The free content isn't helping

[I'll never tell]

According to a Pew Research Center report, released Thursday (story dated 12/30/10) ....

About 18% had paid for digital newspaper, magazine, or journal reports, but just 11% have paid for premium content when a website offers other free material.

Lifted from: http://www.fastcompany.com/1713246/internet-users-still-cheap-spend-only-1-to-10-on-digital-content

I can't say that I'm surprised by the second number. What does surprise me is that we ever had 18 percent to begin with. (and I know that 18 percent isn't just newspapers.)

Our folks harp and harp about how people "won't pay, they just won't pay." One in five is paying - maybe not alot, but they're paying.

 

[Schottey]

Seems likely that the "1 in 5" are people paying for digital access to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ESPN...also, are "apps" included?

I've always felt that the best way to maximize paid content is to do what ESPN does. Buy the magazine, get the "insider" access for free (or, vice versa.)

 

[I'll never tell]

It says that 21 percent of surveyed are buying apps, so I guess this is separate.

And yeah, I'm sure the big ones are all snatching up the bulk of the membership. But it's my take that was individual papers can give the reader which is unique should not be given away.

National news and stuff we're getting off the AP anyway, sure. Might as well be free. However, daily coverage of State U. or city council ... such as that should come free with print subscription or a small monthly fee without.

 

[Harry Doyle]

Apps are a curious thing to me. I've asked execs at a couple of different papers why those are free on iPhone, iPad, etc. It seems to me, if we're offering you a platform for reading our stuff — other than just our regular, dinky website — it shouldn't be totally free. Instead, we're so afraid of pissing people off, we just give it to them for free — which seems like a rather familiar mistake. In a local market (and I mean anything smaller than Chicago, basically), who wouldn't pay $2-$5 for unlimited, slick access to the newspaper of record?

 

[flexmaster33]

Seems likely that the "1 in 5" are people paying for digital access to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ESPN...also, are "apps" included?

I've always felt that the best way to maximize paid content is to do what ESPN does. Buy the magazine, get the "insider" access for free (or, vice versa.)

agreed...this makes the most sense to me as well

 

[flexmaster33]

Pulling my hair out...just got a barrage of complaints via our website about the lack of timely content.

"Dear Sir...we no longer subscribe to the paper and are terribly disappointed in the information on your website."

You had me at "we no longer subscribe"...guess what, if you want the local news pay for it!!!

When I'm writer, editor, page designer and photographer all rolled into one...adding in web guru to the mix takes second fiddle. At some point the camel's back is going to break

 

[SpeedTchr]

Pulling my hair out...just got a barrage of complaints via our website about the lack of timely content.

"Dear Sir...we no longer subscribe to the paper and are terribly disappointed in the information on your website."

You had me at "we no longer subscribe"...guess what, if you want the local news pay for it!!!

When I'm writer, editor, page designer and photographer all rolled into one...adding in web guru to the mix takes second fiddle. At some point the camel's back is going to break

Your response, I hope, was, "You get what you pay for."

 

[I'll never tell]

Pulling my hair out...just got a barrage of complaints via our website about the lack of timely content.

"Dear Sir...we no longer subscribe to the paper and are terribly disappointed in the information on your website."

You had me at "we no longer subscribe"...guess what, if you want the local news pay for it!!!

When I'm writer, editor, page designer and photographer all rolled into one...adding in web guru to the mix takes second fiddle. At some point the camel's back is going to break

Your response, I hope, was, "You get what you pay for."

That's my exact theory with XM radio. I hate the local (free) crap, but I want something better. For so long, it was forced to listen to my ipod 24/7, and now I don't mind paying what I consider a small fee.

 

[Schottey]

Usually (not always,) Apps are full of ads. So, you're giving the app away for free but you're pulling in ad revenue.

 

[Stitch]

Usually (not always,) Apps are full of ads. So, you're giving the app away for free but you're pulling in ad revenue.

That seems to be the way to on Android. Just look at the Angry Birds model where you pay for the iPhone and iPad version, but it's free on Android (with ads).

 

[Stitch]

As for the reader complaining about the website not being updated, the reader has a point. It's not her fault content is free. And if a news website doesn't update, it will lose advertising dollars.

 

[flexmaster33]

As for the reader complaining about the website not being updated, the reader has a point. It's not her fault content is free. And if a news website doesn't update, it will lose advertising dollars.

Yes, but if the newspaper values not losing those advertising dollars they need to pay for the extra hours it takes to upload website info on a consistent nightly basis...either by adding a position, paying overtime or relieving other duties in the newsroom.

 

[schiezainc]

As for the reader complaining about the website not being updated, the reader has a point. It's not her fault content is free. And if a news website doesn't update, it will lose advertising dollars.

Yes, but if the newspaper values not losing those advertising dollars they need to pay for the extra hours it takes to upload website info on a consistent nightly basis...either by adding a position, paying overtime or relieving other duties in the newsroom.

I'm in the midst of this battle right now myself. The powers that be keep nagging us to update the web site but ... they don't want stuff that's already being put in the paper.

I asked them what they would like us to do since we're having a hard enough time filling the paper as it is with the types of staff reductions we've had over the past five years and their response was "Well, just put up stuff that doesn't take long to do." (Such as Pet of the week, photo of the week, etc).

I countered with the fact that we shouldn't be spending our time putting up crap not fit enough to even run in our paper. They said we should find new stories in addition to our print product for our web.

All without giving us a single red penny more.

Yeah, sorry, that's not going to be happening anytime soon. Don't like the site? Give us the money to improve it or the orders that we have to focus on it and not the paper.

 

[nmmetsfan]

As for the reader complaining about the website not being updated, the reader has a point. It's not her fault content is free. And if a news website doesn't update, it will lose advertising dollars.

Assuming that there are advertising dollars to begin with (chances are, there aren't many)

 

[flexmaster33]

it's the question we all face...how to treat this web monster?

With reduced staffs...I have to wonder why more papers don't rally the troops to the print product and leave the web bare-bones. Why we put an emphasis on giving our product out for free is beyond me. I've had plenty of people say they've stopped getting the paper and they just check it online...these are the people that want the news is miniature...instead of the full stories that appear in our print product, but it's enough for them.

 

[RickStain]

As for the reader complaining about the website not being updated, the reader has a point. It's not her fault content is free. And if a news website doesn't update, it will lose advertising dollars.

Yes, but if the newspaper values not losing those advertising dollars they need to pay for the extra hours it takes to upload website info on a consistent nightly basis...either by adding a position, paying overtime or relieving other duties in the newsroom.

I'm in the midst of this battle right now myself. The powers that be keep nagging us to update the web site but ... they don't want stuff that's already being put in the paper.

I asked them what they would like us to do since we're having a hard enough time filling the paper as it is with the types of staff reductions we've had over the past five years and their response was "Well, just put up stuff that doesn't take long to do." (Such as Pet of the week, photo of the week, etc).

I countered with the fact that we shouldn't be spending our time putting up crap not fit enough to even run in our paper. They said we should find new stories in addition to our print product for our web.

All without giving us a single red penny more.

Yeah, sorry, that's not going to be happening anytime soon. Don't like the site? Give us the money to improve it or the orders that we have to focus on it and not the paper.

[newspaperceo]

Well, that guy's laid off. Let's see if some college kid will take $13k/year.

[/newspaperceo]