Globe to start charging to read Boston.com?

[jmt57]

I know this may not seem like Pats-related news, but considering how much Pats fans depend on information about the Pats from Mike Reiss and the rest of the Boston Globe, I thought this would be worth posting here.

News Corp. plans fees for newspaper Web sites by the AP in the Boston Herald

The challenge is holding on to ad dollars while charging those readers who are willing to pay. One idea is setting up a kind of toll that allows readers to visit the site for free but begins charging after a certain number of page views.

Murdoch gave few details Wednesday on what News Corp.’s approach will be.

"The Wall Street Journal’s WSJ.com is the world’s most successful paid news site," he said, "We will be using our profitable experience there and the resulting unique skills throughout News Corporation to increase our revenues from all our content."

Asked how News Corp. will keep readers from simply jumping to free sources of news, he said, "I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media."

Globe says readers to pay for Web site

Globe spokesman Bob Powers said charging for Boston.com appears inevitable.

“It’s going to happen one way or another,” Powers said. “We are looking at several different options, and the goal would be to generate revenue.”

Boston Sports Media Watch has an interesting editorial on the situation, mostly with a lot of questions about what may transpire.
Boston Sports Media Watch Boston Globe/Boston.com To Charge Online Readers

Non-Newspaper related sites like WEEI.com, NESN.com and Comcast SportsNet could see their online content gain more traffic, assuming they remain free of charge to access. Team sites, like RedSox.com, Patriots.com and Celtics.com, which are already producing their own coverage and content, would also seemingly benefit should the local newspapers decide to start charging for content. Free, independent sites like CelticsBlog.com, PatriotsDaily.com and messageboards like the Sons Of Sam Horn and PatsFans.com would also likely benefit from increased traffic as fans go to get their fix of information and sports talk.

Is what The Boston Globe is producing, specifically on the sports side, since that’s what we’re dealing with here, so exclusive and valuable that readers are going to pay, in this economy, to be able to read it, when they can get most of the same information for free from the above sources? I might consider paying something just for Reiss’s Pieces updates, but not a whole lot.

Much will depend on the price. If it were say, $19.99 for a year, people might go for that. Make that $19.99 a month, or a week, I don’t think so. Will they continue to fill the space with ads in addition to the subscription charge? Will they lower the cost of the print edition?

 

[patriot lifer]

bah humbug

 

[farn]

Saw that - can't really believe it. Truth ? I'll stop going. Will come here all the time to see what people are saying about their articles. Ridiculous. Time for Reiss to jump ship before it's too late.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

With the advent of Twitter and the proliferation of free sites to choose from that will be offering essentially the same info (or summations of it) for free, this won't fly. It's like the newspaper business really wants to put itself out of business, even on the internet.

 

[Reckedtrek]

I go to that page for ONE reason, Mike Reiss. If they charge, I won't go to the page anymore. If enough people stop going/don't pay, their ad dollars will begin to plummet and they'd have to strongly reconsider their decision.

 

[Pujo]

Problem is that ads don't bring in nearly what they used to. Newspapers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their print businesses are irreversibly declining, and they don't have a good model for making money off of free online content. Actually, nobody really has a good model for making money off of free online content since online advertising rates plummeted earlier this decade, but newspapers have the additional burden of keeping a print business that's operating at a loss above water. It wouldn't surprise me if other sites, except those with other revenue streams (like ESPN), started charging for content too eventually. It probably just won't happen until newspapers are already dead and burried.

 

[BTTA]

Can we really look Mike Riess in the eye and suggest that we have a right to his work product without paying for it? He's very good at his craft, and should get paid in a manner that reflects that.

Even without the "burden" of the print business, the newspaper industry is threatened with extinction. And I can't see that as anything other than a bad thing for democracy. We need good investigative reporting. Personally, i subscribe to the NYT and Washington Post in part as an act of social conscience.

The utopian mindset that got us all thinking that online content should be free is fading away. It seems the bigger the "free" sites are, the more money they lose. You Tube loses millions every year, for example, and its management doesn't have a clear way to turn that around if it retains a social network business model.

Problem is that ads don't bring in nearly what they used to. Newspapers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their print businesses are irreversibly declining, and they don't have a good model for making money off of free online content. Actually, nobody really has a good model for making money off of free online content since online advertising rates plummeted earlier this decade, but newspapers have the additional burden of keeping a print business that's operating at a loss above water. It wouldn't surprise me if other sites, except those with other revenue streams (like ESPN), started charging for content too eventually. It probably just won't happen until newspapers are already dead and burried.

 

[jmt57]

I'm thinking that a combination of free content with a fee for 'premium' content would be the way to go. Of course you then have to decide how much is available for free and how much to charge, but why not try that rather than an all-or-nothing approach. You could compare that to how ESPN makes most of its content free, but charges for for the 'Insider' analysis. If it's information that's available from many other sources then keep it free; if it is opinions and analysis with some genuine insight then charge for it.

One other thing companies such as News Corp. could consider is being more proactive in going after sites that reprint their stories in full. I know Ian doesn't allow that here but there are plenty of web sites around that copy and paste articles in full, or allow forum members to do that on discussion boards. It's copyright infringement, but I don't get a sense that very many newspaper or magazine sites actively try to protect themselves. Every time that happens that's results in that many fewer web hits and page views, and in turn that much less ad revenue for the original source.

 

[Rob0729]

This is a long time coming and far from surprising. The fact of the matter is giving away free content online plays a big role in the decline of the newspaper industry in recent year. I am surprised they ever gave it away for free.

I am very disapointed, but not surprised.

 

[signbabybrady]

Can we really look Mike Riess in the eye and suggest that we have a right to his work product without paying for it? He's very good at his craft, and should get paid in a manner that reflects that.

I am not the one in the LRC. I will be able to look him in the face. He might have to move on from the Globe if things are that bad. While he is good we have other good blog options too. And to be honest more and more I am going to Weei.com anyway Price's blog is awsome and I like the coverage of other sports better on Weei. If Reiss left the globe I wouldn't go there so why am I going to pay for access to the whole sight when I want to read one writer.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Aren't the advertisement dollars enough?

 

[BTTA]

Every newspaper in the country is considering all of those options.

I'm thinking that a combination of free content with a fee for 'premium' content would be the way to go. Of course you then have to decide how much is available for free and how much to charge, but why not try that rather than an all-or-nothing approach. You could compare that to how ESPN makes most of its content free, but charges for for the 'Insider' analysis. If it's information that's available from many other sources then keep it free; if it is opinions and analysis with some genuine insight then charge for it.

One other thing companies such as News Corp. could consider is being more proactive in going after sites that reprint their stories in full. I know Ian doesn't allow that here but there are plenty of web sites around that copy and paste articles in full, or allow forum members to do that on discussion boards. It's copyright infringement, but I don't get a sense that very many newspaper or magazine sites actively try to protect themselves. Every time that happens that's results in that many fewer web hits and page views, and in turn that much less ad revenue for the original source.

 

[condon84]

Big mistake if they start charging for content. Once upon a time the Herald tried it and failed miserably. Same thing will happen if the Globe tries that. It's too easy to get free content in the internet. Why pay?

 

[APatrioticVirginian]

Its suicide

 

[Rob0729]

Aren't the advertisement dollars enough?

PPC and web banner advertising is hurting now. Even when it was flourishing, it wouldn't be enough for a company the size of the Globe to generate enough revenue to offset the decline in print sales and print advertising.

 

[vyrago]

This is a long time coming and far from surprising. The fact of the matter is giving away free content online plays a big role in the decline of the newspaper industry in recent year. I am surprised they ever gave it away for free.

I am very disapointed, but not surprised.

I am neither surprised nor disappointed. I'm saddened by the demise of newspapers and if this is a way for the Globe to remain in business, I'm willing to pay to read stuff I would have paid for had I been getting a paper Globe.

This is how guys like Reiss will continue to get paid.

 

[BTTA]

One of the consequences of this trend is that the system won't be producing the great sports writers that I've grown to love over the decades of reading sports. We just won't see any more like Povich, Murray, DeFord, Collins, etc. They will get sidetracked to TV before they elevate their writing to an art.

We get TONS of news mcnuggets about the Pats, but when was the last time you read a column that had you so wrapped up in the story it told that you lost track of where you were and what time it is? That you felt a sense of loss when you finished it?

Gammons was getting close, but he jumped ship. Wilbon may be as well, but he's already spending most of his week focused on broadcast and not print.

I have no idea how much potential Mike Riess has. He might be able to get there with another decade of writing, but his career track has already been rerouted. He doesn't have the opportunity at this point. There is no money in the communications economy to pay him to write with the degree of concentration required for greatness.

 

[condon84]

I am neither surprised nor disappointed. I'm saddened by the demise of newspapers and if this is a way for the Globe to remain in business, I'm willing to pay to read stuff I would have paid for had I been getting a paper Globe.

This is how guys like Reiss will continue to get paid.

Sorry, but there's no one writing at the Globe worth paying for. Shaugnessy, Ryan, Mazz, all those guys I can't stand. Doom and gloom writers that jump from one extreme to the other aren't for me. Ryan's not as bad, but it's all the same with him. Does he even still write for the Globe?

I like Reiss for the Pats information that he writes about, not because he's a great writer. If I want to be entertained by sports writing, I'll go read Bill Simmons.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Darn. I'll miss reading it. Too bad.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Either Time or Newsweek had a feature on the dying print media a few months ago and the battle with publishing their content for free online. There were several models outlined and they all seem doomed to fail.

Would the Globe be charging for all online content on Boston.com? Just things by their writers? Will blogs be included or will they be separate?

Someone mentioned Twitter, I would expect the Globe to put out an ESPN-esque memo about posting "tweeting" to keep all of their content their own in an attempt to make as much money as possible.