms of national news, people don't need to pay because they can go to any national news site and get it for free. But if they want to read about the local football team or read about last night's school board meeting, your website is their only option. Therefore, they either pay to read about it or they don't read it at all.

So maybe the answer is giving away the national news for free and thereby selling ads at the higher "unlimited viewer" rate. Then charge for reading the local section and sell those ads at a lower "limited viewer" rate.

Just one guy's idea.

For those of you who posted above about newspapers that have been charging for a while now, has it been successful?

 

[Ice9]

The Daily Hampshire Gazette (Northampton) and The Gardner News (Gardner) charge, have been for quite a while, and they're six days a week. So yeah, technically New Bedford's the first daily in Mass. to do so.

 

[sgreenwell]

The Westerly (RI) Sun has been doing this for a while, I believe.

Somewhat. Two or three months ago, we switched around the priorities a bit; in the past, the most important stories of the day would normally be free on the web. Now, it's generally an important story, a feature, and the rest behind a pay wall. Sports has always been 50/50 free and pay, I believe.

The Newport Daily News (RI) went behind a really restrictive pay well in the summer; the publisher was interviewed by AJR about it. They charge more for the online paper than the print edition.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

The big boys can't charge unless they all agree to start to charge at the same exact moment. Otherwise, readers will just find other sources.

The little guys? They're trying to charge, but how long will that last?

With local news, some busybody can start a blog and cover city council meetings and local football. Then that person will likely find other locals who want to see "The TRUTH!!!!" printed, and thus begins a network of "correspondents" who find the time to produce a local rag online for nothing.

RIP, local daily.

 

[Fredrick]

With local news, some busybody can start a blog and cover city council meetings and local football. Then that person will likely find other locals who want to see "The TRUTH!!!!" printed, and thus begins a network of "correspondents" who find the time to produce a local rag online for nothing.

RIP, local daily.

Not if newspapers believed in their print product, beefed up the ad staffs and added pages instead of cutting them. The problem is newspapers have abandoned their print product and have given away their product for free on the web, cheapening that product. Yes, RIP, but it is ONLY because of the cheapening and abandoning of the actual print newspaper.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

With local news, some busybody can start a blog and cover city council meetings and local football. Then that person will likely find other locals who want to see "The TRUTH!!!!" printed, and thus begins a network of "correspondents" who find the time to produce a local rag online for nothing.

RIP, local daily.

Not if newspapers believed in their print product, beefed up the ad staffs and added pages instead of cutting them. The problem is newspapers have abandoned their print product and have given away their product for free on the web, cheapening that product. Yes, RIP, but it is ONLY because of the cheapening and abandoning of the actual print newspaper.

You're assuming readers as a whole care about the difference between what we would call "good journalism!", and the locals getting together to produce "Unbiased coverage!!!"

In these Podunk areas, local dude with a Mac and a digital camera can match what the local paper does. Add in a couple of other enthusiasts, and we're replaced. To them, what we do is pretty easy.

 

[Gator]

With local news, some busybody can start a blog and cover city council meetings and local football. Then that person will likely find other locals who want to see "The TRUTH!!!!" printed, and thus begins a network of "correspondents" who find the time to produce a local rag online for nothing.

RIP, local daily.

Not if newspapers believed in their print product, beefed up the ad staffs and added pages instead of cutting them. The problem is newspapers have abandoned their print product and have given away their product for free on the web, cheapening that product. Yes, RIP, but it is ONLY because of the cheapening and abandoning of the actual print newspaper.

You're assuming readers as a whole care about the difference between what we would call "good journalism!", and the locals getting together to produce "Unbiased coverage!!!"

In these Podunk areas, local dude with a Mac and a digital camera can match what the local paper does. Add in a couple of other enthusiasts, and we're replaced. To them, what we do is pretty easy.

From a sports perspective, that wouldn't work with a small local paper. I know that I get e-mails telling me that people still love making scrap books and whatnot. Try making a scrapbook from a crappy blog with fuzzy handheld video or a ****ty 250-word writeup that likely spells 3/4 of the names wrong.

Personally, I think the local paper and the community need each other. I don't see smaller papers being fazed out for a long, long time. I can't say that I have all the answers, but I'm glad that pay walls are starting to go up. You can't give away your product and expect to stay afloat.

 

[TrooperBari]

You're assuming readers as a whole care about the difference between what we would call "good journalism!", and the locals getting together to produce "Unbiased coverage!!!"

In these Podunk areas, local dude with a Mac and a digital camera can match what the local paper does. Add in a couple of other enthusiasts, and we're replaced. To them, what we do is pretty easy.

Match them a few nights a week? Probably. Match them each and every day, including subjects which may not interest said Local Dude as much or take place at inconvenient hours? I'm not so sure.

They think they know, but they don't know.

 

[RickStain]

Match them a few nights a week? Probably. Match them each and every day, including subjects which may not interest said Local Dude as much or take place at inconvenient hours? I'm not so sure.

They think they know, but they don't know.

Exactly. At the tiny papers, we aren't doing anything special. But we're doing stuff no one else feels like doing.