Putting articles just in print at first

[Johnny Dangerously]

I'm not a print-only guy, but I know I'm in the minority -- at least in the groups in which I've had the discussion -- on my approach and philosophy of having some web-only, some print-only, and cross-promoting.

But I don't pretend what can work for one paper necessarily works for all papers, something I think we can all agree upon.

 

[BrianGriffin]

If you go print only, you risk being seen as behind-the-times by both readers and advertisers. Readers aren't suddenly going to flock back to print.

I disagree to some extent. Special sections that are read like magazines are great for print-first. Think of your football section. If it's like ours, it's picked up in August and sits around homes probably until spring cleaning when they realize they don't need it any more. One should strongly encourage that behavior. If they look through what they want online, they'll be less likely to go pick up a copy.

Of course, I can think of at least one former shop that went so far out of its way to make its print product completely irrelevant to its readers, you would be right in speaking to their specific case.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Brian, he said print-only. You're saying print-first. Two different things, no?

 

[BrianGriffin]

Brian, he said print-only. You're saying print-first. Two different things, no?

Absolutely, print-only is probably never a good thing, in my humble opinion. Your work should ultimately become accessible through whatever the mainstream way of accessing information may be.

EDIT: Well, I should never say never. I'm sure there are some cases where print-only would work. I can't think of any off hand.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

If you go print only, you risk being seen as behind-the-times by both readers and advertisers. Readers aren't suddenly going to flock back to print.

Who's talking print-only?

 

[Stitch]

If you go print only, you risk being seen as behind-the-times by both readers and advertisers. Readers aren't suddenly going to flock back to print.

Who's talking print-only?

Some papers do print-first and other do print-only. Either way, are there hard numbers on how the strategy is increasing print sales?

 

[FileNotFound]

Are people who watch network TV moochers or freeloaders? Just curious.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Are people who watch network TV moochers or freeloaders? Just curious.

Apples v. oranges.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I love free apples. I usually have to pay for oranges.

 

[Stitch]

Are people who watch network TV moochers or freeloaders? Just curious.

Apples v. oranges.

No, it isn't.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Mangos and bananas are the way to go.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Are people who watch network TV moochers or freeloaders? Just curious.

Apples v. oranges.

No, it isn't.

Sure it is.
What consumer pays for network TV program, while others get it free? With network TV it's free to anyone with a TV and antenna.
Network TV and radio programming has always been free to consumers.
To my knowledge that is not/nor has it ever been the case with the daily newspapers. Subscribers pay for the content that folks with a computer can get for free.

So you have some groups (subscribers) paying for services that can just as easily be obtained free.

And TV/radio vs. newspapers is a different medium; audio and video vs. print.
Even watching programs (video) on the Internet, say TNT.com or the local news, you have to watch an advertisements before and sometimes during your program.
Then there is the programming itself ... shows are now revamping their ad approach as companies are going back to the old, old ways by paying for product placement and sponsoring shows and events.
The same is true with radio.
It is still pretty easy to avoid newspaper ads. Are we going to start incorporating product placement in stories with the Wal-Mart Fact Box ... Sani-Clean subhead?



I'll also argue newspapers aren't losing subscribers to the internet. They simply aren't attracting new customers. Subscribers (older people who grew up with the paper as a staple) are dying and the younger generation knows it doesn't need such an outmoded form of information.
The new generation has no incentive to subscribe to newspapers. Not when everything is free on the internet.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Are people who watch network TV moochers or freeloaders? Just curious.

Apples v. oranges.

No, it isn't.

Sure it is.
What consumer pays for network TV program, while others get it free? With network TV it's free to anyone with a TV and antenna.
Network TV and radio programming has always been free to consumers.
To my knowledge that is not/nor has it ever been the case with the daily newspapers. Subscribers pay for the content that folks with a computer can get for free.

So you have some groups (subscribers) paying for services that can just as easily be obtained free.

And TV/radio vs. newspapers is a different medium; audio and video vs. print.
Even watching programs (video) on the Internet, say TNT.com or the local news, you have to watch an advertisements before and sometimes during your program.
Then there is the programming itself ... shows are now revamping their ad approach as companies are going back to the old, old ways by paying for product placement and sponsoring shows and events.
The same is true with radio.
It is still pretty easy to avoid newspaper ads. Are we going to start incorporating product placement in stories with the Wal-Mart Fact Box ... Sani-Clean subhead?



I'll also argue newspapers aren't losing subscribers to the internet. They simply aren't attracting new customers. Subscribers (older people who grew up with the paper as a staple) are dying and the younger generation knows it doesn't need such an outmoded form of information.
The new generation has no incentive to subscribe to newspapers. Not when everything is free on the internet.

It's not just that it's free on the internet. It's convenient to a different way of life. The morning coffee is now going to be sipped while looking at a laptop or a tablet, sifting through Facebook, email, etc. It makes sense to bring your message where the audience is instead of telling the audience to look at something else.

You aren't going to get many 26-year-olds to log off and pick up paper-and-ink because you're asking them to log off several applications, each one representing something they potentially don't want to disconnect from. Right now, while working, I have tabs on my laptop open for Facebook, SJ, two work applications, my newspaper website, NYT, Craigslist, ESPN, AP Exchange and Twitter. To get me to stop looking at the computer and to look at a paper product instead, I have to be convinced that I don't want to have any of those tabs in front of me right now. It can happen, but each tab/app you use lessens that chance that much more.

 

[FileNotFound]

You aren't going to get many 26-year-olds to log off and pick up paper-and-ink because you're asking them to log off several applications, each one representing something they potentially don't want to disconnect from.

Won't get this 43-year-old to do so, either. Not unless there's something *really* compelling in that print product that I can't get online. Has nothing to do with "free," has everything to do with availability.

Until the printed newspaper establishes itself as a premium product with information I can't get anywhere else -- stories and photos executed in a way that's clearly better than anything I can get elsewhere -- I don't need it. And notebooks and agate aren't the thing I'm looking for. I'm looking for good writing, analysis, high-quality photography.

Here's the thing -- the routine **** is going to be online, whether it's behind the newspaper's paywall or not. I can get the SID notes from the day's football practice from the university's web site. I can get the minutes from the water-district meeting from the water district's web site. Hell, I can get some gadfly's analysis of the water-district meeting from his BLOG, if I'm so inclined. I can get the standings and boxes from mlb.com. I can get my neighborhood news from the old lady who periodically sends out an e-mail. I can get a pretty good rundown of downtown happenings from this financial adviser who Tweets all day and evening and mails out a weekly newsletter. "But those people aren't trained journalists," comes the protest. So? The information is there, and it's credible, and it fills my need for information.

What the neighborhood gadfly isn't giving me is stories like The Girl in the Window from The St. Petersburg Times. MLB.com isn't giving me any special insight or opinion about *my* team. ****ing nobody is covering the arts in my city, which annoys me beyond measure.

Do more of that sort of thing, and maybe I'll spend some time on your print product. Otherwise, it's completely and thoroughly unnecessary, and holding stories off your web site to try to drive me to your print product is more likely to make me decide I didn't really need to read that story. And if the story's that good, it's going to wind up transcribed in the gadfly's blog anyway.