Boston Globe drops paywall for Marathon coverage

How come stores don't give away free batteries during hurricanes? Or free flashlights. Or free food? The newspaper business lost its way long ago.

 

After a hurricane, survival information is vital.
You gonna shake down people in the streets? Sometimes they have nothing.

 

Sorry I think I misunderstood. You are all for making people pay for this crime stuff regarding the marathon. I can see your point about a natural disaster. I still sort of disagree but I can see your point.

 

I see it as a valid community service and an important one.

Especially for the Globe, because people in Boston do depend on it, and see this as a "We are here for you" gesture.

(I subscribe anyway).

 

With what happened last night, this is more than just "crime stuff." Bombs are going off. This is information the public needs. Plus, it helps get info out that could help catch the people responsible.

Again, sometimes journalism isn't just about money.

 

Because a store is not the heart and soul of a community. That is what a newspaper should be.

 

It's not feasible to make some sections free and keep other sections behind a paywall on such short notice. Dropping the paywall altogether was probably something the technical team could do in 2-4 hours, if not less.

As for business strategy, the Boston Globe is far and away the best newspaper site in North America, and I'm not even talking about the content. It's a masterpiece of responsive design. Maybe they think that showcasing their site will encourage more people to sign up. I'm not suggesting that will actually work, but I can see the logic behind it.

 

I'm on the opposite side of the country with no reason to pay for the Globe. In this instance, when TV news is so pitiful and the Globe is more accurate, I'd pay for the Globe if asked.

 

good paywalls are porous. good internet anything is porous. pulling paywalls in developing public-wellware type scenarios, like hurricanes or crazy bombing and shootout miniseries events, is part of a sound porous philosophy. when the world is watching, it follows, you welcome them and let them see.

i see only downside to not pulling the paywall -- ill will, eroded trust and, perhaps worst, irrelevance. pulling the paywall, on the other hand, offers tremendous upside for the brand, its stature and relevance. if there was a pro-paywall camp at the globe yesterday my money is they're on the other side tomorrow.

 

Giving away content for free has already driven many newspapers to irrelevance.

 

I'd love to hear some of the stories from people in the newsrooms in Boston. Certainly some reporters have been working around the clock. As we know overtime isn't allowed in many/(most?) shops.
In this day and age of no raises/furloughs/you better not work a second of overtime, I'd love to hear about atrocities in the newsroom regarding the coverage of the Boston bombings.
Are people being told to not work OT? Are any of the high paid managers and middle managers who seem to escape layoff after layoff actually doing some reporting work to help our the reporters who don't get overtime?
Or is everything fine and dandy in the Boston media centers?

 

Fredrick:

Certainly some reporters have been working around the clock. As we know overtime isn't allowed in many/(most?) shops.

*****

Do you really think the Herald and Globe worried about this? Yeah, they have unions, but those unions are made of of journalists, and this is a crisis situation.

Legal or not, the paper's will find a way to make this up.

I am kind of surprised to find the amount of cynicism and pro-business mentality on this board.

These papers (and it was not just the Globe) do something to help the readers, and you whack it.

Reporters do their jobs, editors do their jobs, and you wonder about overtime.

This is just awful, especially in a situation like this.