The Day The Newspapers Shut Down Their Sites

Metin is the only one who makes sense on this thread.

 

You can have the $15.37 we're making off the online product.

Seriously, there is no revenue online. That's the problem.

 

First off, I'm not a BLOGGER!!! I'm a former newspaper editor and reporter. Secondly, as others have said, taking away content from our readers in an effort to drive them to start paying our salaries again is not a productive way to deal with the decline in circulation we're facing.

Newspapers have a horrendously bad business model. We've been saying that for a while now. We're doing less with less and we're making readers pay more for a product that has declined in quality and size. Then, when readers complain, we start taking an arrogant "we know better than you" approach that turns off readers.

Instead of shutting down our Web sites, we need to create a model by which we can charge people for access. Microcharges (say, five cents for one story or 25 cents a day) might be one option, along with charging for online archive access.

Providing a brief story on the Web, following up with a more in depth piece in print and then telling readers they have to pick up or subscribe to the print edition to get the depth they want may be an option.

We've been giving our readers nothing but sticks. It's time to put a fresh carrot on there for them.

 

Then stop the presses and padlock them.

 

My audience is going to go to ESPN.com to read about the school board? Or my local high school state championship team? Or, hell, DAILY coverage of the local NBA team?

I think not.

I've been proposing something like this for a while now. Actually, I've been saying every newspaper in the country needs to band together and do this for a day or a week. My guess is the blogs will go silent, too, out of neccesity. And our point will be made.

Truth is, my paper's website isn't competing with CNN.com or ESPN.com. Not at all.

 

No, they will spend two weeks bitching and moaning about how the "MSM" is being ridiculous in shutting down their Web site, how it's simply suicide on their part, and how BLOGS!!!! and aggregators are absolutely ESSENTIAL to the "MSM"s long-term survival.

 

And they will look ridiculous. And it will warm my heart.

 

Would readers pick up a copy of tomorrow's paper if the online version ended with "To see more, pick up a copy of tomorrow's Times."

Most readers wouldn't subscribe. Newspapers should either charge for premium content like investigative and major enterprise work, or not even post those online.

 

Why wouldn't they? Newspapers would still be updating with breaking news, but if people want to be informed, they'll have to buy the paper. Where else would they get their content?

 

Frank, my point is that newspapers no longer have a monopoly on local news, so an impotent little gesture like unplugging our sites for two weeks would only result in a backlash that would obliterate the hard-fought gains we've made on the digital side. I'm not saying that if we disappeared, TV stations would suddenly make it a priority to post every prep basketball box score. Given our dwindling circulation figures and revenue numbers, I'm not sure why anyone would want to copy every single aspect of our business anyway.

 

Does your publisher know that?

 

I think you are assuming that people will want to visit 8-10 different websites every day to read the same information they would receive in the printed paper or on one newspaper website/