Globe to start charging to read Boston.com?

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

Just a few years ago the NYT took their 'name' colmnists away from their site and charged a premium to read them. After a couple years when nobody was reading them, the NYT abandoned the practice. The content really needs to have value. Reiss aside, I can't think of anything from Morrisey Blvd that satisfies that criteria. And Reiss, as much as I like him, can be duplicated by the Pats' utilizing other new media outlets.

 

[aluminum seats]

As someone who grew up feeling that the Patriots' game for that week wasn't really over until Monday morning when I could read the Globe, I guess it makes me a little sad that newspapers are dying. I still check out the site (I'm out of state now, so don't read the paper), but I would never pay for it.

Not that there's not good stuff--Reiss as we all know, but Bob Ryan is always worth a read, Chad Finn is terrific, and there's several other good writers there. But the thing is, there's good sports stuff to read all over the place, for free, and that's not going to change. There's just no way I'd pay to read it....hell, in some ways it would be a relief because I wouldn't feel the obligation to check it out--spend more time with the family! But the bottom line is that there's no way it would work. The Boston Sports Media editorial--$20 a month? Are you kidding? It doesn't have a chance.

EDIT: I read that editorial wrong, it suggested $20 a year might fly. I still don't think so--they'd lose a huge percentage of readers with minimal subscribers, but that's at least a reasonable price point. My bad.

 

[Mark Morse]

I find it interesting to see how many of the people responding to this thread are supporters of this site. They were asked to support the site and they chose to, because of the content. They chose to support it so that it could remain free.

Outside of Mike Reiss, I wouldn't give a plug nickel for any of the Globe reporters. I would miss reading Reiss, but I could still e-mail him and get a response back.

The Globe is dead

 

[Holy Diver]

Patsfans.com will certainly get more traffic.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

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.

Except those people were writing stories, not reporting news. Reiss might get a column someday, some place where he can spend extra time sharpening his wordsmithing and picture painting, but at the moment he's the senior beat reporter on the Patriots news beat.

When Reiss made the jump to the Globe, he was in the bull pen behind such luminaries as Wrong Borges, when the opportunity came to take over the Patriots beat, he used the new media technique of blogging to get the information out early to a just-in-time consumer base. Instant win. The market for Patriots news is still a just-in-time crowd, we might like several pages of introspection, but for writers, that's a shrinking market. It's tough being a fossil.

 

[Gwedd]

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.

The newspapers have only themselves to blame for the decline in revenue. The big drop off in readers began when President Bush was elected in 2000. Regardless of whether or not you liked him, his policies, whatever, the newspapers, which are overwhelmingly left, decided to play politics and dropped any pretense of objective reporting. Reporters began to see themselves as opinion-shapers, rather than just reporting the facts, and constantly and demonstrably slanted news to fit their perception, and what they wanted their readers to read, rather than just give out the facts and let the readership make up it's own mind.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and dropped their subscriptions. Now, newspapers make very little from subscriptions, the lion's share of their revenue comes from advertising. When subscriptions started to fall off, advertisers took notice and started to scale back advertising. The portion they scaled back went, instead, to mostly on-line sources, which could tailor their ads to select markets based upon web traffic.

In other words, advertisers are putting their money where they can get the most results, and it isn't in newspapers. If newspapers were to return to an absolutely objective reporting standard, and leave the opinions to the opinion page editor, then they might see a return of readership along with increased advertising dollars. Blaming the internet is NOT what caused their demise. It's their slanted, pro-left coverage that alienated a large chunk of their readership.

And to add to their misery, newspapers are the victim,partially, of the left's green agenda. Many folks I know stopped subscribing to "save trees and energy". They couldn't see the use of having a newspaper that was made from killing trees (I know, a renewable resource. I'm just pointing out the green's argument here) and how it took all sorts of "carbon expenditures" to make the paper and the ink and run the presses, etc. Besides there's that whole recycling thing. But I digress.

News papers need to find their way back to the objective standard and report just the facts, and let their readers decide. Until and unless they do that, they will be their own worst enemy.

Respects,

 

[Ian]

Aren't the advertisement dollars enough?

That's the problem. I can tell you internet advertising is at its lowest in years - probably the worst I've seen in quite a while (down 300% from last year and even more than the year before). Between hosting and all the overhead (paying all their writers, benefits, etc.) I'm guessing they're not pulling in enough ad revenue to cover it all. If you take into account all the new online media along with this economy - it's a perfect storm for the newspaper industry and has been a disaster for all of them. They can't even get it back from their online site because take it from me, the money just isn't there right now. You can have all the traffic in the world, but if companies can't monitize it, or if they can't yield enough ad dollars to support it, something has to give. Which will make Twitter interesting to watch because that's a service that struggles to stay up and they're not getting a dime for doing it - other than all the publicity.

Let's be honest, they can't do "premium" content with professional sports. I turned down an opportunity with another sports network years ago just for that reason - they wanted 90% of the content to be subscription based and I felt it wouldn't work. So I launched this site. I simply felt that in this day and age there is little news that will come out that someone else won't report, so I just couldn't see doing it. The only way to add value to a user for premium content would be to charge for the speed of the information, something that Mike Reiss does well. Otherwise the columns and opinions, regardless of the quality of the writer, won't be enough of a draw to pull in readers to get them to pay to subscribe.

This is going to take a mass movement in order to work, and I think you're going to see this gain steam, but only if they ALL get behind it. Let's face it, I honestly can't see any other large media site saying, "forget that, we'll keep our site free", especially if the advertising market doesn't rebound, if they stand to make money from this. So I think this story is just the beginning, and start thinking about what news sources that you read are worth paying for. It may be a decision you could have to make.

 

[Ian]

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?

The difference then was they weren't all doing it. If they all do this time, it could be a different story. One of the only benefits for us as customers because they're going to have to add even more value (ie: better writing - features, etc) and give users a reason to pay for one and not the other.

 

[Pats726]

I really love Reiss...but the genie is out of the bottle..trying to put it back in will be hard. I wonder how much they intend to charge? With the situation bad...and many struggling charging will only drive many away. I bet they are taking a bath with a BUCK for a daily paper...I mean double very quickly...The shop where I go to used to always have none or a few Globes by the end of a day..now, I see piles of papers unbought. O think they need to think seriously about what they are doing..If it was affordable I MIGHT subscribe..BUT considering what they charge for a paper..I DOUBT it will be reasonable. ANd the list of good writers in the sports?? Ryan..Mazz,,,Dshaun...poor!!! Reiss rules...but is he enough??

 

[Gwedd]

I really love Reiss...but the genie is out of the bottle..trying to put it back in will be hard. I wonder how much they intend to charge? With the situation bad...and many struggling charging will only drive many away. I bet they are taking a bath with a BUCK for a daily paper...I mean double very quickly...The shop where I go to used to always have none or a few Globes by the end of a day..now, I see piles of papers unbought. O think they need to think seriously about what they are doing..If it was affordable I MIGHT subscribe..BUT considering what they charge for a paper..I DOUBT it will be reasonable. ANd the list of good writers in the sports?? Ryan..Mazz,,,Dshaun...poor!!! Reiss rules...but is he enough??

As I said in my comments above, the subscription costs aren't the real issue. What they take in for subs is chump change. The real income is through advertising. If they can't get the advertising dollars, then they start fading quickly, and they are losing advertisers because they are NOT producing a product that the public wants.

respects,

 

[Pats726]

As I said in my comments above, the subscription costs aren't the real issue. What they take in for subs is chump change. The real income is through advertising. If they can't get the advertising dollars, then they start fading quickly, and they are losing advertisers because they are NOT producing a product that the public wants.

respects,

If it's chump change..why did the double the price in a year 50 cents to 1 dollar??? They'd have MORE readers and possibly able to charge more money for advertising...no?? Which came first?? Is it that the public doesn't WANT the content OR is a dollar too much? Maybe they are trying to regain some money back from PC readers..but how much will they charge? And who knows once they start this how quickly they will charge more?? Frankly...besides Reiss..their sports writers are NOT all that good.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I find it interesting to see how many of the people responding to this thread are supporters of this site. They were asked to support the site and they chose to, because of the content. They chose to support it so that it could remain free.

Outside of Mike Reiss, I wouldn't give a plug nickel for any of the Globe reporters. I would miss reading Reiss, but I could still e-mail him and get a response back.

The Globe is dead

+1

Right on the mark, Mark.

Duh! I had forgotten I'd paid for this site for two years. Why? Simply because even with the noise from the loud and uninformed here there are so many quality posters on Patsfans, even if I disagree with them on occasion, posting interesting and well reasoned insights that did not occur to me in my limited football understanding.

Tell me this. The Globe in its and editorial ignorance of capitalism and demonstrated of market behaviour goes fee subscription. Then those few remaining Globe rump swabs who can't live without their daily Pravda propaganda and instructions post their personal recap of the premium content here on Patsfans. What is lost? Much is gained.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the Globe goes fee based on the internet, it will just hasten its demise. The papers had a chance to get it right about 15-20 years ago, and they looked down their collective noses at the internet. As a result, they came up with a terrible business model and it failed.

Now they're heading for the ash heap of history. Data collection speed has outpaced newspapers (and TV news) to such an extent that they are beyond saving as currently constituted.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Whatever. As long as I have my twitter, I'm good.

 

[condon84]

The difference then was they weren't all doing it. If they all do this time, it could be a different story. One of the only benefits for us as customers because they're going to have to add even more value (ie: better writing - features, etc) and give users a reason to pay for one and not the other.

THe only way newspapers have a chance to survive is that if they ALL websites start charging for content. Even if all the newspapers were to start charging for their content, what about ESPN for sports? MSNBC, YAHOO, CNN, etc that publish new news content almost on an hourly basis. You can't stop them. ESPN, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and all those other websites' main moneymaker is their TV channels and they use their internet websites to drive viewers to their channel. Print newspapers as it stands is no longer a profitable industry. It's just evolution.

 

[maverick4]

THe only way newspapers have a chance to survive is that if they ALL websites start charging for content. Even if all the newspapers were to start charging for their content, what about ESPN for sports? MSNBC, YAHOO, CNN, etc that publish new news content almost on an hourly basis. You can't stop them. ESPN, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and all those other websites' main moneymaker is their TV channels and they use their internet websites to drive viewers to their channel. Print newspapers as it stands is no longer a profitable industry. It's just evolution.

It's similar to what happened in the music industry, and I do believe that all news providers will start charging. Opinion and discussion sites will probably remain free, but the organizations doing the heavy lifting in terms of news reporting will be able to monetize and protect their content. The Wall Street Journal has already proved that you can make money charging for news, that you can protect it and put a wall around it, and prevent its content from being effectively used by opinion or aggregator sites.

 

[maverick4]

Reiss might have to move on from the Globe if things are that bad. While he is good we have other good blog options too.

Actually, what other options do you have? Take Patriot news reporting for instance. Reiss is the best at what he does, and if the Globe put a wall around his content and forced you to pay, what other reporter would you turn to? What if all reporters began monetizing their news? All you'd be left with are the aggregator and discussion sites talking about the news, but being unable to show what was actually reported. People will pay for the news.

 

[Captn]

The newspapers have only themselves to blame for the decline in revenue. The big drop off in readers began when President Bush was elected in 2000. Regardless of whether or not you liked him, his policies, whatever, the newspapers, which are overwhelmingly left, decided to play politics and dropped any pretense of objective reporting. Reporters began to see themselves as opinion-shapers, rather than just reporting the facts, and constantly and demonstrably slanted news to fit their perception, and what they wanted their readers to read, rather than just give out the facts and let the readership make up it's own mind.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and dropped their subscriptions. Now, newspapers make very little from subscriptions, the lion's share of their revenue comes from advertising. When subscriptions started to fall off, advertisers took notice and started to scale back advertising. The portion they scaled back went, instead, to mostly on-line sources, which could tailor their ads to select markets based upon web traffic.

In other words, advertisers are putting their money where they can get the most results, and it isn't in newspapers. If newspapers were to return to an absolutely objective reporting standard, and leave the opinions to the opinion page editor, then they might see a return of readership along with increased advertising dollars. Blaming the internet is NOT what caused their demise. It's their slanted, pro-left coverage that alienated a large chunk of their readership.

And to add to their misery, newspapers are the victim,partially, of the left's green agenda. Many folks I know stopped subscribing to "save trees and energy". They couldn't see the use of having a newspaper that was made from killing trees (I know, a renewable resource. I'm just pointing out the green's argument here) and how it took all sorts of "carbon expenditures" to make the paper and the ink and run the presses, etc. Besides there's that whole recycling thing. But I digress.

News papers need to find their way back to the objective standard and report just the facts, and let their readers decide. Until and unless they do that, they will be their own worst enemy.

Respects,

Amen! I agree with you 100%

 

[scout]

The newspapers have only themselves to blame for the decline in revenue. The big drop off in readers began when President Bush was elected in 2000. Regardless of whether or not you liked him, his policies, whatever, the newspapers, which are overwhelmingly left, decided to play politics and dropped any pretense of objective reporting. Reporters began to see themselves as opinion-shapers, rather than just reporting the facts, and constantly and demonstrably slanted news to fit their perception, and what they wanted their readers to read, rather than just give out the facts and let the readership make up it's own mind.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and dropped their subscriptions. Now, newspapers make very little from subscriptions, the lion's share of their revenue comes from advertising. When subscriptions started to fall off, advertisers took notice and started to scale back advertising. The portion they scaled back went, instead, to mostly on-line sources, which could tailor their ads to select markets based upon web traffic.

In other words, advertisers are putting their money where they can get the most results, and it isn't in newspapers. If newspapers were to return to an absolutely objective reporting standard, and leave the opinions to the opinion page editor, then they might see a return of readership along with increased advertising dollars. Blaming the internet is NOT what caused their demise. It's their slanted, pro-left coverage that alienated a large chunk of their readership.

And to add to their misery, newspapers are the victim,partially, of the left's green agenda. Many folks I know stopped subscribing to "save trees and energy". They couldn't see the use of having a newspaper that was made from killing trees (I know, a renewable resource. I'm just pointing out the green's argument here) and how it took all sorts of "carbon expenditures" to make the paper and the ink and run the presses, etc. Besides there's that whole recycling thing. But I digress.

News papers need to find their way back to the objective standard and report just the facts, and let their readers decide. Until and unless they do that, they will be their own worst enemy.

Respects,

This one belongs in the political forum, seems the newspapers failure is due to the leftist politics.
Has anyone inquired about buying an add to sell an item in the newspaper's classified section, or better yet, put an add in for help needed? The difference between the web and a help wanted ad is hundreds of dollars. A slam dunk for not going with paper.
Shopped for a car lately? I imagine that was a big revenue maker for the papers.
Having worked for a paper, I've seen the printing presses, the rolls of paper, the barrels of ink, the union workers manning those presses, the building that houses that mammoth machinery.........vs a laptop?
How about the circulation department? Think about the trucks, gas, equipment (bundles, sorters, inserters) racks, labor, that are no longer required.
In regards to the politics, you can go back to the beginning of the industry and make the same argument concerning right and left politics, or even opinion concerning sports and the conclusion is after hundreds of years the decline of the industry is not because of a left or right agenda, it's the evolution of the media.
What's next is any body's guess. But here's my list of items that will be obsolete in my children's lifetime.
Newspapers
Pennies
Post Office's
Gas stations
Sorry for getting off point, but disagreed with the above post.

 

[RoadGrader]

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?

^^This

happened back in 2003

my e-mail exchange w/ the Publisher then

09:35 AM 3/23/03 :

(FROM: RoadGrader)

TO: Boston Herald feedback

Concerning BostonHerald.com

> >regarding your recent decision to charge for service access to Columnists such as Carr, Callahan, Eagan etc. (but allowing free access to Maroney in the Metro-West?)...at least we can still hear them on the radio.

so now I have to pay to read Carr but I get to read Oliphant free from the Globe on-line?

What are you guys thinking?

*************************************

Mon, 24 Mar 2003

FROM: Boston Herald feedback
(TO: RoadGrader)

I am sorry for the inconvenience, I simply ask that you try to understand that I can't continue to pay people to provide this service to you and not get anything in return. You are getting the benefit of the information we are providing. Isn't that worth something?

This has nothing to do with the Globe although I suspect they will soon follow.

Pat Purcell
Publisher

Herald Media, Inc.
One Herald Square
Boston MA 02106
P.O. Box 2096
Boston MA 02106-2096

apparently nobody thought what was being provided was worth anything as I recall the Herald experiment lasted for about 3-4 months back then? :confused2: