Going paywall...

Everyone making the "all newspapers should've all done paywalls from the very beginning" argument is missing something really important: TV stations didn't. Here in Tulsa, we were behind a hard paywall when I got here. And we got virtually nothing from it -- no clicks, no subscribers, no ad revenue. Meanwhile, the TV sites dwarfed us in views. And many stories were stations rewriting us or chasing us (our old executive editor used to call stations and complain and get them taken down when it was too egregious). It took years to recover.

The only way that works for local news is if there is absolutely no other alternative, and in most cases, there is. Even in smaller towns, people will turn to Facebook pages that they get into for free rather than pay for a subscription to the local paper or a local news site. It's bullshit to say if we had done paywalls from Day 1, it would all magically be different. We did. And it didn't help. And unless every news source in an area did it, it wouldn't ever have. Hell, even then, in the early days, it likely would've just led to one person subscribing and then posting it on a message board or somewhere, and that site getting the clicks. it's a dream scenario, and it would've been great. But it wasn't a realistic business model until recent years as attitudes and tech have changed, and even in recent years, it's still not quite where it needs to be.

 

Just because you keep saying this is what happened doesn't make it accurate.

 

This, right here.

In the pre-Internet days, there was a pretty clear separation between newspapers & electronic media. Now that everything is digital, TV stations put news on their websites (albeit often poorly-written and with very little depth - basically print versions of their 60-second hits) and promote their personalities, who foster a connection to viewers through being on TV all the time. While it's nowhere near the quality of newspaper journalism (and often, stories are borrowed after being reported by the newspaper first), that's enough. The reality is, most news consumers consider TV news the be-all, end-all of journalism and because its revenue model is based on cable subscriber fees and advertising on the 11 p.m. news. The (free) website is simply a promotional vehicle to get people to connect with that news station (and there's competition in town).

For those in print, the website IS the product, and while it provides depth and quality reporting, there's no other revenue stream than the website now that the printed page is declining or disappearing in many markets. If we charge and they're giving the news away for free, the vast majority of consumers will naturally go to what's free and assume that's all they need.

The problem is TV news is comparatively superficial and very consultant-driven. The reporting isn't often driven by what is good journalism, but what drives ratings (or what consultants believe drive ratings), and there's a lot of self-promotion packed into those newscasts. The ethical standards we hold ourselves to are a bit less there - especially in sports (just watch the local news in an NFL market on a Sunday, especially if the local team is in the playoffs. It's highly likely the anchors will be wearing team colors and even jewelry with the team logo, and often, the stations have paid arrangements with players to appear on their newscasts). There was a time when TV stations began trying to compete with newspapers by hiring journalists and columnists from newspapers - in our area, Rick Bozich and Bob Kravitz both going to TV. Not sure if Bozich is still in TV, but Kravitz was laid off by the highest-revenue TV station in Indiana in a cost-cutting move (which came at the same time the station sent the entire morning news over to Britain to cover the royal wedding, which has no news value in Indiana that couldn't be covered by NBC). The revenue/readership on the "free" website for those columnists just wasn't deemed worth the cost.

Unfortunately, in many of these markets, people will then wonder how they elected so many corrupt public officials. The tiny suburban daily (once 10K circ, now about 5K) I used to work for has broken stories that has led to the arrest of several elected officials (including a significant graft case), exposed problems at the local animal control, et al. Without money, those stories don't get reported. No TV station is going to care about local town/county government in a suburban county (much less have time to investigate city government in the metro). Those stories don't generate enough ratings to be worth the cost, even if they are newsworthy.

 

Another Paywall going up, from a major news service. Will USAToday be next? Reuters to Move Articles Behind $34.99 Monthly Paywall

 

That's not even Wrestlemania prices - that's more Survivor Series.

 

Reading the negative reax to this about paying for news on Twitter was more depressing than the usual "fake news" trolling. The only thing truly free in this life is oxygen. But most non-TV news media has spent the past generation giving away their product. So here we are.

 

The Gannett paper I recently left went to a paywall model a couple years ago and I remember listening in to so many news meetings where paywall decisions were made based on editors saying "I'd totally pay to read that!" or "that's a great story, I think people would pay to read it!" rather than using any of the data we had at our fingertips in order to inform conversations about what should or shouldn't go behind the paywall. And that is exactly why it's not going well for newspapers. The paywall business model certainly could be a good one, but the people working at newspapers have no idea how to actually run a newsroom that way. After a while I completely lost faith in the industry and decided to just leave the business and pursue other interests. If we ever get competent editors working in newsrooms who can actually make decisions from facts instead of instincts, maybe I'll return.

 

You make a good point about editors, CF. Most of them are writers and/or copy deskers who were good at those jobs, and then were moved up to management ... without any skills or training in managing people or budgets.

As in many corporations, most newspapers promote people to the level of their incompetence.

 

Paywalls for all! LOL

 

I will say that I wish Google News wouldn't link stories behind a paywall. It's quite frustrating.
If you know something is behind a paywall, fine. My local paper is 100% paywall. I know that. I don't go to it.
If you see a random link and think, "That sounds interesting" but hit a paywall, what's the point?

 

That’s when you pay.

 

Pretty sure I don't need recurring subscriptions to 47 random papers around the country to read 2-3 stories.
Now if you could do one subscription that gave you access to all the papers in a chain, that might be worth it.