Media Watch: Globe pay site starts tomorrow. Thoughts?

[Patters]

I'd like to see paid newspaper web sites succeed. Newspapers do a far superior job covering the local scene than anyone else.

Consider the fact that we read at least 3x as fast as we talk and the power of words becomes evident. Reading a newspaper article in 10 minutes is like listening to 30 minutes of uninterrupted sports radio (and on WEEI, 30 minutes of talk equals about one minute of substance). The only way this kind of journalism will survive is if they can find a model that allows them to continue to hire good reporters. (By the way, this is really important for state politics. It's newspapers that have broken all the big scandals -- probation department, pensions, etc.)

I'm not sure the Globe will succeed, but I hope they do, and the same goes for the Herald. That said, I still like the newspaper; read it at every red light on my way to work.

 

[RayClay]

Newspapers need to find a new model, good luck.

Reiss replaced by Gasper? I might read it, how much are they willing to pay me again?

 

[Ron Sellers]

I'd like to see paid newspaper web sites succeed. Newspapers do a far superior job covering the local scene than anyone else.

Consider the fact that we read at least 3x as fast as we talk and the power of words becomes evident. Reading a newspaper article in 10 minutes is like listening to 30 minutes of uninterrupted sports radio (and on WEEI, 30 minutes of talk equals about one minute of substance). The only way this kind of journalism will survive is if they can find a model that allows them to continue to hire good reporters. (By the way, this is really important for state politics. It's newspapers that have broken all the big scandals -- probation department, pensions, etc.)

I'm not sure the Globe will succeed, but I hope they do, and the same goes for the Herald. That said, I still like the newspaper; read it at every red light on my way to work.

I agree. At some point the quality of information we receive is going to deteriorate to an unacceptable level if these businesses cannot sustain a profit. Granted much of my sports information has transferred from those papers to weei.com or espnboston.com, but still - the more viewpoints the better, in my opinion.

Personally I don't see why there is so much opposition to the two-tier model of certain things being free and certain things not being free. For example, espn.com has a lot of free articles, and then a certain number of pay-subscriber content only, but I don't see anybody complaining about that; isn't that a bit hypocritical for those who are complaining about what the Globe is doing?

 

[Uncle Rico]

I agree. At some point the quality of information we receive is going to deteriorate to an unacceptable level if these businesses cannot sustain a profit. Granted much of my sports information has transferred from those papers to weei.com or espnboston.com, but still - the more viewpoints the better, in my opinion.

Personally I don't see why there is so much opposition to the two-tier model of certain things being free and certain things not being free. For example, espn.com has a lot of free articles, and then a certain number of pay-subscriber content only, but I don't see anybody complaining about that; isn't that a bit hypocritical for those who are complaining about what the Globe is doing?

Good post. Like a lot of products, information costs money to put together well; the challenge is to find a model that pays for it. My take is that newspapers are finding that a decade of giving away their content on the web has accelerated the decline of their print products, while the digital dividend remains elusive. A paid model is worth a try. And, as outdated as many think newspapers are, without them TV and radio stations and many web sites would have to dig up their own stories (not talking sports here), then we'd see how well their advertiser models really support news-gathering.

I'm not actually opposed to the Globe's two-tier model; I'm just saying they're still giving away the pieces I personally want to read on boston.com, so why pay.

 

[NEPatriot]

I agree. At some point the quality of information we receive is going to deteriorate to an unacceptable level if these businesses cannot sustain a profit. Granted much of my sports information has transferred from those papers to weei.com or espnboston.com, but still - the more viewpoints the better, in my opinion.

Personally I don't see why there is so much opposition to the two-tier model of certain things being free and certain things not being free. For example, espn.com has a lot of free articles, and then a certain number of pay-subscriber content only, but I don't see anybody complaining about that; isn't that a bit hypocritical for those who are complaining about what the Globe is doing?

I complained when ESPN started charging for certain content. As a result, I really visit their site. The problem with that model is that there are just too many other sources of free content. Take the draft for example. Do I really need to pay to see an article from Kiper when five or six other sites have basically the same information. It's not like in the days of Edward R. Murrow when there were only a few top journalist and if you missed their articles you weren't able to get the story.

 

[Ian]

It's going to be interesting. I don't have an issue with newspapers charging, because I understand that in this day and age that there are costs involved, and with physical papers not being purchased to the extent they used to be, online advertising isn't enough to supplement the salaries involved paying the reporters. Obviously they provide a service and need to make money from it, so I understand the need to charge. I think they all should, but I think unfortunately most people do tend to read more than one so that would mean additional charges each month in a time where we're all trying to trim our monthly budgets to afford what we can. If they all continue to struggle, imagine a world without the beat writers and we're only left with the official site along with a couple of others - it would be tough.

I think they need to be at $7.99 a month instead of $12. Sounds funny, but they need to keep it in the single digits to maintain their viewers and gain a larger subscription base and make it a less painful additional charge each month. That would also allow people to subscribe to three sources for around $25 a month, because I know another study I read had most people subscribing to or reading an average of three major publications/magazines, etc. a month. That cost would at least fit into their budgets better.

I think we'll see more of it, because I think most of them know that the only way this will work is if they all do it. Clearly being owned by the New York Times, they've already tried this method and it's worked. But I have my doubts about this working as well as they're hoping at the price they're asking in this market. I mean New York City is a HUGE market by comparison. However as I said, with internet advertising being what it is these days, obviously they have salaries to pay and the money needs to come from somewhere.

But I'm definitely curious to see what it will be like when I go to grab the links tomorrow morning. It should be interesting.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree. At some point the quality of information we receive is going to deteriorate to an unacceptable level if these businesses cannot sustain a profit. Granted much of my sports information has transferred from those papers to weei.com or espnboston.com, but still - the more viewpoints the better, in my opinion.

Personally I don't see why there is so much opposition to the two-tier model of certain things being free and certain things not being free. For example, espn.com has a lot of free articles, and then a certain number of pay-subscriber content only, but I don't see anybody complaining about that; isn't that a bit hypocritical for those who are complaining about what the Globe is doing?

When ESPN went to a pay model, I stopped going to the site. I now go there less than monthly, and, for the most part, I only go there to verify posts people make or to give attribution for something found via google search.

That's not complaining, but I'm sure as hell not being hypocritical when I bash the papers for going the multiple-time-failure pay route. The reality is that paying for breaking news is a dying animal, and newspapers are going to have to become almost like the magazines of old, where they write by putting different takes on stories for an audience that already has the basic info. The only thing that will be different is the local news, since the internet has been less effective at infiltrating down to that level, to date. High level, high interest, news is now too easily disseminated for fee-based gates to be successful beyond niche interest.

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't pay for what I can get elsewhere for free.

Globe is just alienating readers. I don't understand how they expect to be able to charge over $120 a year for something they provided for free the last 10+ years.

No thank you, I'll read other online news sites instead.

 

[captain insano]

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:



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

paying one cent to read that garbage is foolish in my opinion.. your money would be better spent on toilet paper. why pay for info that isn't accurate? what you end up paying for is reading opinions from people that a lot of people don't respect. i can get everything i want for free on tv or other sources.

 

[jlu52]

No Dan Shaughnessy???????

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

I bet you'll be feeling better than ever! Like ridding oneself of deadly internal toxins. No Shaughnessy today will keep the doctor away.

 

[patchick]

Its a broken model. Why would anyone pay for news in this day and age?

Give them an alternative, then. Obviously, the Globe isn't doing this because their previous model wasn't working. There's a lot of public misperception about the finances of the news industry. For a surprising number of papers, online operations are a cost center that drags down the earnings of the paper version...while giving readers a sense of entitlement that they should get everything for free.

It seems to me that we all want to have it both ways. We attack newspapers for not doing more hard-hitting journalism and original reporting with their depleted budgets and staffs -- and for having the audacity to ask us to pay for their product. Think about that.

Here on the sports end, PatsFans denizens are always strangely eager to spit on the Globe, the paper which has delivered, by far, the best coverage of the New England Patriots of any news outlet over the past decade. The Globe brought you Mike Reiss, Albert Breer and Greg Bedard. You'd rather be stuck with WEEI and the BleacherReport? I'm keeping my Globe subscription, thanks.

 

[patchick]

paying one cent to read that garbage is foolish in my opinion.. your money would be better spent on toilet paper. why pay for info that isn't accurate? what you end up paying for is reading opinions from people that a lot of people don't respect. i can get everything i want for free on tv or other sources.

You're absolutely right. Greg Bedard delivers NOTHING that you can't get for free on tv. (Oh, and by tv I assume you mean the 11:00 local news, right? Because NFLN, ESPN etc. sure as heck aren't free.)