2muchcoffeeman
Well-Known Member
shotglass said:
Newbie wasn't wrong.
I'm not sayin', but I'm just sayin' . . .
-
Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Access to private conversations with other members.
- Fewer ads.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kentucky basketball game tonight; flame away on me
- Thread starter Fredrick
- Start date
Newbie wasn't wrong.
I'm not sayin', but I'm just sayin' . . .
Herbert Anchovy
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,210
This thread is really dumb.
imjustagirl
Active Member
Um...why'd you bring it back up? Any news peg here?
Herbert Anchovy
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,210
No.
S
shotglass
Guest
Overstatement much? I'm not whistling by the unemployment office; I know many who aren't.
F
friend of a friend
Guest
shotglass said:
Fred has made overstatement an art form.
C
Clerk Typist
Guest
Fredrick said:
Fredrick, all of us would like to see news-on-paper succeed even as news-on-net moves forward. But if you are so anti-net, do this. Next time you have a point to make, put it on paper, will you? Then deliver it to our front doors no later than 7 a.m., 2 p.m. for those of us in the few afternoon newspaper towns left.
And see how much reaction you get.
Since someone brought the thread up, I'm gonna jump in on a month-old discussion. The Internet has its place - and should - because it opens up a worldwide audience. I no longer live in Indiana, but I can read about my hometown teams online and see what the columnists I grew up reading have to say. Couldn't do that without the Net. Good for me - I get more info on the stuff I want - and good for the paper because I'm clicking on their site. Otherwise, they and their advertisers wouldn't reach me at all.
It might not be wise to post all of the columns and stories online before the print edition comes out. My shop asks me not to do so. That said, how many people are picking up the next day's paper to see how Kentucky did? I'm not belittling the importance of sports to subscribers - my dad subscribed to the metro paper when I was a kid because of its awesome sports section. But how many people are picking up single copies on the street because they want to see what the local writers have to say about the Kentucky game? My guess is the number is rather small.
Finally, a few questions. Why don't Internet ads make any money? They offer perks that print ads don't. If I see an ad for a camera on a Web site, I can click on the ad...and get taken right to a place to buy the camera. Don't have to go hunting for the Web site. Don't have to head down to Best Buy. I can see it right there and learn everything I want to know about the camera. You don't get that in print. I realize that Internet ads are easier to ignore...but are print ads that hard to ignore?
I was talking to a buddy of mine in the TV industry the other day about places like NBC putting all of their shows online. If you watch The Office online, you only get one commercial during the breaks, as opposed to several if you watch on TV. I don't get that. If I want to watch The Office online, it's probably because I missed it when it aired on TV, or because I liked it and wanted to watch again. Why wouldn't I sit through the extra ads? Anyway, my buddy informs me that those ads are still unprofitable compared to ads on TV. How can that be? It's the same product. Odds are, the same people who watch The Office on TV watch it online. Same demographic. Same target audience. Just like newspapers. You target ads in the sports section in the paper to those who read sports, just as you could target ads on the sports web site to those who read sports. Largely, it's the same demographic. So how can you charge less for an online ad when it's reaching the same people and, often, more people?
It might not be wise to post all of the columns and stories online before the print edition comes out. My shop asks me not to do so. That said, how many people are picking up the next day's paper to see how Kentucky did? I'm not belittling the importance of sports to subscribers - my dad subscribed to the metro paper when I was a kid because of its awesome sports section. But how many people are picking up single copies on the street because they want to see what the local writers have to say about the Kentucky game? My guess is the number is rather small.
Finally, a few questions. Why don't Internet ads make any money? They offer perks that print ads don't. If I see an ad for a camera on a Web site, I can click on the ad...and get taken right to a place to buy the camera. Don't have to go hunting for the Web site. Don't have to head down to Best Buy. I can see it right there and learn everything I want to know about the camera. You don't get that in print. I realize that Internet ads are easier to ignore...but are print ads that hard to ignore?
I was talking to a buddy of mine in the TV industry the other day about places like NBC putting all of their shows online. If you watch The Office online, you only get one commercial during the breaks, as opposed to several if you watch on TV. I don't get that. If I want to watch The Office online, it's probably because I missed it when it aired on TV, or because I liked it and wanted to watch again. Why wouldn't I sit through the extra ads? Anyway, my buddy informs me that those ads are still unprofitable compared to ads on TV. How can that be? It's the same product. Odds are, the same people who watch The Office on TV watch it online. Same demographic. Same target audience. Just like newspapers. You target ads in the sports section in the paper to those who read sports, just as you could target ads on the sports web site to those who read sports. Largely, it's the same demographic. So how can you charge less for an online ad when it's reaching the same people and, often, more people?
I say let news organizations that want immediacy have it. People still will read newspapers. Redefine the coverage if you want. Tinker with how we cover the games if you want. I still say the readers want coverage of kentucky basketball that only the herald leader can provide. They will pay to read that coverage THE DAY AFTER THE GAME. Advertisers will buy ads. Newspapers have blown it. They are getting rid of their best writers, so of course it seems like there is no longer a market.
S
shotglass
Guest
Then I'm ho, ho, ho'd too. Because I've yet to see newspapers making money online.
Similar threads
