Kentucky basketball game tonight; flame away on me

[buckweaver]

The newspapers-are-getting-rid-of-their-best-people discussion is not the same as the should-we-ignore-the-Internet discussion.

Two separate arguments.

And yes, if newspapers continue to get rid of their best people ... OF COURSE they'll get their asses kicked by talented freelancers in a Web-vs.-Web environment. But that's not the point Fredrick was making (at least until now.)

 

[Fredrick]

I would rather have newspapers go web only right now so I could be one of those to start my own website and kick the living shirt out of my current employer. Once newspapers go all web, it's a new ballgame. Anybody can start a website; VERY FEW can start a newspaper cause of the presses. You get some rich people to back reporters better than the kids left at the newspapers ... WOW.
Newspapers have a way to win: Keep the print edition; get rid of the web.

 

[buckweaver]

Newspapers have a way to win: Keep the print edition; get rid of the web.

Not if they want to compete for hard and breaking news, they don't. The world is on a 24-hour news cycle now, thanks to the Internet and globalization.

That's not even taking into account the business model. Just strictly talking about content production: You think a print-only DAILY newspaper can compete and stay viable as a news-gathering operation, when the rest of the world is on the Internet? I don't.

 

[imjustagirl]

I would rather have newspapers go web only right now so I could be one of those to start my own website and kick the living shirt out of my current employer.

I really, really, really hope for your sake that there's nothing on this thread that would identify you to said current employer.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Newspapers have a way to win: Keep the print edition; get rid of the web.

Not if they want to compete for hard and breaking news, they don't. The world is on a 24-hour news cycle now, thanks to the Internet and globalization.

That's not even taking into account the business model. Just strictly talking about content production: You think a print-only DAILY newspaper can compete and stay viable as a news-gathering operation, when the rest of the world is on the Internet? I don't.

If there was a way for papers to make money on the Net right now, there would be no papers right now. Main problem for newspapers is not CNN.com or ESPN.com; good newspapers will have features, analysis and art that are worth waiting, let's say, five hours for. The main problems are craigslist.com and monster.com. Plus the economic downturn is killing papers (and as we're finding out, Web sites), same as it is many industries.

And the long-range problems for any Web enterprise that isn't a massively tentacled thing like yahoo or ESPN is that Web surfers think they deserve to get everything for free. NBC.com is just as stupid as newspapers when it posts a whole episode of 30 Rock online days after it airs.

Another sad fact: if newspapers really need to transition to the Web, they need to add resources. We know how well that's being done.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I say let yahoo.com have the immediacy. Who is reading game stories at midnight and columns?

Asks the guy posting at 11:30 p.m. EST.

 

[McNuggetsMan]

I also think you can make money putting content on the web, but not enough money to pay for printing presses, trucks, delivery people, etc. Maybe if newspapers abandoned the print editions entirely and went to web-only, they'd start making money again.

OK guys and girls. Let's say papers were to just give up. Go Web only, which they probably will do. This is what management fxxxs will suggest and ultimately they will win over.
There will be no more newsprint, no more ink, no more delivery people.
And sooo many beats will be cut because those boring news stories will get no hits.

You will have 2 reporters to cover cops stuff in major cities; one in medium cities. You will have one sports guy/girl to cover each professional team. No travel. The road games will be watched on TV with quotes coming from the teams.

One high school reporter in big cities and small alike. You will have one sports copy editor max. No layout people. The web producer will put the story on the web. Maybe 2 photoraphers total; one news, one sports.
So go ahead and go web only management fxxxxs. You will be able to slice your staff so much it's amazing.

You who proclaim the internet the savior are correct. It's coming; papers will be web only.

But I still say the newspaper had a market for the rest of humankind. The management fxxxs gave up on it and convinced the publishers. So it'll be coming soon enough. And staffs will be slashed so much it'll be unreal.

And the laid off individuals would be able to get together and put together their own websites that will cover teams and communities much better than the newspapers. Get ready newspapers who go web only, talented freelances with better sources than the kids you keep on board for cheap were ultimately kick your ass.

Newspapers going web only will be so great for people who have been laid off. As long as they can get credentialed, the laid off reporters will kick the shirt out of the newspaper websites. Newspapers have had printing presses and the man behind them for so long. If they go web only, it's a new ballgame. So many reporters will be able to do a better job than the papers it will be funny to watch.

Like I have said previously, you aren't capable of separating bad management decisions in general from the reality that the internet is the way people will get their news now and in the future. In your idiotic situation where management goes all internet AND slashes all content producers from its operation, the company will go out of business quickly. You need the content to generate the page views to get the ad revenue.

And every freelancer can't just set up the website and make all the money that a media company could make. UNLESS he also is cutting deals for content production with major portal sites like MSN, Google, Yahoo, etc. At an all-web media company, cutting those content deals with the portal sites are the key to survival. Few people are going to spend much time surfing around to see which freelancer kicked the most ass on East High against Central last night. They want a certain degree of one-stop shopping. They want to launch their web browser to their portal and see links/shared content with everything they want - the out of town pro team, the high school volleyball, the cooking tip of the day from Rachel Ray, their stock quotes, etc. This is how yahoo, google, msn, etc. make money. They pull all the links you would want - and are now doing a better job of allowing you to personalize and create localized sites.

Yell, scream and rage about the internet all you want, but at least get a clue about how the revenue model works. Your situations, which are a combination of all internet and management stupidity, won't work. But that is the stupidity part, not the internet part. Do you know why FoxSports.com is the no. 1 sports site? It's not because everyone is dying to read Jay Glazer. It's because Fox cut the deal with MSN for content sharing. So now, every time semi-computer literate launches his internet explorer and MSN.com pops up because he doesn't bother to change his preset homepage, he sees links to fox coverage of sports and clicks the links. ESPN and SI are 100 times better than Fox but Fox has the content deal so Fox wins. Do you know where 70% of AP's revenue comes from? It's not from newspapers fees. Google, Yahoo, etc.

There is plenty of money to be made through internet advertising (not as much right now because the economy sucks, but the print advertising market sucks right now too). It takes an intelligent management team with a knowledge of how the new information economy works. The lack of these intelligent people in management is the problem -- NOT the internet.

 

[SF_Express]

Do you know why FoxSports.com is the no. 1 sports site? It's not because everyone is dying to read Jay Glazer. It's because Fox cut the deal with MSN for content sharing. So now, every time semi-computer literate launches his internet explorer and MSN.com pops up because he doesn't bother to change his preset homepage, he sees links to fox coverage of sports and clicks the links. ESPN and SI are 100 times better than Fox but Fox has the content deal so Fox wins. Do you know where 70% of AP's revenue comes from? It's not from newspapers fees. Google, Yahoo, etc.

First, on the Frederick thing, I'm done with it. I think he's just arguing for the sake of arguing, and what he's talking about is impossible. And yes, the Internet is going to be a place to make money, increasingly, in the years to come.

That said, in what rankings are you thinking Foxsports.com is the No. 1 sports site. Not in any I see regularly. ESPN and Yahoo regularly run 1-2 strictly in terms of visits, although there are all sorts of ways to measure how well a site is doing.

One list I see right now, ESPN and Yahoo are first and second. Fox is seventh.

 

[McNuggetsMan]

Do you know why FoxSports.com is the no. 1 sports site? It's not because everyone is dying to read Jay Glazer. It's because Fox cut the deal with MSN for content sharing. So now, every time semi-computer literate launches his internet explorer and MSN.com pops up because he doesn't bother to change his preset homepage, he sees links to fox coverage of sports and clicks the links. ESPN and SI are 100 times better than Fox but Fox has the content deal so Fox wins. Do you know where 70% of AP's revenue comes from? It's not from newspapers fees. Google, Yahoo, etc.

First, on the Frederick thing, I'm done with it. I think he's just arguing for the sake of arguing, and what he's talking about is impossible. And yes, the Internet is going to be a place to make money, increasingly, in the years to come.

That said, in what rankings are you thinking Foxsports.com is the No. 1 sports site. Not in any I see regularly. ESPN and Yahoo regularly run 1-2 strictly in terms of visits, although there are all sorts of ways to measure how well a site is doing.

One list I see right now, ESPN and Yahoo are first and second. Fox is seventh.

I could certainly be wrong about the foxsports.com point. I am looking at the information again and I am seeing what you are saying - ESPN and Yahoo on top, fox lagging behind. I read an article saying that foxsports had the ability to serve the most ads, but I now can't find that article. So I probably shouldn't have written that since I don't have the information to back up that claim and it looks like I was incorrect.

I got a little fired up and I should have checked my facts first. Following Frederick's plan is just as stupid and short-sighted as the managers who are laying off content producers in a time when there has never been a greater demand for content in history.

 

[SF_Express]

I could certainly be wrong about the foxsports.com point. I am looking at the information again and I am seeing what you are saying - ESPN and Yahoo on top, fox lagging behind. I read an article saying that foxsports had the ability to serve the most ads, but I now can't find that article. So I probably shouldn't have written that since I don't have the information to back up that claim and it looks like I was incorrect.

Ah, not a big deal. Your basic premise -- that the MSN deal is huge for them -- is correct.

 

[Ace]

Good post. I still say blow up the websites now. ...

Frederick appears to be the charter member of the Newspaper Underground.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Frederick, your premise that any talented writer can set up his own web site and kick the newspaper's ass is just wrong. Maybe he can write better stories, but he's not going to make a dime doing it, so it'd basically be a hobby.

You need a combination of good writers and good business people who know how to market and sell ads for the web world. As stated, the print newspaper industry doesn't seem to have those people who are able to translate their experience to the web world.

What's going to happen, I think, is that the newspapers are going to become web only "news outlets." They'll still need the same number of writers (ir not more) with some editors and some web production people. Support those people with business types who know how the web works and you'll have something.

The only people who are truly going to be superfluous in the new era will be guys who run the presses and drive the trucks and that sort of thing. Anyone who works in a newsroom on the editorial side ought to be able to keep doign what he or she is doing, just for the web, not a newspaper.

The news business is fine. It's the paper business that sucks.