| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
How to lose 90% of your Online Readership in 3 weeks.
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> I wonder how long it will take this 90% decrease in readership to result in a 90% decline in advertising revenue? |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> So if your on-line subscrition income was zero before you switched to a pay-to-view model how much income did you lose?
As to advertising income, the switch will probably help their print readerships numbers. From the sounds of the comments it may now be less expensive to purchase the print edition versus paying for the on-line version helping to boost circulation thereby helping increase the value of ad space.
If ad revenues are all that generate income for papers why haven't they been giving away free print editions? |
|
Gary Cosby, Jr, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 1:55 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> My newspaper did this same thing and it worked great. By great I mean it stabilized declining print circulation and apparently stabilized ad revenue because we are all still working. I think many news organizations will do some variation of this in order to survive. Probably there will always be some free content online but other content will be placed under a subscription only situation. Our web site uses a combination approach, some free and some requiring a subscription. Of course, I work for a smaller community paper and not a huge metro paper. |
|
Clay Carson, Photographer
|
Little Rock | Ar | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> Our news web site has always required a subscription for any content that we printed in our newspaper. Because of this, our circulation has remained steady. We spend way too much money in our newsroom to give away our product. Giving away your news product makes as much sense as giving away your photos.
Online ad revenue will never be a money maker for the average medium sized daily newspaper. Our money comes from traditional print advertising and strong subscription numbers are key.
Clay |
|
Juerg Schreiter, Photographer
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> "if your on-line subscrition income was zero before you switched to a pay-to-view model how much income did you lose?
It didn't say they lost income. Web traffic decreased, they lost online readers. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 2:56 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> Now, if the blood-sucking AP weren't getting the written story for free, you'd see a significant change in all media.
Anytime news gathering is distributed through an industry back channel without appropriate compensation, the whole industry is in trouble.
Wordsmiths need to be paid just as badly as us photographers. Their work is sucked into AP's vacuum everyday without compensation creating an free online version competing with the same paper supplying the writer, pen and pad.
Syndication of content is the biggest threat IMHO. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 4:09 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> "From the sounds of the comments it may now be less expensive to purchase the print edition versus paying for the on-line version..."
Unless you don't actually live in the UK and are unable to buy the printed version. You have, of course, been bombarded with locally specific ads as you've been viewing the web pages of The Times for the past few years and may have actually bought something as a result of those ads (aka the basis of advertising).
The real beneficiaries of this move by The Times and The Sunday Times are The Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) and The Independent (www.independent.co.uk), both quality newspapers with free web sites. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 4:28 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> I'm wondering if there's some sort of free content constant involved. When Yahoo started charging for listings on its auction site, they lost 90% of their customers. Yahoo eventually discontinued its auction service.
--Mark |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 6:45 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> The thing I have found is that no one model works for everyone on the web.
In print, we have print ads and they work more or less for everyone.
On the web, anything goes.
If I remember correctly, a few years ago, the Washington Post had print readership decline severely, though they had one of their best financial years while winning a handful of Pulitzers.
It is do-able, just so easy answer. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:19 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> Darren, another addendum to what you said. The AP not only gets the majority of their written report from member papers but in our state if it wasn't for the four or five large dailies there would be NO AP photo report. Years ago the AP actually covered a lot of stuff but now they totally rely on the member papers for everything except pro sporting events and very few college games. Our paper alone probably supplies about 60% of the AP report for NC. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 8:31 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> I'm going to think out loud... not usually wise, and probably not here either...
If readership declines 90% and people are forced to signup for an account, would that make it easier for advertisers to "target" the audience because there may be some sort of stats to base and catagorize readership, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the ads and in the long run increasing the amount a "paper" could charge?
Like I said, just thinking outloud... |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 9:07 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> Their first mistake ... as it is for all papers that do so .... was to offer a broad selection of content online for free in the first place ... Why buy the cow ... if the milk is free?
Although their subscriptions sold may show a reduction in traffic of 90% ... 90% of nothing .... is still nothing ... so every subscription sold was a bonus ... and advertisers are well aware, their ads may be taken more seriously by paying subscribers than those looking for a freebie ... it may fail ... but they will never know until they try ....
Of course it is nice to touch base with home if you can't get a print copy where you live or travel ... but it really should not be expected for free ... determining the proper price point for subscriptions is the most difficult decision ... finding the happy medium where subscriptions grow and costs are covered can be tricky.
And ... it helps that online or electronic versions of publications offer extra or bonus content like SI is doing with their iPad version .... a small incentive to pony up the cash for the service ... |
|
John Cowpland, Photographer
|
Napier | HB | New Zealand | Posted: 9:33 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> the trend here in NZ seems to be to charge for "online editions" .. the website is still free but not all the content of that days paper is there. You subscribe as you would to eh print edition and get the online version instead ( Basically a PDF of the print edition. Fairfax and APN both offer it for their main titles ( there are only two newspaper groups here ) Haven't seen any figures so I don't know how successful it is. ipad is launched here tomorrow so i guess there will be more people reading their paper on those soon! |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 11:57 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> I totally agree with you Chuck.
The problem with the syndication of content is the creators have no control over the breadth of the stream their stories enter. If a newspaper could contribute to print-only, that would cut out radio, television and the internet giving them a valuable exclusive only provided to those who have ink on their fingers.
Once the story crosses over to other media, the investments made in collecting the story are wiped out. No one needs brand X newspaper if Yahoo is able to package their content.
Aggregation such as Digg is an improvement because the news can stay where it was collected but be promoted by an outside source. Every time news is taken/stolen/copied from the original provider, it takes value away from them. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 1:51 AM on 07.22.10 |
| ->> Instead of charging the customers, they should figure out a way to charge internet providers per customer like cable companies do, that way AOL has to pay to bridge access for their clients to see the TImes, that way all providers are banned to allow access unless they pay per customer. Then we can all see it free and hold over the providers more service. |
|
Lloyd Smith, Photographer
|
Poughkeepsie | NY | USA | Posted: 7:32 AM on 07.22.10 |
| ->> I was once talking to a coach and he said "I'd rather have 100 kids who pay me $300 a month than 1000 kids who only pay $30 a month, it's the same total money in the end and i weed out the ones that don't really want to be here". With a paid subscription model the company could be making more than the pennies they get from advertisers in the mass market. Aslo, if i recall they can charge advertisers more when they advertise on the restricted site. I seem to remember hearing that the Wall Street Journal charged 4x the going rate for a banner ad because they knew a paid subscriber is more likely to pay attention to everything on the page. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|