The Day The Newspapers Shut Down Their Sites

If nothing else is working, the solution is to abruptly piss off customers and advertisers for two weeks, seemingly without warning? I agree we need to stop giving our content away for free, but this "holier than thou" and "see how important we are" approach is a horrific starting point. Arrogance.

How about a two-week test run of strictly pay-for content? Each article click is a dime, or some such layout. OK, so it needs some fine-tuning.

There's gotta be a better idea to jumpstart this thing, not some messy, half-thought-out idea like this, where we run the very real risk of alienating those folks still interested in reading the news. The devil is in the details.

 

So Waylon, you think (1) newspapers have a monopoly on the news, (2) we're irreplaceable but the public is simply too ignorant to realize it, and (3) those silly fools would be properly chastened and promptly scurry back into our warm embrace if only we withheld our product from them.

But media arrogance only exists in the imagination of the looney fringe ...

 

I think that Americans love to bitch about institutions. They bitch about the local newspaper the same way they bitch about the office cafeteria, the fire department, the city council, the local public schools and Congress. People like to complain.

Charging for content, or eliminating Internet sites for very local newspapers where readers have no other source, isn't "witholding the product." It's making people pay for the product. Just like every other business in the world. I buy a 12-pack of Diet Coke every two or three days. Not once do I remember feeling like Diet Coke is "arrogant" for charging me for that 12-pack, loyal as I may be.

 

I like the idea of the internet only having old news. I would suggest a week after it is printed.

I would also suggest no free obits, comics or pictures of any type on the internet side.

You have to make people want the printed page. If you are not willing to do this, sell the presses tomorrow.

 

No other source? Where do you live? I have family in a small mountain town. If their local newspaper went dark -- or their website only had old news that no consumer wants -- their four local TV stations' websites would be more than happy to serve the newspaper's former readers and advertisers.

 

Great IDEA! They don't make any money on the web anyway.

It would also be a great time for site maintence and to make template changes, etc. I wish Gannett would do this.

 

If I owned the only nice sit-down restaurant in a town, and the next closest nice sit-down restaurant was 50 miles away, would it be smart for me to open another sit-down place in the same town and sell the food at 1/3rd the price. Because of this, neither place makes a profit.

For obits, comics (in one place), soccer u-12 team pics, local classifieds, local grocery store coupons, high school gamers and standings and general in-depth local news, local newspapers are a monopoly.

Where else are you going to find this information in one location? Take advantage of that.

 

And the readers who turn to those sources would be providing the same amount of revenue they are right now anyway - zero.

For as much as you BLOGGERS!!! like to rant and rail about how unnecessary the "MSM" is, you sure get your panties in a wad when newspapers start talking about charging for content, don't you?

 

And which TV station employees would handle this?

 

Maybe in a small mountain town that might work, given the minimal amount of local stories. But in a medium or large metro area there is no freakin' way the TV stations can cover all the local news.

Anyway, I can't find the line, but there was a Slate story about charging for online content. The analogy made was with downloading music. People said charging per song would be stupid since people could do it for free. Meanwhile, the apple store and others have proven people are willing to pay.

Of course, the comparison isn't 100 percent analogous. But the idea that people will never pay for something after it's been offered for free isn't necessarily true.

Somethinge else that article mentioned: Writing for the web has only been around for what, 10-15 years? The entire medium is still in its infancy. There's no way to know how things will change.

 

Will I be able to keep my underwear?

 

No. 1, I'm not a blogger.

No. 2, I have our P&L right in front of me. Our website generates about 12 percent of our newspaper's total revenue, with a margin that is four times greater than that of the print product. Is our online revenue where it needs to be? Fuck no. But you are out of your mind if you think the proper response to the revenue crunch in our industry is to piss away more revenue, alienate the readership that we've worked so long to build, and enrage our advertisers.