Now charging for content. . . the AV Press

But you're not getting it for free, you're paying for internet access, then getting hit with ads, the thing that pays for all other forms of news dissemination. I understand the dilemma, but I'd be willing to wager that there'll be a boatload of royally pissed customers who cut a $50 check or debit to their cable/DSL companies per month just for the right to purchase access to websites. Unless the idea is that we charge and everyone else stays free.

 

The paper IS much better than the web site, which -- as other souls than me have noted -- is the worst paper web site in the history of the medium.

It is well-read within its area, although it should be better read, given the size of the area.

There are some good writers there, although the section isn't as well-written as it was in the 90s (gratuitous plug ). And the blatant boosterism for the good ol' boy network got tiresome 15 years ago. But they do a good job for their size.

For the record, I don't have a problem with them doing this. I do think -- as someone pointed out earlier -- that if they do this, they better improve this abomination of a web site, starting with putting ALL their stories on it.

 

I applaud this paper. It's ballsy and it might be the only way to generate a reasonable amount of money for the content you've been giving away for free for a decade. As time goes on, the people that care about having the hard copy in their hands will die off and this needs to happen sooner or later.

 

Minus the hyperbole:
28,000 people subscribe to the Antelope Valley Press.
The Times circulates just under 13,000 papers in the Antelope Valley.
They AV Press Sunday section is not larger than the Times'. No way, no how.

The AV Press has been hit really hard by the slowdown in automotive dealership advertising. Their main advertiser (with Dillard's -- and we know the difficulties facing them.) A drive through that Valley will highlight their many, many challenges.

 

And I surely hope when that day comes that their Web site doesn't look like it currently does.

Whether you are charging people or not, user experience matters and the AV Web site is a terrible user experience. Newspapers on the Web need to be more than a simple be dumping ground for stories.

 

I agree with you, school of old.

As far as this paper is concerned, though, the print edition is the emphasis there, and this move is really just another reflection of that.

You are not getting what's in the print edition for free -- not even just some of the stories that happen to be on the Web site.

And, I am a huge fan of the L.A. Times, and know it well. But, fishwrapper, my previous post wasn't hyperole. Have you seen both papers' Sunday (print) editions lately? If the AV Press isn't bigger, it is at least the same size. The same is not true of weekday editions. But Sundays? Check it out. You'll be surprised.

The AV Press has issues and concerns, certainly. But what they're doing here with regard to their Web site appears to be an attempt to protect those interests.

That's how I see it, anyway. I guess we'll see whether what they're doing turns out to be the right thing or the wrong thing in the long run.

 

Yeah, I do see them.
In no order and pay no attention to syntax:
I get one on my desk each morning. Another about three times a week. I get one at home. And, I work at one.

 

Guess I haven't seen the Sundays you have, or vice versus, then.

Sorry, not arguing, but I'd still maintain there are days when the little paper is bigger than the big paper. Not better, mind you, but thicker.

 

(Bold added) Now there's a mistake. The core product is no longer the printed product - the core product nowadays is (should be) the journalism itself, no matter on what platform.

 

Sorry to check in late. I had been occupied with other things and just heard Wednesday we had our own thread on this.

I am not much in the loop with the Web site changes to be able to offer additional information. I believe we are in a process of transitioning the site to a subscription model and eventually putting more out there content than we have in the past.

While we did have stories on the Web site for free previously, we limited that to basically two bylined sports stories per day — not always the JetHawks and never our columnist.

Some of the attraction for me about this position is the philosophy of not giving the product away for free and allowing our writers and editors to concentrate on producing stories and a sports section without being pulled in the many directions of blogging, video, producing for altered news cycles. I can only speculate that because the AV Press didn't rush into developing the Web site and put resources into posting a large amount of material on the Web for free, we are in a good position to charge for content.

Since our content is predominantly local, competition with the LA papers is indirect, although we try to commit to having the necessities of regional and national coverage to be the sole provider of news.

With that in mind, the print space has been generous at seven pages of sports every day since shortly after I arrived in the spring, including two MLB pages each day. I don't know how the overall size of the paper compares on Sunday, but we had run at 100-plus pages each Sunday for the last month.

 

You are in Palmdale and Lancaster, the right and left arm pits of CA (with apologies to Tulare and Porterville). Few people outside of the area could care less about your content so good luck with your belief that you are in good position to charge for content.

And do something about that Web site!!

Hideous is too kind of a word to describe it.

 

Oh, one other thing, why is the baseball team called the JetHawks?

Is there a good story behind that? That is an unusual name.