Posted on 05/19/2009 6:06:42 AM PDT by abb
The free ride soon will be over for people who want to read several Bay Area newspapers online. But some in the industry question whether charging for content is a smart strategy.
Newspaper websites have been struggling to find a strategy that works. Why place a classified ad on mercurynews.com when it's free on Craigslist? Why buy a paper when its content is free online?
The owner of the Mercury News says the answer is to end the free ride online. It is a decision labeled risky by former Mercury News online editor Michael Bazeley.
"There's an expectation, particularly among the younger generation, that when you go online, most of the information you're going to get is going to be free with few exceptions, and this idea of re-training people to think now they have to pay for this content, I think, is a risky proposition," said Bazeley.
The decision is expected to impact dozens of news sites owned by Media News, which also owns the Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, and Marin Independent Journal in the Bay Area.
The editor of the Mercury News turned down a request for an interview.
"You're going to essentially open up the market for other people who want to come into the market and offer content for free, and there will always be people. There will always be competitors who see an opportunity," said Bazeley.
That could give a boost to free news sites, such as the Chronicle's sfgate.com.
It remains free, even though the newspaper has had major layoffs as a result of falling circulation and ad sales.
The Wall Street Journal charges $103 a year for its full-text content and the New York Times has been looking into charging.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
ping
Wow, I’ll still spend nothing to read their news.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/18/technology/mehta_docs.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051813
Every blog becomes a cinema
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6314510.ece
Google backs local newspaper mergers in the UK
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003974257
‘Tucson Citizen’ Was Losing $10,000 a Day, Court Told in Lawsuit Challenging Closing
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003974202
Craigslist CEO Demands Apology from South Carolina’s AG
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133216.html
Hired News
Will P.R. pros take the baton of investigative journalism?
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=106324
New Regulatory Atmosphere: FCC Opens PPM Inquiry
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=106317
Mid-2009: Magazine Ad Pages, Audience Decline
I hope they all die a slow death!
No need to hope, 'fox.
They are.
But curiously the miscreants seem to be speeding up their own demise with the passing of every day. ;^)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2009-05-18-network-tv-advertising_N.htm
Advertisers get demanding as TV networks try to be creative
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE54H5ED20090518
Music magazine Paste begs readers for bailout
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803123.html
FCC Reviewing Arbitron’s Counting of Minorities
Told them to keep it, my bird died.
Tele-puke kept going about the new, improved paper with the new, improved format.
Told him, "Not at all interested. Your paper is too liberal"
Tele-dolt said, "But we've changed. We're really different now."
So, I asked him, "Who is your parent company?"
Tele-loser said, "The Times."
I said, "The Times? As in the New York Times?"
"Tell you what sport. Go to the zoo and sit by the leopard cage. When their spots change, you can drop off a free copy of your paper."
These newspapers that try to go back to pay online are in for a real shock, I suspect.
I have no problem with a news company wanting to charge for material that it has committed resources to gathering, generating, and spinning. I just hope they’re ready for the bad news - that people may not be willing to pay for it.
Interestingly, I am observing an experiment in fee based online newspaper reading just a few feet away on my wife’s computer. I quit reading the paper and advised we should quit subscribing. She said ok, canceled the delivery and took on the online version for about $3.00/month. This has been going on for a year or so.
She is involved in lots of local stuff and the paper has the info she needs to keep up. Perhaps equally important are the obituaries. She is however, not young. She is the old demographic that has always read the paper.
I don’t think she reads the classifieds or the sports or the AP/McClatchy wire stuff. I have never actually logged on so can’t comment on the presence or effectiveness of ads. The deal includes Sunday delivery and I confess to reading the local news there.
From my perspective, the movement on line might actually cannibalize existing delivery readers. It is very easy to check out the paper while getting down to the other daily computer routines. This will not go well with advertisers.
"...We continue to maximize new revenue sources. Last quarter we had $4.32 revenue from micropayments.."
http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/
Debating The New York Times’ Future
The only way you can get away with charging for content is to offer meaningful content that is not available elsewhere, given the SJMN large percentage of wire stories and don’t even get me started on how much of their newspapers real estate is filled with ads, I think the SJMN is going to learn a hard lesson.
They do have enough unique content about the bay area/silicon valley that they might be able to pull off some sort of modest online subscription model, but I doubt that’s what they have in mind.
You do realize the guy on the phone is most likely some telemarketer in an office building states away that has nothing to do with the times or your paper, beyond being told to make sales calls for it because the company he works for hired them.
If you want to get your opinion to the paper itself, you likely did not do so.
Advertising basically has two costs. The creative cost (copywriters, graphic designers, etc.) and the cost to deliver the finished ads to potential customers.
The distribution monopoly once enjoyed by the Drive-By Media types (newspapers, electronic broadcast) enabled them to gouge advertisers unmercifully. Those days are forever gone.
Because of the web, distribution costs will approach zero and will correspondingly take away revenue from the legacy media. Total advertising costs will decrease, allowing a more efficient allocation of resources and ultimately a cheaper product to consumers.
Yet another muddy decision by the Murky News.
This Leftist, amnesty for illegal voters and America is ALWAYS wrong rag is long over due for death...
They’ve been an anchor on the ass of Silicon Valley for too long.
SJ Mercury News: “We are in a deep hole. Let’s keep digging.”
DIE ALREADY YOU WORTHLESS RAG! No one needs you!
Yup, when the economy picks up, and the real estate and automotive markets take off again, as they will, brokers and car dealers are going to be lining up to once again spend big bucks for inefficient, yet expensive classified ads in newspapers....
I’m old enough to have bought several autos and trucks in my lifetime. Remember how it used to be? Buying the Friday newspapers from several area cities and then phoning the dealers and then driving all over hell and gone looking for what you wanted?
Nowadays, with a few clicks you are presented with a plethora of choices, with elaborate descriptions and many pictures. And I suspect auto dealers pay much less for a web page than endless newspaper and TV ads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.