The Day The Newspapers Shut Down Their Sites

You're trying to redirect the argument. I never accused you of opposing the subscription model "even if it were proven to work." I accused you of opposing the subscription model, period, and you have, consistently.

 

Coincidentally, Tribune Co. says it will close the broadcast portion of its D.C. bureau while keeping the print bureau:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Tribune_names_Luft_DC_bureau_chief__ends_broadcast_operations.html?showall

It owns TV stations in almost every major market:

http://www.tribune.com/about/webguide/index.html


Yup, them TV Web sites are gonna be force to be reckoned with.

 

Excluding talk or plans for the print edition (since it seems a foregone conclusion that those will end someday in the not-too-distant future), why not try both a pay-per-view or subscription plan and all of the things you suggest?

It's not like any paper could do all of the things you suggest in the one week (as I think it should be) or two weeks that a Web site might be shut down, anyway, and people really do need to be turned away from the idea that they can get something for free. If it takes shock treatment to do that, at this point, so be it.

You're getting too hung up on the "subscription" idea and whether or not it'll work. Heck, a subscription to the print edition all these years has always been one of the best consumer deals around, and never covered the costs of the paper, either, and that model has had fantastic success, as well as huge historical and personal value to the world over for eons until now.

The point with the subscriptions is not necessarily to be the thing that totally saves the industry, but rather, simply to steer people away from the idea that you can get your news, and our product, given away for free.

No successful business does that, and I wouldn't consider what people are saying here about that to be shrieking. Just making a legitimate point that might -- just might -- be a start in a new direction.

The right direction, whether the non-paying "customers" think so, or not.

 

I used to believe that, too, but it's not true -- most papers make a profit on circulation. Check out the second category in this chart:

http://www.inlandpress.org/articles/2009/02/19/research/rules_of_thumb/doc48c57a29b6d08078370615.txt

 

You can't possibly be this stupid. I've consistently opposed the subscription model because it doesn't work right now, for the exact fucking reasons that I listed in that quote. To paraphrase what I wrote, I'm not irrationally opposed to subscriptions, my career and my family's livelihood be damned. I'm opposed to it right now because it has gone over like a fart in church practically everywhere it's been tried (WSJ being the exception). The day it works, sign me the fuck up, I'll support it. Until then, I would seriously question the business acumen of anyone who would advocate a model that has failed miserably and repeatedly.

 

Not true -- it hasn't been tried most places. Actually, while people point to the NYT canceling TimesSelect (opinion content), they have been SELLING an electronic edition of the complete newspaper since 2001, even though most content is available free online. My wife and many of her (non-journalist) colleagues subscribe that way.

https://www.nytimesee.com/offer.php?id=15&MediaCode=Internal&CampaignName=nytimes

 

Interesting info, and good to know. I guess I was wrong in terms of whether subscriptions covered a newspaper's costs.

But, I still think newspaper subscriptions are, or at least, have been, a great deal for the customer in terms of what you get for the money. This just proves it's possible to have a great deal for the customer, and a great profit for the business...a win-win situation that really just proves that maybe we should make another go of pay content.

No one thinks this transition would be easy. But it must be made, preferably en masse, just as a matter of principle, if nothing else.

And the sooner, the better.

 

Times Select failed because people want to pay for news and information, not punditry. Although I imagine that Times Select was an attempt to freeze out bloggers who go apeshit over NYT columns?

 

Wow, $9.99/month. That's really cheap. Anyone know the print cost? I know that I was having $53 charges periodically taken from my bank account when I was a subscriber, but can't recall if that was monthly or bimonthly or what.

 

So you think TV will have everything the newspapers used to get. Guess you've never worked in the same markets I have.

The TV guys in my area (bordering a major metro) admit that they decide how much time to spend at a sporting event depending on the food being served to the media. No joke.

Will most have the final score? Sure. Will most have much else? I don't think so.

As for pulling the online plug for two weeks, what difference will it make if we still face the same issues, produce the same product and profit expectations remain unchanged? The quality and number of stories won't increase, the price won't go down and more staff won't be added. I don't expect enough readers to come crawling back to a product that regularly said "f you" for the past decade or so.

 

Other than the NYT and the WSJ, what newspapers this century have even tried online subscriptions?
I keep reading that it hasn't worked before.
But who tried it? And when?

 

You get all the big city papers to participate and, WAPAH!, you've got shock and awe. I like the idea to black out the Web sites.

Man, newspapers shouldn't even be giving their product away for free and expect people to also pay for a hard copy. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever. At the very least, special features and in-depth stories and maybe even Op-Ed columns or the entire section, stories that are NOT breaking news where you're looking to beat someone to the punc, those should be in print only. Make people pay $.50-$.75 if they want to read the feel-good feature about their son, or their friend's son, or their friend's friend's son, or if people want to read what the lead columnist has to say about the budget deficit (just examples) Don't just give it away for free on the Net. It's common sense, man.

That's a start.