Comments on: Newsday.com moves to subscription model

By: Tom Wood

Tom Wood — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:55:39 +0000

Now that Google will include Twitter feeds in their search results, we can get real-time reporting as it happens from citizen journalists. No more waiting for someone to write about it in a newspaper, so they are all doomed anyway. We don’t even need real journalists any more. Once they are gone, we won’t miss archaic concepts like forethought, analysis, and composition.

Srsly.

By: Stephen Beals

Stephen Beals — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:08:01 +0000

And, yeah, I would have to reconsider EW if it wasn’t free.

By: Stephen Beals

Stephen Beals — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:05:03 +0000

In the good ol’ days you could read nice, long investigative stories in the newspapers (perhaps as a part of a series running the entire week) that went far beyond what you would get from 60 Minutes. Now, it seems like “investigative” journalism involves picking up a phone or sending an email and reporting what the person on the other end said, perhaps without making a typo. What I’m getting from most people is that until newspapers realize that they need to have local investigative stories instead of a lame repeat of what we read online the day before there’s no reason to pay for them. As Michael Connelly wrote, they should be called “The Morning Afterthought”.

By: Robert George

Robert George — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:01:47 +0000

“Iâ€™ve asked around and I havenâ€™t found somebody in their 20s who prefers reading an article in the newspaper to online. I know, thatâ€™s not scientific and it doesnâ€™t mean much, but itâ€™s an interesting question to ask people. Reading habits have already changed so much. The 60 year old I referenced above was making fun of text messaging last year and now it seems like he and his wife are constantly texting each other.” I am 26 and prefer magazines to online but not newspapers. Newspapers ink get everywhere, most of the stories are so short they are fine to read online, they are too big and loose…. Magazines, and the long form journalism they contain, really benefit from being in real life. Newspapers kinda annoy me as a product. Maybe reformatting would make a difference?

As to the EW bit, it’s really just a question of whether or not you would order could you not read online.

By: Stephen Beals

Stephen Beals — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:47:59 +0000

Rats. I wrote the above and then realized that I never asked my wife, “Do you prefer to read articles printed in a newspaper or online?” She prefers a newspaper.

She’s 33. (Looks like she’s still in her 20s … honest. No, she won’t read this. Prefers newspaper).

By: Stephen Beals

Stephen Beals — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:37:13 +0000

Ok, I could’ve renewed EW, but I didn’t because I’m trying to save more money these days. Besides, EW is light reading and I’m already getting that online. It’s not much of a sacrifice.

The company I work for produces ads for car dealerships in several states (I never thought I’d go from animation to automobile advertising, but there you go). The owners have pulled all newspaper advertising and have focused completely on the Internet (cars.com, autotrader, etc.) Clearly, we want people who can afford a new car to read our ads, but as one owner said “Only people my age read the newspaper anymore” (he’s 60).

There are still a few dealerships putting ads in the paper, but most are placing ads less and less. Considering that car ads are a staple of newspaper ad revenue, that becomes a real problem. We’re not dropping over $500,000 a year for one medium-sized market anymore.

Now that may be changing. We have placed two ads this month and are trying to track the amount of people they bring in versus the same ads online. We’ve done that before, but maybe things will be different this time.

I’ve asked around and I haven’t found somebody in their 20s who prefers reading an article in the newspaper to online. I know, that’s not scientific and it doesn’t mean much, but it’s an interesting question to ask people. Reading habits have already changed so much. The 60 year old I referenced above was making fun of text messaging last year and now it seems like he and his wife are constantly texting each other.

Anyway, I wish Newsday all the best and I hope people as passionate as us own newspapers. Judging from the newspaper sales reps that I speak to, I have this dreaded feeling that there is a sort of clueless “GM CEO” type running many newspapers and they’re going to steer things into the ground.

By: Robert George

Robert George — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:54:26 +0000

“People who read for free online because they canâ€™t (or wonâ€™t) afford a $2 newspaper or $5 magazine arenâ€™t very attractive to advertisers. Which explains the gap between print and digital ad rates.” True. Websites, however, cannot tell one type of hit from another, and neither can advertisers. So that reality may push down advertising rates, but it doesn’t change the incentive to have those people clicking. It does suggest that for some magazines or papers the clicks will worth less than the free riders who read online and don’t subscribe but would if forced to (minus the people who get hooked online for free and then order, of course), but its not clear that in every case that is true. Especially, in my mind, the example of Entertainment Weekly.

By: Ted Rall

Ted Rall — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:20:33 +0000

People who read for free online because they can’t (or won’t) afford a $2 newspaper or $5 magazine aren’t very attractive to advertisers. Which explains the gap between print and digital ad rates.

By: Robert George

Robert George — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:30:26 +0000

Also, I forgot this: Stephen: “I couldnâ€™t afford to renew my subscription to Entertainment Weekly but I continue to read most of it for free online.” If you can’t afford EW, they don’t really care if you read online or not. Actually, they’d rather you did because they can at least squeaze a little online ad revenue out of you and make you form a habit so you read online. Then, when you have money you order. The Atlantic and Sport Illustrated got me that way. The question isn’t why should they let guys like you read, but rather whether the revenue from letting you read offsets the guy who can read online and doesn’t subscribe. I don’t have the answer to that, but its really a different kind of question. I am guessing in EW’s case its primary readers are people who can’t or won’t read online (or are an office reading item) making you gravy.

By: Robert George

Robert George — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:23:02 +0000

Ok, I’m sorry, but this doesn’t seem to connect with me. I am not a cartoonist, but I do consume quite a bit of news, for work and for pleasure. “As for how to convince the kids that print is better, I have faith that theyâ€™ll figure it out the same way they figured out that vinyl sounds better than CDs, which sound better than MP3s. A lot of hipsters buy LPs. Howâ€™d they find out? Word of mouth, no doubt.” Vinyl is better. But vinyl is not convenient. Given the choice I’d rather a digital, inferior product I can transfer everywhere And that is why the music industry could not survive without MP3 and CD sales. And musician could not survive without all that plus touring. Vinyl is a niche. Newspapers cannot go on if their primary product is a niche.

The other problem paid content runs into is that certain organizations have incentives to avoid creating paywalls, like NPR, BBC, cable news networks (including Al Jazeera), local news stations, and pure online web organizations. While they may not be the grey lady (which is why NY Times could probably make it work, especially since some industries like mine need the info) they are just as good or better than many local paper outlets. Free and good enough is powerful against great. Free and good enough vs. paid and good enough is deadly for paid. It would truly be tragic if television news finally drove a stake in prints heart via the internet.

I don’t know what the future of news is. But I don’t think paywalls are the future for most newspapers.

That’s my ten cents anyway.