Gannett's latest brilliant idea

And the design. You left that out.

 

You're right Dyepack. I've been off the desk for two years now. I'm sorry.

Again, how many parents do you know that print off an article on their HP Printer and post the pixelated picture on the fridge?

Design is still, and will remain, a key.

 

Since we've started a zillion web updates a day, the TV stations have begun crediting our web site when they pick our stuff up.

 

Either there was some serious sarcasm overlook there, or that was a bid for Zen reversal.

 

I love it when weak attempts at yanking chains go unappreciated...

 

So what's wrong with getting stories on the Web first? What's wrong with that thinking?

The newsprint costs, costs of operating the presses is the reason why we all make like $3 an hour (yet management still makes like six figures). We need to get rid of that, or slowly phase it out.

I see the future print editions having paid-for copy written by ad writers, mostly paid-for features. And over the next 10 to 15 years, people will be less and less inclined to pick up an actual newspaper, yet may visit a newspaper web site.

Everything's electronic today. I mean my grandparents turn on their computer to look at pictures of their grandkids. They never think about printing it out.

Also, the web allows for readers to send nasty emails to the sports writers, pronto. Whereas in the print edition they just need to remember the email address, and then find a computer. That's a hassle.

Print is slowly going by the wayside. Anyone hear monday's NPR report on the newspaper business? The Wall Street Journal says were all dead, we just don't know it yet.

 

Of course, all this web stuff proves the point about newspaper "design" being a buncha bullshit. Text rules the web at all the most popular news sites -- Yahoo, google, ESPN, usatoday, etc. You don't find multiple large photos or nearly as many charts and graphs because there's too much actual content and not enough web design symposiums for people to spend time patting each other on the back for it.

 

clearly this is the wave of the future, with some modifications. i'm not sure why the paper in des moines needs to be sharing its online calendar with the paper in white plains and the one in jackson but ultimately some form of this is inevitable. logic would tell me that eventually as was posted above, reporters will do their own posting to the web site, at least for early breaking stories.

 

Thanks for checking in. You can hitch your pony there, let it rest after its one trick.

 

As soon as you can show me, sartrean, as soon as you can state chapter and verse how Web presence is going to MAKE US MONEY ... I'm with you.

Please don't say it's through pay-to-read plans. Newspapers don't make their money on subscription or single-copy sales, and you won't make it charging a subscription for the Web site.

Please don't say it's on click-through ads.

Give me something better than that, and we'll think about it.

 

I hate to say it, but we pretty much have no choice. I'm at a Gannett paper, and we're required to file Web updates whenever something happens, and sometimes even if it doesn't. If we're at a team's practice, if so-and-so relieves himself, it's a web update. As soon as a particular game ends, they want 5-6 inches for a web update. The paper I work at enhances centerpiece stories on the web with reporter's voiceovers and other such video.

Yeah, it's a lot of extra work. But what can you do? Punt?

 

People are going on the web for the news ... would you rather have them read the AP piece and never see your stuff?

As far as making money, it's an uphill climb, for sure. But not all advertising on the internet is click-thru, mind you ... there's a lot of money to be made (and being made) with things like video ads and page overleafs and such. Banner ads are so 2000.