Bruce Miles's Blog

[UMFan83]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

 

Because there's too much free content out there. I suspect you know this already and are just being Kyle.

 

They seem to think their content is better than the free content.

 

I agree it'll probably fail. But giving the product away for free will certainly fail. I'd rather see the industry take the hail mary than just kneel it out.

 

How many newspapers have converted to a pay format in the last 3 years and are still afloat? I'm sure there are a few, but the 2 I can think of are both based in New York (the Times and I think the Daily News). I don't see a suburban Chicago newspaper competing against 2 much more established and nationally known Chicago newspapers who allow free access to their sites.

 

This isn't a hail mary attempt, its like visiting Dr. Kevorkian after being diagnosed with a slow moving terminal cancer. Just speeding up the process, rather than continuing to lose money while waiting and hoping for something to come along and save them (and all other newspapers).

[UMFan83]

PS, this is hilarious:

 

Print subscribers will receive a discounted rate to supplement their subscriptions with total access to Daily Herald content on all digital products

 

So even if you subscribe to the print version of the Herald, you have to pay more money to see stuff online.

[Guest]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that.

[Magnetic Curses]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that.

 

technically, he's upping your traffic by being here, which makes you money, though.

[Guest]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that.

 

technically, he's upping your traffic by being here, which makes you money, though.

As does every non-paying reader over at the Herald. He is arguing that people should pay for content that costs money to develop / maintain / distribute.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Tim's so rich he crashes planes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that.

 

If you started charging, I wouldn't complain.

 

You of all people should know how hard it is to turn a profit on web views. Now add in a few full-time, content-producing employees.

[WrigleyField 22]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that.

 

technically, he's upping your traffic by being here, which makes you money, though.

As does every non-paying reader over at the Herald. He is arguing that people should pay for content that costs money to develop / maintain / distribute.

 

More specifically, I'm arguing that they shouldn't complain if the person creating the content wants to charge for it.

[WrigleyField 22]

And the person charging the fees shouldn't be surprised if they receive less from subscriptions than they do from the advertising hits.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

 

Speaking as someone recently out of the industry, the advertising rates for web ads are proverbial pennies, not worth picking up.

[UMFan83]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

 

And yet, they have to be banking on that occuring, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it. Check out this article about Newsday in NY's trouble in getting subscribers to their pay site:

 

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

 

Although in their paywall, they let the print subscribers get access for free while DH is charging them. I'm guessing a lot of their subscribers will be print subscribers.

[Guest]

I just feel bad for Bruce. He seemed kind of bummed.

 

Anyway, I agree wit WF22. They should run it like face book or HufPo.

[WrigleyField 22]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

 

And yet, they have to be banking on that occuring, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it. Check out this article about Newsday in NY's trouble in getting subscribers to their pay site:

 

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

 

Although in their paywall, they let the print subscribers get access for free while DH is charging them. I'm guessing a lot of their subscribers will be print subscribers.

"banking on" doesn't sound like such a great business decision. They're probably wrong. The "double" subscription is also a joke.

[jersey cubs fan]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

 

And yet, they have to be banking on that occuring, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it. Check out this article about Newsday in NY's trouble in getting subscribers to their pay site:

 

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

 

Although in their paywall, they let the print subscribers get access for free while DH is charging them. I'm guessing a lot of their subscribers will be print subscribers.

"banking on" doesn't sound like such a great business decision. They're probably wrong. The "double" subscription is also a joke.

 

There's the double subscription and the obscenely high fee in the first place. $20 for 30 days. That is insane.

[Guest]

Chiming in from someone working with the industry (although a lot of this may be obvious).

 

An overwhelming amount of revenue for the newspaper industry comes from the advertisers. The amount advertisers are willing to pay is highly tied to the number of readers and circulation. Having subscriptions will most likely decrease readership. Thus advertisers will not be willing to spend as much. Now advertisers will pay a premium to advertise to readers that they know want the ads. So the best solution, in general is to make readers subscribe for free, collect info on them, and have them opt in to certain advertising. I guess every business is unique, but I highly doubt the increase in subscription fees will outweigh the decrease in advertising revenue.

 

Speaking as someone recently out of the industry, the advertising rates for web ads are proverbial pennies, not worth picking up.

Uncomfortably familiar with that, unfortunately.

[Tryptamine]

This could be a blessing in disguise. Bruce can use the fact that he actually knows baseball to replace the god awful Phil Rodgers, and as a result, I won't want to smash my face into my keyboard when I read the column in the Tribune.

[NCCubFan]

PS, this is hilarious:

 

Print subscribers will receive a discounted rate to supplement their subscriptions with total access to Daily Herald content on all digital products

 

So even if you subscribe to the print version of the Herald, you have to pay more money to see stuff online.

I've seen this with other papers too, and it's unacceptable. People who already pay for a paper shouldn't have to pay again to look at it online.

[TruffleShuffle]

it probably doesn't make a big difference, since most people who still get the newspaper delivered daily are too old to know how to use a computer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just feel bad for Bruce. He seemed kind of bummed.

 

Anyway, I agree wit WF22. They should run it like face book or HufPo.

 

Again the comparison to places that don't pay for the content produced.

[WrigleyField 22]

I just feel bad for Bruce. He seemed kind of bummed.

 

Anyway, I agree wit WF22. They should run it like face book or HufPo.

 

Again the comparison to places that don't pay for the content produced.

You're not using your head because your emotionally tied to the fact that you were the one producing the material (I think). It doesn't matter. All that matters is the value your provide to advertisers. If you provide them with value, they provide you with money. Simple as that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No, I'm speaking from experience and empirical observation. The money that web advertisers will provide you is a fraction of what it takes to pay the costs associated with producing local news, even in a major city like Chicago.

 

It is virtually impossible to run any sort of web venture on a profit on ad revenue alone while paying full-time staff to create the content. The list of web sites that have successfully done so is incredibly short. (Deadspin? And ... I'm drawing a blank, there must be a few others).

 

Since the newspapers are going to be extinct as soon as the generation still buying the paper dies out, which will be any day now, the only chance any of these places have is to convince people to buy subscriptions online.

 

It's a probable failure. But giving away the content for free is a certain failure.

 

Yes, I get a little annoyed at people being so derisive at the idea that someone might dare charge them for the work. I don't think the lawyers on the board would appreciate someone saying "How dare lawyers charge me for private practice, there's plenty of places to get pro bono work."

 

But there's also emotion from the other side. How dare they charge for something I want for free? They must be idiots not to behave in the way that benefits me the most!

[WrigleyField 22]

Online companies that successfully pull in revenue from advertisers provide added value than something like a simple banner ad and what you see on forums like NSBB. Thats my whole point. These banners provide low yield of eventual customers. Advertisers want customers that seek the content and are loyal, both from a content perspective and from an advertising perspective. If all you are willing to provide advertisers is simple traffic and hits your advertising revenue will reflect that.

 

And at some point, yes newspapers as we know it will die. Well not die completely, but change is big. First what you'll just see is consolidation. Smaller markets and even sub-markets will see content discontinued, and a big trend has been to discontinue service on certain days. But smart papers adapt. Even among people who get their news media from other sources, people still prefer their Sunday inserts as advertising. And every Sunday, newspapers reach more unique users than Super Bowl Sunday. There's still plenty of potential for revenue for papers who provide that value. Not as much as there once was, but its there.

Edited September 9, 2011 by WrigleyField 22

[WrigleyField 22]

From the reader perspective, its not really emotional either. What does your written content provide me. How much is it worth to me? You have every right to collect money for content you produce, but if you want it from me, I might pull away. No harm, your business and my dollar don't match up. Thats just business, not emotion.

[Banedon]

It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?

 

It's not a matter of should or should not. It's stupid to pay $20 for a month of content on the daily herald website. It costs money to produce ESPN.com's content but they don't charge to see the majority of it. It costs money to produce a hell of a lot of things that don't cost the consumer a nickel to view.

 

ESPN.com's content is run at a loss in order to advance the overall brand.

 

http://ryanspoon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/espn-valentines-day.jpg

 

I bet JC Penney isn't paying them a dime!