The last print subscriber

[Doc Holliday]

Back to the original question/comment since the thread has been thoroughly derailed now.

I haven't subscribed to the local or regional paper here since my employer cut our discounted price and started charging employees full price. My parents are no longer living, but they both subscribed until the day they died, the eldest being 76. I have two extended family members that subscribe to newspapers, one of them is 75 and the other 48. They both seem to love reading the paper every day. It seems to me that at least for the generation that grew up reading newspapers, nothing has changed. I have friends in the 40 and 50 age group that all subscribe and read it even though they can get their content on the web.

Interestingly, what all these people tell me, is yeah they can read it online first. But if it's controversial or even difficult to substantiate, they want to read the paper because they know if it's in the paper then it's true and/or real.

There is still a real amount of respect attached to newspaper journalism that online journalism is yet to capture. That may vanish in time, but for now, it's the one thing newspapers have that blogs, websites, etc. don't.

I mean, really, do you trust TMZ?

 

[FileNotFound]

I subscribed until about a year ago.
Now I use this as my clearinghouse for news and commentary.
http://www.aldaily.com/

That is quite the cornucopia.

That has been my homepage for nearly 15 years.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I mean, really, do you trust TMZ?

Honest answer? More than I trust my local paper for the kind of news TMZ carries.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I mean, really, do you trust TMZ?

Honest answer? More than I trust my local paper for the kind of news TMZ carries.

I don't.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Who the hell doesn't trust TMZ in this day and age?

"Real" news outlets spend half their lives chasing the **** TMZ finds.

If TMZ says it, it pans out.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I mean, really, do you trust TMZ?

Honest answer? More than I trust my local paper for the kind of news TMZ carries.

I don't.

Well, my local paper -- the Arizona Republic -- now gets those stories from something called "Bang Showbiz." Yeah, I'll go with TMZ.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Interestingly, what all these people tell me, is yeah they can read it online first. But if it's controversial or even difficult to substantiate, they want to read the paper because they know if it's in the paper then it's true and/or real.

There is still a real amount of respect attached to newspaper journalism that online journalism is yet to capture.

There used to be. Not anymore.

Newspapers are going to great lengths to ensure that they no longer have a mechanism to determine if a story is true or not. Let alone written in a clear, understandable way. They're eroding their credibility on purpose so they can save money.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Interestingly, what all these people tell me, is yeah they can read it online first. But if it's controversial or even difficult to substantiate, they want to read the paper because they know if it's in the paper then it's true and/or real.

There is still a real amount of respect attached to newspaper journalism that online journalism is yet to capture.

There used to be. Not anymore.

Newspapers are going to great lengths to ensure that they no longer have a mechanism to determine if a story is true or not. Let alone written in a clear, understandable way. They're eroding their credibility on purpose so they can save money.

I also don't quite grasp the distinction between "newspaper journalism" and "online journalism." The New York Times is newspaper journalism. And it's online journalism. The Wall Street Journal is newspaper journalism. And it's online journalism. The New York Post is newspaper journalism. Pro Publica is online journalism.

 

[britwrit]

When we moved into our new house last year, I gave the Sunday NYT a try, then told them to get lost when the introductory period ended. I could drive a mile in order to buy it for $6 or I could have them drop it at the end of the driveway for nearly $9. So now we get the Sunday edition of the local metro just because my wife found an offer of $10 for a year.

I pay $15 a month for web access. (Though a 7-day print subscription to my parents house on Long Island seems to cost about $14 a week and includes digital.)

Basically, the Times is running a free-sheet on the web. What happens to those vaunted million-plus electronic "subscribers" when the newspaper actually starts wanting money?

 

[britwrit]

Not saying that the web product isn't great. I just don't see how it's making that much money.

 

[joe]

In 1995-97, I worked as a designer in sports at the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, and the paper was delivered to my doorstep every morning. In its incarnation then, it was a must-read for me — the news section much more than the sports — and I'd spend an hour or more each morning with it.

To this day, it remains the only paper I worked at where the news section was clearly better than the sports section. If I had somehow moved to that town, I would have subscribed even without a connection to the paper. I can't say that about any of the other stops where I worked in a nearly 20-year career.

 

[I Should Coco]

Discussed this with one of my friends in the circulation department at my shop.

She was shocked that the $500 (or more) annual cost of the Tribune would mean home delivery costs MORE than the newsstand price (assuming the Trib is $1 daily and $2.50 on Sunday).

For years and years, the circulation sales pitch at almost every newspaper has been "Subscribe for three months/six months/one year and save $XXX off the newsstand price."

The only answer that makes sense is the Chicago Tribune is trying to discourage its customers from reading the print version.

 

[Boom_70]

I bet that Junior Johnson is the last print subscriber in his family

 

[Bronco77]

I mentioned this discussion when I was on the phone with my mom the other day, and she said they'd have to pry the printed version of the paper from her cold, dead hands.

If a substantial number of people under age 65 felt the same way, I'd be a bit more optimistic about the future of this business.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why should anybody subscribe to the print edition of the newspaper? That's the question. People here say they believe in it. Why?

 

[I Should Coco]

Why should anybody subscribe to the print edition of the newspaper? That's the question. People here say they believe in it. Why?

I suppose "tradition" is the answer most mentioned (often indirectly) on this thread so far. That's not a great answer.

Three other reasons in favor of my local paper — which would be true for me even if I didn't work there:

1. There's local news and sports coverage you can't get anywhere else. That includes the paper's website — which, like many 20K or less circulation papers, offers a rehash of the print product in a harder-to-read format, complete with annoying pop-up ads and toxic, degrading, anonymous online comments.

2. It's still convenient and affordable (again, even if I didn't work there, it would cost $150-199 annually for home delivery, which is almost always on time and on the porch).

3. My wife and I still enjoy skimming over the news, comics and box scores while eating breakfast and aren't comfortable doing that with a tablet or laptop at the table.

 

[LongTimeListener]

We get the Sunday paper as part of the digital subscription. I don't think I've looked at it in three months. My son likes the comics, though.

 

[jr/shotglass]

1. There's local news and sports coverage you can't get anywhere else. That includes the paper's website — which, like many 20K or less circulation papers, offers a rehash of the print product in a harder-to-read format, complete with annoying pop-up ads and toxic, degrading, anonymous online comments.

That's the main reason for me.

And I still believe newspapers that don't utilize Facebook identification for comments are ridiculous. Anonymous, toxic comments turn a lot more people off than keep them reading.

 

[kleeda]

My subscription is up in March. Me and Pretty Wife have decided we're done.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why should anybody subscribe to the print edition of the newspaper? That's the question. People here say they believe in it. Why?

I suppose "tradition" is the answer most mentioned (often indirectly) on this thread so far. That's not a great answer.

Three other reasons in favor of my local paper — which would be true for me even if I didn't work there:

1. There's local news and sports coverage you can't get anywhere else. That includes the paper's website — which, like many 20K or less circulation papers, offers a rehash of the print product in a harder-to-read format, complete with annoying pop-up ads and toxic, degrading, anonymous online comments.

2. It's still convenient and affordable (again, even if I didn't work there, it would cost $150-199 annually for home delivery, which is almost always on time and on the porch).

3. My wife and I still enjoy skimming over the news, comics and box scores while eating breakfast and aren't comfortable doing that with a tablet or laptop at the table.

What do you mean that the Web version is harder to read? That seems like a paper-specific issue. There's no reason it has to be that way.

I don't know of any inherent, universal advantage that a print product has over a Web site or tablet. I do get a little tired of looking at a screen.

Can you build a marketing campaign around that? "Easier on the eyes."