Newspaper websites, can they be eliminated?

[Baron Scicluna]

Maybe if the advertising department sold Internet ads, there wouldn't be an issue.

Or is that just too hard?

I once had it explained to me this way:

there are endless Websites out there for a company to put its ad on, and the thus more options and mroe competition for a newspaper Website to compete for that ad. Therefore, the price to buy an online ad is very cheap and very tough for any individual Website to make a serious profit from.

Not to mention, website ads are generally cheaper than newspaper ads. The ad sales people don't get very big commisions if they sell web ads. They make their money selling the newspaper ads.

Can't say I blame them for wanting to sell the ads that pay more. They have to put food on the table too.

 

[BrianGriffin]

In a big town, a neighboring paper or a TV station would put the stuff up for free and take the pay-paper's audience.

In a small town, some enterprising person or group of people would start a blog and take the pay-paper's audience.

Even small towns have little weekly infotainment publications that could very easily expand into city council coverage.

I have many fears about the newspaper biz, but this is not among them.

I am afraid that more people are going to become oblivious to local news, yes. I know plenty of people who could not name the mayor of their town.

I am not at all worried that people who do give a **** are going to find satisfactory coverage elsewhere.

You should be.

I'm not saying the local bloggers will have the same standards that we embrace as professional journalists. They may be loud-mouth wingnuts.

Or in some cases, they may be pretty reasonable people who think, sometimes correctly, that the local paper is full of itself and shouldn't be so high-and-mighty when they're bringing 23-year-old kids who know nothing about the town to cover the City Council meetings. And then when you're charging while the other content is free -- oh geez.

I've been tempted to do it myself in my suburban town. But we have Patch, so there's no need.

We've got to get over ourselves, folks. Maybe you're the hottest thing in small local dailies. Bully for you. But a lot of people aren't. The fact that some J-school professor liked your anecdotal lede means jack-squat in the real world.

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have fantastic writers and fantastic journalists. (Obviously better than me, since I can't think of an adjective other than "fantastic.") They can get by with various forms of paywalls.

And small papers, particularly weeklies, might not need to invest much in a website. Maybe just put a well-designed blog out there so you can put out something here and there during the week -- just enough to attract a small following and get people talking about your publication. And then on the rare occasion that you have some wild story that attracts attention outside your town -- maybe a mob of wild pigs that gets loose in a Little League game or something like that -- you can post it so that people can share it in the vast world outside your circulation area.

And on that occasion, you'll be really glad you don't have a hard paywall. Or nothing.

The online world is hard. It really is. But it's reality. Denying it doesn't solve the problem.

I'd almost say that if you are going to use a paywall, you have to add content that is specifically designed to go behind the paywall and would target an audience that is willing to pay.

A lot of newspapers moving to paywalls don't do that.

My experience with paywall sites as a user? I read the Times but if I'm up against my limit, I'm likely to say "see ya next month, Times."

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

You should be.

What, do you think this is the first time I have seen someone argue the position you are taking?

Even the local indy websites generally held up as the best (Minnesota and San Diego) ... vastly inferior to the newspapers -- not even close.

My newspaper's website would suck, too, if the print staff were not providing it with tens of millions of dollars of content each year.

No one else is going to spend that kind of money covering local news.

 

[geddymurphy]

You should be.

What, do you think this is the first time I have seen someone argue the position you are taking?

Even the local indy websites generally held up as the best (Minnesota and San Diego) ... vastly inferior to the newspapers -- not even close.

My newspaper's website would suck, too, if the print staff were not providing it with tens of millions of dollars of content each year.

No one else is going to spend that kind of money covering local news.

Certainly not, though I'm not sure how many papers are spending tens of millions specifically on local news.

But this is asymetrical warfare we're talking about. Someone can start an indy site on the music scene and chip away at your entertainment coverage. (That's been happening in print for decades already -- now the cost of entry is lower.) Someone can cover your local college sports. Someone can do something specifically on the City Council. It adds up.

 

[Stitch]

E-editions that replicate the look of print are only good if you need a tear sheet. It's not how readers want to consume content.

 

[I Should Coco]

You should be.

What, do you think this is the first time I have seen someone argue the position you are taking?

Even the local indy websites generally held up as the best (Minnesota and San Diego) ... vastly inferior to the newspapers -- not even close.

My newspaper's website would suck, too, if the print staff were not providing it with tens of millions of dollars of content each year.

No one else is going to spend that kind of money covering local news.

Certainly not, though I'm not sure how many papers are spending tens of millions specifically on local news.

But this is asymetrical warfare we're talking about. Someone can start an indy site on the music scene and chip away at your entertainment coverage. (That's been happening in print for decades already -- now the cost of entry is lower.) Someone can cover your local college sports. Someone can do something specifically on the City Council. It adds up.

Geddy, you're making some great points. I've enjoyed quite a few indy music sites, and know someone who left newspapers to start one and has gone national with it.

But I agree with Frank that local bloggers -- even the best ones -- can't replace the thorough, reliably objective WATCHDOG function that local newspapers serve.

Too many of the online people who relentlessly cover school boards, city councils, cop shops (and there are a few) have an agenda or ax to grind. And that makes their web site or blog less reliable than the local paper's reporting, despite the cutbacks and hire-the-cheapest-option status of newsrooms.

 

[geddymurphy]

You should be.

What, do you think this is the first time I have seen someone argue the position you are taking?

Even the local indy websites generally held up as the best (Minnesota and San Diego) ... vastly inferior to the newspapers -- not even close.

My newspaper's website would suck, too, if the print staff were not providing it with tens of millions of dollars of content each year.

No one else is going to spend that kind of money covering local news.

Certainly not, though I'm not sure how many papers are spending tens of millions specifically on local news.

But this is asymetrical warfare we're talking about. Someone can start an indy site on the music scene and chip away at your entertainment coverage. (That's been happening in print for decades already -- now the cost of entry is lower.) Someone can cover your local college sports. Someone can do something specifically on the City Council. It adds up.

Geddy, you're making some great points. I've enjoyed quite a few indy music sites, and know someone who left newspapers to start one and has gone national with it.

But I agree with Frank that local bloggers -- even the best ones -- can't replace the thorough, reliably objective WATCHDOG function that local newspapers serve.

Too many of the online people who relentlessly cover school boards, city councils, cop shops (and there are a few) have an agenda or ax to grind. And that makes their web site or blog less reliable than the local paper's reporting, despite the cutbacks and hire-the-cheapest-option status of newsrooms.

Absolutely.

Now if only we could convince people to spend money on what's most reliable ...

 

[gregcrews]

Your website isn't just a tool to generate money, it's an advertisement for your product (the paper version).

About a year ago a big wildfire started in the town where I was then working. The highway was shut down, homes were evacuated. It was a big deal. So big that the sports editor (me) had to go cover real news. We ran updates all day long on our website and the paper's facebook page went crazy with people passing along information and commenting on our updates and photos.

The next day our single-copy sales went through the roof, as one might expect after a natural disaster. But in the following weeks and months our subscription numbers made a noticeable incline and our single-copy sales were stronger than expected. After relying on the newspaper to give them important information during the fire, people seemed to value the paper more.

It wouldn't have been possible if we didn't have a website and a facebook page.

All of those businesses that put ads in our papers have to spend money, time and effort to do so, but hopefully they see more business because of it. An online presence is the same thing for newspapers.

I'm not sure if there is a good way for newspapers to make money online, and I'm certainly not saying that 100 percent of you content should be online for free, but I think if your paper doesn't have a website it is doing itself and its community a huge disservice.

 

[lantaur]

Maybe if the advertising department sold Internet ads, there wouldn't be an issue.

Or is that just too hard?

I once had it explained to me this way:

there are endless Websites out there for a company to put its ad on, and the thus more options and mroe competition for a newspaper Website to compete for that ad. Therefore, the price to buy an online ad is very cheap and very tough for any individual Website to make a serious profit from.

Not to mention, website ads are generally cheaper than newspaper ads. The ad sales people don't get very big commisions if they sell web ads. They make their money selling the newspaper ads.

Can't say I blame them for wanting to sell the ads that pay more. They have to put food on the table too.

And it is the newspaper ad people who made those ads so cheap by devaluing them from the start ... hell, most of them just gave it away as an add-on to a print ad.

 

[Rawbot]

Your website isn't just a tool to generate money, it's an advertisement for your product (the paper version).

About a year ago a big wildfire started in the town where I was then working. The highway was shut down, homes were evacuated. It was a big deal. So big that the sports editor (me) had to go cover real news. We ran updates all day long on our website and the paper's facebook page went crazy with people passing along information and commenting on our updates and photos.

The next day our single-copy sales went through the roof, as one might expect after a natural disaster. But in the following weeks and months our subscription numbers made a noticeable incline and our single-copy sales were stronger than expected. After relying on the newspaper to give them important information during the fire, people seemed to value the paper more.

It wouldn't have been possible if we didn't have a website and a facebook page.

All of those businesses that put ads in our papers have to spend money, time and effort to do so, but hopefully they see more business because of it. An online presence is the same thing for newspapers.

I'm not sure if there is a good way for newspapers to make money online, and I'm certainly not saying that 100 percent of you content should be online for free, but I think if your paper doesn't have a website it is doing itself and its community a huge disservice.

Moral of the story: Start a fire in your town to boost sales.

 

[rpmmutant]

I wonder what would happen if newspapers made prep sports exclusive either in print or on the web. Make people pay for prep sports by subscribing, or have parents and coaches become accustomed to reading stories online and would pay for them. I would think if prep sports were solely online, people would just copy and paste them on to their own sites or facebook or in e-mails.

 

[geddymurphy]

I wonder what would happen if newspapers made prep sports exclusive either in print or on the web. Make people pay for prep sports by subscribing, or have parents and coaches become accustomed to reading stories online and would pay for them. I would think if prep sports were solely online, people would just copy and paste them on to their own sites or facebook or in e-mails.

You'd need to be ready to hear a lot of "Hey, my son is getting recruited by Farstate State! We need tons of stories about him online so they can read them!" complaints.

Granted, you may never be able to please those parents, anyway. And some prep stuff certainly could be subscription-worthy, akin to ESPN's "Insider" content.

 

[WriteThinking]

Does anyone know what the percentage is of, say, the overall ESPN online-content readers who are ESPN Insider subscribers?

Because my fear with most newspaper paywalls is that, well, readers won't care at all -- that there is almost nothing that people would pay for online anymore, and if we try to make them do it, they will, as another poster, just move on, or simply do without, and just get used to that.

This is not because there isn't anything worthy of being paid for. As we've contended, all of our work has value (to us, anyway), but I think there is a real disconnect for most people these days. They are unaware, unknowing, uninformed, and, for the most part, uncaring about that.

I don't know if ignorance really is bliss, but I doubt people will pay much, if anything, for anything we can offer anymore. The apathy and self-centeredness is just too strong and too rampant.

I can absolutely believe that most people in many cities in this country could not name their mayor, let alone any other higher-up politician representing them. If something doesn't impact people directly and immediately, to an extent that they can really see and/or feel, such as in the case of nearby natural disasters or national emergencies, then, as a rule, people tend to be overwhelmingly blase about it.

It's the state of affairs. People just don't truly care, about much of anything.

 

[TheHacker]

The underlying problem here goes beyond our industry's inability to turn the web into a revenue stream. Don't get me wrong -- I agree that's a huge problem. But there's something causing that, especially for smaller/community papers:

Most people don't give a rat's ass about local news.

Yeah, I know that can't be a blanket statement. I've read (and contributed many times) to the Dear Dimwit on the Phone thread. I know all about it. But I think it's easy for us to get fooled into thinking that the small, vocal minority speaks for the broader population. It doesn't. Read this and weep:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/role_newspapers

Seriously. Read. Weep. Because right there is the death of our industry. To wit:

On the surface, most people do not feel that their local newspaper is a key source that they rely on for local information. For instance, when asked, “If your local newspaper no longer existed, would that have a major impact, a minor impact, or no impact on your ability to keep up with information and news about your local community?” a large majority of Americans, 69%, believe the death of their local newspaper would have no impact (39%) or only a minor impact (30%) on their ability to get local information.

Younger adults, age 18-29, were especially unconcerned. Fully 75% say their ability to get local information would not be affected in a major way by the absence of their local paper. The same was true of heavier technology users: 74% of home broadband users say losing their paper would have no impact or only a minor impact on their ability to get local information.

Yeah, I know, it goes on to say that when people do go looking for local news, the newspaper is where they turn. But how many people are actually looking for that news? When it comes to that, I'm part of the problem. I admit it. There's a good, award-winning local weekly (and no local daily) that covers the town where I live, and it has real news in it. But in most weeks I don't read it, and I work in the business. I don't follow what my county council does, or the local school board.

I should care. But I don't. And that's the problem.

Where I work -- which is a community chain -- we recently took a look at the web traffic. It was dismal ... maybe 300-400 page views per story on average. Many stories were less than that. A lot of that may be due to the market. Plenty of population, but lots of transplants, so people aren't attached to the community. So they don't read. And there is no solution for that.

So, we can debate the strategies -- how to package things in print vs. online in order to maximize the readership. But it's all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't it? Nobody really has any answers.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had with the guy who was running the website at a paper I worked for in the late 1990s, right when lots of local/community papers started going online. In the newsroom, we were all concerned that we started giving our product away for free. Why were we doing that? And he kept telling me: "We have to be on the web ... we have to be on the web ... that's where the industry is going." He had no idea why. Or how it would work. We just followed like lemmings.

Little did I know I was hearing the demise of the industry in that conversation. Sorry to be such a downer, but that's the way I see it.

And now, on to the "Getting out of the business" thread.

 

[93Devil]

There are about 120,000 people in a county close to me. There are 24,000 students in this county, so there is a pretty big base that are interested in schools. Most of these people are taxed. A lot of them are concerned about crime in their area. Almost everyone wants to know who died. A portion also wants to know how the kid down the street did in the basketball game. Another number wants to chuckle at the funnies.

The older you are, the more interested you are in the local news because it effects you more.

There will always be a demand for local, accurate, news. It's just how much to charge and the way to deliver the information are the stumbling blocks.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I guess it depends where you are. We have an almost daily selection of especially bizarre violent crimes (that I believe we could and should do more with). We have really high property and income taxes and a lot of bitching about it. We have state, county and municipal governments that at least are perceived by locals as being extremely corrupt, and the politicians are especially nasty to each other. We have pro, major- and mid-major college sports and high school sports that are nationally prominent in at least a few areas. We have a better-than-average entertainment scene and a world-class one in the next state. We have some serious environmental concerns. A fair amount of internationally significant news related to medicine. A lot of land-use and eminent domain issues. High unemployment and pretty much weekly news about downsizing locally. A lot of transportation stories that affect many residents' daily lives. A fair amount of famous rich people who live and die here.

We also have a lot of morons who care about none of the above. There is no website that covers any of those topics better than we do, though. So it's not like they are leaving us for somewhere else, they are just leaving.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I guess it depends where you are. We have an almost daily selection of especially bizarre violent crimes (that I believe we could and should do more with). We have really high property and income taxes and a lot of bitching about it. We have state, county and municipal governments that at least are perceived by locals as being extremely corrupt, and the politicians are especially nasty to each other. We have pro, major- and mid-major college sports and high school sports that are nationally prominent in at least a few areas. We have a better-than-average entertainment scene and a world-class one in the next state. We have some serious environmental concerns. A fair amount of internationally significant news related to medicine. A lot of land-use and eminent domain issues. High unemployment and pretty much weekly news about downsizing locally. A lot of transportation stories that affect many residents' daily lives. A fair amount of famous rich people who live and die here.

We also have a lot of morons who care about none of the above. There is no website that covers any of those topics better than we do, though. So it's not like they are leaving us for somewhere else, they are just leaving.

This is my town too. High crime. Controversial issues surrounding development and growth management (if and where to build a new traffic loop, public schools breaking away to form independent school districts, etc.). Historically corrupt government.

The list goes on and on. Local news here is anything but boring. BUT a newspaper can make it boring by making the news a recount of what happened at the Tuesday drainage board meeting.

 

[Den1983]

I would never even consider getting rid of the website. If anything, I'd put up a paywall. People will huff and puff about it, but they'll pay, especially in small to medium communities. But it's my opinion, if done right, the online can be more precious than the print, without question.

Again, it's relative to the respective community. I'm talking in a broad perspective. But newspapers who are not putting money and resources into their website are on the fast track to nowhere, IMO.