Globe to start charging to read Boston.com?

[Pats726]

Newspapers make the lion's share of their income from advertising dollars. Some, in fact, make ALL their income from that source, for example, those free local newspapers and niche papers you see here and there.

I am quite aware of other models and how having ALL income from advertising does work...it's interesting that there are some that are very successful.

Now, papers hook those advertisers into paying by running articles that excite the readership, or provide information in one place that folks used to not be able to get anywhere else. TV listings, movie reviews, HS sports reporting, recipies, obituaries, "about town gossip" etc. This had folks subscribing to the paper, and the larger the subscription base, the more people would see the ads (or potentially see them).

Papers originally charged a subscription fee based upon delivery costs, and a couple pennies extra. The larger the subscriber base, the more ads they could rake in and the more they could charge for those ads.

When people started to drop subscriptions, papers initially responded by increasing subscription rates. That just caused more people to leave, initiating the death spiral. s subscribers left, advertisers took note and scaled back their spending in papers. That money started to go to radio, the intertubes, and TV instead. With more people tuning in to television, TV execs were able to adjust pricing to allow for more local advertising, which you may have noticed the past several years. ,

I do undesrtand that with the daily papers that the BULK is from adverising..that is quite clear. I must ask again why these papers are rising the price of their papers?? If this money is "chump change" and not a factor...why double it? I think whatever their income it is now worse...in other words the income from 50 cents maybe was more than now when they charge a dollar..meaning that while prices have doubled, the number of papers sold has more than halved. But why do that? Why not have a larger circulation and 50 cent price..an dhave a chance at a larger audience and more advertising money?

It's all relative. Right now, papers need to find a way to geberate income, and their best place, presently, is online. A couple of major regional newspapers have already gone completely online, dropping their print copy. We'll see how that works out, but it appears to me that that will be the future of all news, except for some select local markets, like those free ones you get at grocery stores, etc.
respects,

I agree they do need to find a way..and obviosuly since they are losing even MORE income via a higher price, why not TRY and get more from online. My only question will be how reasonable they will be?? And if they see this as a cash cow, how quickly will they raise rates??

 

[maverick4]

Anyway, I got a bit off track, but I think it's safe to say that you will likely start seeing more media sites start clamping down on copying and pasting full articles in forums, blogs, etc. Some people take the term "snippet" a bit to lightly and "snip" far too much.

I agree that the media industry hasn't clamped down yet on the widespread illegal use of pasting text or using photos. Once they do, it will change the way message boards and commentary sites work. It's true they do most of the referrals to content on the net, but the way the model works will be very different if you can't even read the link being posted without paying for it.

 

[maverick4]

I think what they need to do is to create a better online classifieds system, which would allow them a stream of income they don't have. Most newspaper sites don't have a good one, which is why people seek other sources. They should have done that years ago before Craigslist grabbed such a foothold.

I don't think this will happen. Selling ads and classifieds on newspapers worked for the old, paper model, because old newspapers used to attract lots of daily attention in a centrally located content space. On the web, it's way too easy to access anything you want, people don't need to go to a paid news site when free, widely-used classifieds like Craigslist are already around. The free online classifieds model works (not to mention opinion/discussion sites) because the source of content are everyday people, which is different from news reporting sites which require paid, full-time professionals to find and deliver content.

 

[maverick4]

I enjoy reading newspapers, magazines, even moreso than staring at my computer screen. But I would say I enjoy reading features and editorials - good opinion columns.

About computer screens, this is getting slightly off topic but I would argue the younger generations are used to most of their news and literature off computers, and also recent and continually improving technology like Kindle, may close the gap between reading "comfort" that you associate with paper.

 

[maverick4]

Newspapers make the lion's share of their income from advertising dollars. Some, in fact, make ALL their income from that source, for example, those free local newspapers and niche papers you see here and there.

Yeah definitely, old paper newspapers made tons off of advertising and classifieds, it was their main source of income. This model is broken however for the online space. Newspapers are going bankrupt trying to generate eyeballs through free content, and then trying to make money/profit through ads/classifieds. The ad click-rates are abysmal, and so they don't make much per the ad model.

Just think about your own internet behavior. How many times do you click on an ad on Boston.com? Probably rarely if ever. Conversely, if you had to pay say $20 per year for unlimited content access, would you do it? I think a lot would, even though a lot of the Globe's content is sub-par.

 

[Ian]

About computer screens, this is getting slightly off topic but I would argue the younger generations are used to most of their news and literature off computers, and also recent and continually improving technology like Kindle, may close the gap between reading "comfort" that you associate with paper.

I think you make a valid point, and I think having the entire paper available via subscription to download and carry with them by using an application like Kindle is something they need to explore. People would pay to have their paper in an easy to read format - provided that it was a reasonable cost. I do feel that this would probably work, especially considering the fact that not everyone has a goodmobile web reader that isn't small and hard to read.

I was one of those people who had my doubts that people would pay for music the way we do now. But I think people would pay for that provided it was cost efficient, and produced in a format that was useful for the reader. People are buying books and Kindle is doing well, so I think people would certainly enjoy being able to read the news each day using that format since WIFI isn't everywhere. That in my opinion would be a good way to supplement their income and give them another possible income stream. I know I keep hearing about it, but I don't think I've seen anyone use do it yet. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has Kindle if they can answer that one.

 

[Ian]

I agree that the media industry hasn't clamped down yet on the widespread illegal use of pasting text or using photos. Once they do, it will change the way message boards and commentary sites work. It's true they do most of the referrals to content on the net, but the way the model works will be very different if you can't even read the link being posted without paying for it.

I just think it's impossible for them to police, and will cost them a significant amount of traffic if they block linking, and I also can't see how they can stop people from more or less "talking" about something they read. Just doesn't seem plausable. But I do think they'll be out to stop full article distribution on messageboards, and I think you'll see them check the referring link to lead them to the source, and then check to see if it's just a link or if the whole article was posted. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened by now.

 

[maverick4]

I was one of those people who had my doubts that people would pay for music the way we do now. But I think people would pay for that provided it was cost efficient, and produced in a format that was useful for the reader. People are buying books and Kindle is doing well, so I think people would certainly enjoy being able to read the news each day using that format since WIFI isn't everywhere.

Similarly, the doubts about paid online news content will go away. Murdoch is going to succeed on this one, it's the only way news will stay in business, and I don't see how people will continue receiving news unless there is a way for full-time reporters to get paid and for companies to avoid bankruptcy.

....I just think it's impossible for them to police, and will cost them a significant amount of traffic if they block linking, and I also can't see how they can stop people from more or less "talking" about something they read.

The music industry has basically stopped most illegal file sharing, and once discussion sites start getting sued for infringement, you'll see the same for news content.

Nobody will ever stop people from talking about the news. There will be tons of opinion, discussion, commentary, news aggregator, and classifieds sites which rely on free user-generated content. The major difference will be that lots of these people discussing the news will likely want to read the actual article rather than a tiny snippet, and over time will realize that paying maybe $50 bucks a year for the news content providers you want, isn't that bad.

 

[VJCPatriot]

So maybe they can do what ESPN does with that 'insider' stuff. The premium articles would have like a monthly subscription to access. Of course I think information should be free, but I guess they gotta pay the bills somehow too.