Media Watch: Globe pay site starts tomorrow. Thoughts?

[Uncle Rico]

Like a lot of fans here, I follow the media industry (which of course covers the Patriots); with technology being what it is, there have been a lot of intriguing changes. So I hope folks here see this as relevant to our following of the Patriots:

BostonGlobe.com launches as a subscription-only website tomorrow - Business Updates - Massachusetts business news from The Boston Globe

The Globe is going to its paid website tomorrow and I'm curious what people think, if they would pay, etc. The site will be free to print subscribers so many on here might not have to make such a decision. Personally I cancelled my print subscription a few weeks ago, after about 20 years as a daily reader. I just was not reading it, and almost all of that was because of the web. Honestly, all I read was the G section, and even then not everyday.

What the Globe is doing that's different than other newspapers is keeping it free site, boston.com (paid site is bostonglobe.com). This quote from the story caught my eye:

The Globe is keeping Boston.com as a free site that will continue to offer breaking news, blogs, photo galleries, sports coverage, and a limited selection of stories from the paper.

In other words, they're still giving away the stuff I want to read.

 

[BSR]

Its a broken model. Why would anyone pay for news in this day and age? The only paper that I think this works for is the WSJ.

 

[signbabybrady]

I thought the globe folded a couple years ago.

 

[xmarkd400x]

It seems like they've made a business decision and broken their content into two categories. One category (sports, entertainment, etc) will not likely survive behind a pay wall, and they will use ad revenue to support it. The other category (in depth stories) is something that some people will pay for, and therefore they will start charging.

Newspapers have had a tough time in the transition from print media to online media. Many sites have alienated users with their pay walls and never recovered.

For me, personally, I pay for a single magazine subscription that is of personal and professional interest. Therefore I am a person who will pay for content. The magazine has articles that your average blogger could not write. Sports media on the other hand, I would not pay for. To me, the difference between Joe Shmoe's sports blog and ESPN's blog really isn't worth paying for. Real-time coverage I do pay for (with my cable subscription).

For boston.com, I guess we'll have to see how it goes. I think they are learning from the mistakes of others; I think a full pay wall would be suicide. I also think that they are looking at increasing revenue, and they are looking to do that with their top tier content.

On another note, it probably gives people a reason to order newspapers again. The magazine subscription I have gives me access online and for my tablet. I do a lot of reading through those devices, but there are certain times where a good magazine is what I want to be reading in my "library". I like having a physical newspaper. I like the crossword puzzle, I like the cartoons. I like leafing through the pages and finding articles.

I kind of like where media is currently going. Paying one subscription gets you access to their content, whether you prefer it via paper, internet, or smartphone/tablet.

I know I rambled quite a bit. I guess I had more to say than I thought.

 

[Uncle Rico]

It seems like they've made a business decision and broken their content into two categories. One category (sports, entertainment, etc) will not likely survive behind a pay wall, and they will use ad revenue to support it. The other category (in depth stories) is something that some people will pay for, and therefore they will start charging.

Newspapers have had a tough time in the transition from print media to online media. Many sites have alienated users with their pay walls and never recovered.

...

I kind of like where media is currently going. Paying one subscription gets you access to their content, whether you prefer it via paper, internet, or smartphone/tablet.

I know I rambled quite a bit. I guess I had more to say than I thought.

Good post. I agree with the latter part -- combining subscriptions to give you access to all of a brand's content across media is a good development; I think it was just a few months ago that Apple started allowing publishers to do this on iTunes (before that, for example, SI subscribers had to pay extra for the iPad version).

As far as pay site and reader reaction: There was a report that the NY Times had actually increased visitors since going to a pay wall:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/149774/new-york-times-website-gains-visitors-despite-paywall/

 

[Mark Morse]

This will be the death knell for the Globe!

 

[shmessy]

No Dan Shaughnessy???????

How will I ever survive???????

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Its a broken model. Why would anyone pay for news in this day and age? The only paper that I think this works for is the WSJ.

The WSJ offers valuable content unavailable elsewhere and well worth paying for. The Globe, not so much. They used to have excellent spotlight series on rare occasion that I might buy an actual newspaper to read, but their typical editorial content disguised as news is not worth a regular subscription. That said, the Globe is orders of magnitude better than the NH papers Union Leader and the awful Portsmouth paper. The Leader just had a net article today full of a dozen typos and grammatical errors. You'd think that unemployed English majors with spell check could displace some of these incompetents.

/rant

 

[BradyManny]

Paying for news is a thing of the past.

 

[Goal_Line_Stand]

What is the Globe?

 

[BradyFTW!]

They're stuck in a bit of a catch-22, since the only news that I would conceivably be willing to pay for is the very stuff that they don't have anymore (actual investigative journalism). They already diluted their content to compete in the information-is-free age, and once you've done that I doubt that it's possible to go and successfully charge for access.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

They're stuck in a bit of a catch-22, since the only news that I would conceivably be willing to pay for is the very stuff that they don't have anymore (actual investigative journalism). They already diluted their content to compete in the information-is-free age, and once you've done that I doubt that it's possible to go and successfully charge for access.

Occasionally a paper will do some IJ. A year or 2 ago the Cape Cod Times had an excellent series on corruption in the local Indian tribes vis-a-vis the casino machinations. I bought actual papers and read the articles. Well done. What was best was the follow up. So often a paper covers an intriguing story and then drops coverage leaving you wondering and Googling in vain.

I see a potential business model in this age of iPhones, iPads, Kindles and netbooks where a paper offers a per month fee but features in depth and follow on coverage. Readers could 'subscribe' to a story and get follow-ups RSSed to them. Per month makes it inexpensive to try on a whim and keeps the paper working to feature the stuff of interest as polled by their subscribe to story hits.

As you lamented, this kind of actual journalism (not a re-print of an AP news feed) is NOT what the Globe and their kin are doing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Papers had a chance to get the pay-for-internet-news idea correct back in the 90's, but they screwed it up. Now, they're screwed, because the only news that's not readily available today is the sort of local news that people actually like to read in a more leisurely situation than sneaking peaks at work.

 

[LiveShot]

The Globe is WSJ on drugs.

 

[Gwedd]

The Globe is the NYT lite. It's wholly owned by the NYT and gets it's lede from them, simply adding the local slant to that coverage.

I still read, and much prefer, the Herald, regardless of it's past association(s) with Thomase and other cretin reporters. The Herald's articles are MUCH better written, more locally-driven and overall a delight to read, in most cases.

 

[NEPatriot]

I'll stop reading the Globe. I did the same thing with the NY Times. There are too many other sources out there. Too bad for the the Globe.

 

[Off The Grid]

Its a broken model.

Why would anyone pay for news in this day and age?

The only paper that I think this works for is the WSJ.

Respectfully submitted, but the WSJ is best employed as Tinder.

Investor's Daily is rampant with lunatics, but about 10% of what it produces is thoughtfull, provoking, and insightfull...which is approximately 10% more than you can say for the WSJ.

But, again: tremendous Kindling.

*I agree with your larger point: It's a Broken Model.

 

[Off The Grid]

I thought the globe folded a couple years ago.

Don't be silly.

The Globe has always folded.

And The Herald ~ Record American, to my Pappy ~ folds vertically.

 

[Reckedtrek]

I never go to the globe website now, when it's free.

In order to charge for something it needs to have either real or perceived value. The globe has neither IMO.

Besides, I can come here for free. There are lots of people who know everything here!

 

[TheSolderKing]

I love to write... kind of a reason I stayed away from Newspaper writer b/c the business is at a LOW. They should give me that nonathletic Mexican Adolfo (his) job @ 98.5 the kid that couldn't catch a Pass from to save his life.


Zolak was passing to him ahahahahaaa
\

Adolfo Vs. Zolak - YouTube

plz take a look


At Least He'll be a better QB than Adolfo is at WR