Seriously, what if newspapers did this?

[Fredrick]

Your opinion means nothing. People age 40 and under are moving away from newspapers. People age 25 and under ... forget it. They were never into the print product and never will be. You know who still buy newspapers? Old people. Retirees. The people that Buick and Cadillac tried to market to for decades before realizing that their target market was dying --- literally. Between TV and Internet, everybody else is used to current news immediately, instead of waiting until tomorrow morning to read about things they knew about 12 hours ago.

The ship's already left the dock. It will never come back.

Gee thanks for telling me my opinion means nothing. I guess yours means everything. If people don't want to read newspapers, then why are they reading books and magazines? They still want to read. People still want to read about the local teams and their kids in the paper. The ship has already left the dock but not for the reason you suggest. Publishers were sold a bill of goods by panicking about newsprint costs and ink costs and decided the easy way was to go to the Internet and give away their product for free. The immediacy of the product has nothing to do with papers dying. Like the original poster said if you didn't give it away for free on the Web people would be forced to buy the paper to read the local journalists' reports on the pro, high school and college teams. I don't feel sorry for publishers. They have dug their own graves. People still want to read local news. But if it's on the online for free why would they subscribe to a paper?? They won't. And advertisers won't advertise.

And I won't insult you back and tell you your opinion means nothing.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

So why should it be online for free?

 

[mglhoops]

If people don't want to read newspapers, then why are they reading books and magazines? They still want to read. People still want to read about the local teams and their kids in the paper. The ship has already left the dock but not for the reason you suggest. Publishers were sold a bill of goods by panicking about newsprint costs and ink costs and decided the easy way was to go to the Internet and give away their product for free. The immediacy of the product has nothing to do with papers dying. Like the original poster said if you didn't give it away for free on the Web people would be forced to buy the paper to read the local journalists' reports on the pro, high school and college teams. I don't feel sorry for publishers. They have dug their own graves. People still want to read local news. But if it's on the online for free why would they subscribe to a paper?? They won't. And advertisers won't advertise.

And I won't insult you back and tell you your opinion means nothing.

You are both exactly right and exactly wrong. And then exactly right again.

Immediacy is one reason but it isn't nearly as important as it has been made out to be. Bravo for that understanding.

The main reason is that the poo-bahs (pooh-bahs?) for years thought it was about them and what they were doing, and it never was. They were able to either get away with it, or fool themselves into believing it was, primarily because there was no delivery mechanism that could compete.

The web has changed that entire paradigm. My main example: ESPN.com is nothing more than The National Sports Daily with the ability to deliver.

And because the web is based on open exchange, a subscription pay wall won't send the people back to the print product. It will send them to the guy producing local stories without the pay wall.

Because he can.

 

[lono]

If people don't want to read newspapers, then why are they reading books and magazines?

That logic is as deeply flawed as saying if people don't want to drive big SUVs when gas is $5 a gallon, then why are they driving Corollas and Civics?

Books and magazines are very different products than a daily newspaper, and marketed to different audiences, too. Not the same thing.

The world has changed. Newspapers no longer have a monopoly on both the content of news and its delivery mechanism.

In fact, they no longer have a monopoly on content or how it's delivered.

Do people still like to read?

Of course they do.

Do people still like to read daily newspapers in major metro areas? Some do, but circulation is declining and will continue to get worse as the products continue to sliced.

Why pay for something that is not timely and has much of its content available free in many other outlets?

 

[Fredrick]

Why pay for something that is not timely and has much of its content available free in many other outlets?

For the same reason people always paid for it before and advertisers advertised before we started giving it away free on the Web. Because advertisers (except for classifieds, I agree that is a problem) want their ads in print, in a forum where it can be read on paper, in people's hands and people want to read respected professionals' opinions on their pro, high school and college teams. Yes the results of the game may be on ESPN.com immediately and on all our Websites immediately, but if we killed our Websites, people would still buy the paper the next morning to read the local writers' takes. shirt ... how many people are logging on at 11 p.m. to midnight to read the Internet version of their favorite high school, college or pro team?? Not many. How many are logging on weekends? Not many. They are waiting til they get to work in the morning and read it there where they can rip off their current employers by being on the Web all day.

We are giving away our articles for free. Advertisers are not advertising on newspapers' websites like they did in the print editions. Of course nobody is going to buy the paper if the stories are all online in the morning.

I agree it's too late. I'm just saying newspaper publishers blew it by panicking over costs of newsprint and delivery and ink. It's much easier to put it on the Web. Let's see you sell Internet ads, local newspaper people. Ain't gonna happen.

People want to read the local writers' takes on the games. Period. Believe it. They are now getting those takes for free on the Web. If you are giving it away for free, shame on you and see you in the unemployment lines soon.

 

[GB-Hack]

Here's my idiotic idea, inspired by the growth of Netflix...

• Newspapers charge for print subscription as usual
• With print subscription, customer receives user name and password to online site
• In addition, subscriber also receives free online access to every other paper owned by company

For instance, if you subscribed to the Des Moine Register (Gannett), you would receive access to USA Today, Detroit Free Press, Indianapolis Star, Honolulu Advertiser, Arizona Republic and hundreds of other newspapers/specialty Web sites.

Not sure what the market value would be on that, particularly if every other newspaper company continued to give away their product for free online. Obviously, in a perfect world, there'd be a way for a company to step in and control the online access of ALL newspapers across the country.

I click NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Miami Herald, Dallas Morning News and the Denver Post every day. It's become a habit, a part of my life. And of course, I'm constantly clicking on others as they are linked or e-mailed to me.

If I were forced to pay a subscription fee to view the above sites, I would.

The first two are the thought I've had. I love the third one you've tacked on.

 

[lono]

People want to read the local writers' takes on the games. Period. Believe it.

I would love to see you come up with one shred of evidence, one readership survey to prove this.

It might be true when it comes to the local Milford-Tilden h.s. game where the only coverage is from the local rag, but when it comes to pro games or big college ones, I'd much rather read ESPN.com, Yahoo! or CBS Sportsline.

That's where the "respected professionals" are moving to these days — people who know their sports insides and outsides, sites that offer multiple writers and columnists writing about the big game.

Sorry, but I'm going to get more insight about the Eagles-Cowboys game from ESPN.com or Yahoo! than I am a 20,000-circ paper in Tarrant County or Bucks County who has a 22-year-old kid making $25,000 a year at the game.

 

[lono]

Shut up. I used to be that kid. ;D

So did I, Buck. Good times ...

 

[Blair Waldorf]

The next thing you'll see is our good friend Google swooping in and offering to pay for electronic conversion of all of our archived stories and photos.

Sure, this will save papers millions and millions of dollars that they don't have/won't spend on expensive electronic archiving, but in turn, it will give Google exclusive access to the one thing that newspapers really have left over the interwebs -- our archives.

Google says it will give paper chains a split on the advertising revenue, but is it worth losing the copyright and exclusivity we have on content published between 1900-1990-ish? I know of one paper chain that already thinks so ...

 

[Bullwinkle]

Here's my idiotic idea, inspired by the growth of Netflix...

• Newspapers charge for print subscription as usual
• With print subscription, customer receives user name and password to online site
• In addition, subscriber also receives free online access to every other paper owned by company

For instance, if you subscribed to the Des Moine Register (Gannett), you would receive access to USA Today, Detroit Free Press, Indianapolis Star, Honolulu Advertiser, Arizona Republic and hundreds of other newspapers/specialty Web sites.

Not sure what the market value would be on that, particularly if every other newspaper company continued to give away their product for free online. Obviously, in a perfect world, there'd be a way for a company to step in and control the online access of ALL newspapers across the country.

I click NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Miami Herald, Dallas Morning News and the Denver Post every day. It's become a habit, a part of my life. And of course, I'm constantly clicking on others as they are linked or e-mailed to me.

If I were forced to pay a subscription fee to view the above sites, I would.

The first two are the thought I've had. I love the third one you've tacked on.

I wish more people would talk about my idea. It's my dream to be the guy that saved newspapers. ;D

 

[Fredrick]

I would love to see you come up with one shred of evidence, one readership survey to prove this.

It might be true when it comes to the local Milford-Tilden h.s. game where the only coverage is from the local rag, but when it comes to pro games or big college ones, I'd much rather read ESPN.com, Yahoo! or CBS Sportsline.

That's where the "respected professionals" are moving to these days — people who know their sports insides and outsides, sites that offer multiple writers and columnists writing about the big game.

Sorry, but I'm going to get more insight about the Eagles-Cowboys game from ESPN.com or Yahoo! than I am a 20,000-circ paper in Tarrant County or Bucks County who has a 22-year-old kid making $25,000 a year at the game.

Don't get me started on readership surveys. Yeah ... I really trust those. Focus groups, surveys. They are unreliable.

Yahoo and ESPN.com cannot effectively (or at least not to this date) cover all pro, high school and college teams' games on a daily basis like the local papers can.

Take Chicago for example: ESPN.com and Yahoo don't cover all the White Sox and Cubs games and high school games. People in Chicago, for instance, will buy the Tribune and/or Sun Times or the many fine suburban papers to get such coverage.

But not now since they are giving away the product for free on the Internet.
Papers have been sold a bill of goods by people with selfish interests saying the Internet is the way to go.
You tell me this: What papers are satisfied with their internet ad sales and potential for internet ad sales?? Do any such papers exist? If so please educate me.

 

[Tom Petty]

are you not already educated?