Newspapers: A Day Late And MANY $$$ Short

[DanOregon]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.bbd53bd17a5713678ea8bea533d92910.2a01&show_article=1

These are the great minds leading the industry? Would have been more impressed if this realization came in say, 1998?

 

[Starman]

Lean Dean at the forefront of the "squeeze more blood out of the corpse" brigade. Imagine my surprise.

 

[anonymousprick]

So what if google and yahoo come to the opposite conclusion and decide newspapers should pay them to have their content show up in their search engines, considering how much newspaper website traffic is directed through them? I'm not sure this is a battle newspaper editors would be wise to pick.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

I don't understand why this is so tough to solve.

Step 1. Newspapers stop posting everything to the net for free.

Step 2. Newspapers only post the first three paragraphs to the net for free.

Step 3. Google links to only the first three graphs that are available for free, therefore "driving that coveted traffic (and ad dollars?) to the newspaper website."

Step 4. Reader either a) clicks on story directly from newspaper site or b) clicks on link on google and then is told he/she must "pay more to read the whole story."

Step 5. Reader either pays up a) for a micropayment to read that ONE story in its entirety or b) once for an entire online subscription/access for the year.

We all live and work happily ever after.

 

[RickStain]

I don't understand why this is so tough to solve.

Step 1. Newspapers stop posting everything to the net for free.

Step 2. Newspapers only post the first three paragraphs to the net for free.

Step 3. Google links to only the first three graphs that are available for free, therefore "driving that coveted traffic (and ad dollars?) to the newspaper website."

Step 4. Reader either a) clicks on story directly from newspaper site or b) clicks on link on google and then is told he/she must "pay more to read the whole story."

Step 5. Reader either pays up a) for a micropayment to read that ONE story in its entirety or b) once for an entire online subscription/access for the year.

We all live and work happily ever after.

What happens when not enough readers subscribe/micropay to make up for the collapse of print revenue?

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

I don't understand why this is so tough to solve.

Step 1. Newspapers stop posting everything to the net for free.

Step 2. Newspapers only post the first three paragraphs to the net for free.

Step 3. Google links to only the first three graphs that are available for free, therefore "driving that coveted traffic (and ad dollars?) to the newspaper website."

Step 4. Reader either a) clicks on story directly from newspaper site or b) clicks on link on google and then is told he/she must "pay more to read the whole story."

Step 5. Reader either pays up a) for a micropayment to read that ONE story in its entirety or b) once for an entire online subscription/access for the year.

We all live and work happily ever after.

What happens when not enough readers subscribe/micropay to make up for the collapse of print revenue?

Isn't that already happening? And if it is, what's to lose? Zero from zero is zero.

 

[DanOregon]

I really think this is a moot point - if newspapers could make money off the increased page views that come with a story linked by Google or Drudge, I don't think they make an argument.

 

[Joe Williams]

I don't understand why this is so tough to solve.

Step 1. Newspapers stop posting everything to the net for free.

Step 2. Newspapers only post the first three paragraphs to the net for free.

Step 3. Google links to only the first three graphs that are available for free, therefore "driving that coveted traffic (and ad dollars?) to the newspaper website."

Step 4. Reader either a) clicks on story directly from newspaper site or b) clicks on link on google and then is told he/she must "pay more to read the whole story."

Step 5. Reader either pays up a) for a micropayment to read that ONE story in its entirety or b) once for an entire online subscription/access for the year.

We all live and work happily ever after.

What happens when not enough readers subscribe/micropay to make up for the collapse of print revenue?

Isn't that already happening? And if it is, what's to lose? Zero from zero is zero.

That's it. It is worth the try because it's just about the only thing to try that we haven't.

 

[MileHigh]

At some point, someone will make a legitimate shot at making it work online only. And I'm not talking about the Seattle PI. Have a legitimate-sized staff covering everything you normally would. But get rid of the massive costs of printing and delivering the paper. And, yes, go to a pay system for it.

 

[txsportsscribe]

At some point, someone will make a legitimate shot at making it work online only. And I'm not talking about the Seattle PI. Have a legitimate-sized staff covering everything you normally would. But get rid of the massive costs of printing and delivering the paper. And, yes, go to a pay system for it.

how are things looking for the rmn staff web venture?

 

[tapintoamerica]

Another issue comes from Web sites that cut and paste (i.e. steal) stories from the AP and from newspapers.