http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content ColumbusUnderground.com Messageboard en-US Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:49:40 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/search.php http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-282508 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:06:04 +0000 michaelcoyote 282508@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>my medium is dying wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-282472"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>Brant Jones wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-281867"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> <a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">Gawker</a> weighs in with understated reason.<br /> <blockquote>There Is Literally No Way to Make Money Selling News: That is the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach reading this new <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/">Pew Foundation</a> report. ... Just 15 percent of those surveyed say they would still visit their favorite news site if it was behind a paywall. 82 percent would "find somewhere else." ... ads do not work either: 79% of users "rarely if ever clicked on an online ad," according to the report ... There is no way to make money on news because news is worth nothing to readers and it is becoming worth less to advertisers.</blockquote><br /> <a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">RTWT</a></p></blockquote> <p>hahaha .... love this. FACEBOOK'D<br /> who is paying that person to write?</p></blockquote> <p>Gawker actually makes money off of their ads (still), unlike newspapers, so they can afford to pay people.</p> <p>More info on Gawker pay here: <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/339285/gawkers-new-pay-system-++-the-100+word-version" rel="nofollow">http://valleywag.gawker.com/339285/gawkers-new-pay-system-++-the-100+word-version</a> </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-282472 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:20:41 +0000 my medium is dying 282472@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Brant Jones wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-281867"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> <a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">Gawker</a> weighs in with understated reason.<br /> <blockquote>There Is Literally No Way to Make Money Selling News: That is the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach reading this new <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/">Pew Foundation</a> report. ... Just 15 percent of those surveyed say they would still visit their favorite news site if it was behind a paywall. 82 percent would "find somewhere else." ... ads do not work either: 79% of users "rarely if ever clicked on an online ad," according to the report ... There is no way to make money on news because news is worth nothing to readers and it is becoming worth less to advertisers.</blockquote><br /> <a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">RTWT</a></p></blockquote> <p>hahaha .... love this. FACEBOOK'D</p> <p>who is paying that person to write? </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-281867 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:44:17 +0000 Brant 281867@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">Gawker</a> weighs in with understated reason.<br /> <blockquote>There Is Literally No Way to Make Money Selling News: That is the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach reading this new <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/">Pew Foundation</a> report. ... Just 15 percent of those surveyed say they would still visit their favorite news site if it was behind a paywall. 82 percent would "find somewhere else." ... ads do not work either: 79% of users "rarely if ever clicked on an online ad," according to the report ... There is no way to make money on news because news is worth nothing to readers and it is becoming worth less to advertisers.</blockquote><br /> <a href="http://gawker.com/5493259/there-is-literally-no-way-to-make-money-selling-news">RTWT</a> </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280638 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:39:09 +0000 Talcott 280638@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Tenzo wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280635"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> The Sunday cover story that was so important that they covered 2/3rds of the main page was.......<br /> Learning to drive.<br /> Is there any other questions on why I don't go to the Dispatch for news?</p></blockquote> <p>I dunno, learning to drive was a pretty big milestone for me when I was a teenager.</p> <p>It reminds me of something I saw when WTTE first started their 10:00pm newscast. I don't remember which reporter it was, but the whole story (which ran at least three or four minutes) was about him taking his car to the car wash. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280635 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:26:39 +0000 Tenzo 280635@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>The Sunday cover story that was so important that they covered 2/3rds of the main page was.......<br /> Learning to drive.</p> <p>Is there any other questions on why I don't go to the Dispatch for news? </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280611 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:25:22 +0000 Rockmastermike 280611@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Beanbaggie wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280157"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite>In the interest of stating what I think the Dispatch can do well (and often does), I point to this story from today on the potential for Thorium as an energy source: <a href="http://shar.es/mHpR4" rel="nofollow">http://shar.es/mHpR4</a><br /> I found it interesting, readable and it was locally reported.</p></blockquote> <p>That was indeed an excellent pair of articles. </p> <p>Also, kudos on finally moderating the comments. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280594 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:32:50 +0000 berdawn 280594@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I try not to read the comments, but I was hoping for additional details about the shooting on campus this AM and found, as usual, a lot of crap. After explaining to a poster that there is no such animal as a "democrat party", I bailed. I was notified I responses and discovered that Mr. Marrison was moderating the thread. Needless to say, many of the posters were, um, displeased. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280157 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:53:23 +0000 EmZeeGee 280157@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Speaking of NPR, I think their reporters do a great job with Twitter; a little bit of personal stuff (without feeling like they're laying their underwear out to dry on the internets) along with a lot of bits about what they're working on, requests for question suggestions for interviews, etc. </p> <p>In the interest of stating what I think the Dispatch can do well (and often does), I point to this story from today on the potential for Thorium as an energy source: <a href="http://shar.es/mHpR4" rel="nofollow">http://shar.es/mHpR4</a> </p> <p>I found it interesting, readable and it was locally reported. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280140 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:21:53 +0000 Talcott 280140@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>dmerkow wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280112"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> I'm not sure what I think about newspaper reporters and editors on Twitter. I follow many of them at the Dispatch and at the Enquirer. I don't really want my reporters to be about their personalities which is obviously social media places in the foreground. I'd probably just have a news feed on twitter and then have columnists/digital media specialists to interface between the reporters and the social media world.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree with that to a point. I wouldn't expect a reporter only working on day-to-day/breaking news to be socially active online (in a professional capacity), but good features, reviews, investigative pieces, and columns are usually at least partially driven by the writer's personality. I feel like both the old and new media folks are creating this artificial divide between sources of real news and people with personalities. There have always been distinctive personalities in newspapers, but that doesn't mean that the news reporting itself is any less accurate or objective. </p> <p>The thing is, I don't have any interest in following a Twitter account that's only a news feed, and I rarely have any interest in following one that's obviously staffed by a specialist (although I have seen that done well on occasion). Rather than push all of their reporters onto Twitter, I think that The Dispatch (and its readers) would be best served by encouraging just a handful of writers (or even interns) to be active online. Let them be somewhat personal and engaging, and I'm fairly sure you will draw more people to the content than a standard news feed would. </p> <p>In a lot of ways, Twitter serves as a form of advertising/marketing that also provides value to the reader. Give me something interesting to read in your Twitter feed (I'm a big fan of behind the scenes bits, but miscellaneous observations and extended coverage of an ongoing story are good too) and I'll be much more likely to want to check out your newspaper stories. If you just present me with a news feed, then I'm only likely to read the stories that I would read otherwise.</p> <p>I usually cringe at the whole "people <i>want</i> to be marketed to" thing, I make an exception when it comes to news type stuff. If you have an interesting story or important story, I <i>want</i> to know about it. I've been on The Dispatch's website at least 20 times since I stated reading CU, which is about 18 more times than I visited it before hand. A few good Twitter feeds would probably get me to check it out at least a few more times each week. The Dispatch isn't getting much ad money from that, but they are getting more and more chances to impress me with their writing. I can get headlines anywhere, but if the writing becomes important enough to me, then I could easily see myself paying for it without even being required to; which is exactly what's worked for Public Radio.</p> <p>And I do think that something similar to the Public Radio model is where the newspapers will wind up. I doubt that it would involve any direct public funding, but that's not a big part of NPR or PRI's budgets either. I do think that there will be a combination of donations, subscriptions (physical and ebook/reader), and underwriting and/or advertising. I look forward to one day receiving my Columbus Dispatch tote bag. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-280112 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:23:22 +0000 dmerkow 280112@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Supposedly, Amazon is considering providing Kindle's to its Amazon Prime subscribers for extremely cheap (even free). I think we'll see how the Ipad hits next month to get a better sense of how disruptive that technology is and what Amazon's response will be. </p> <p>I've defended the Dispatch as a paper, but they have the worst website of any major newspaper I read (and I read too many). The old Cincinnati Post was the best (stable, simple, fast, with a good mix of web-focused material and copies of the print news). </p> <p>I'm not sure what I think about newspaper reporters and editors on Twitter. I follow many of them at the Dispatch and at the Enquirer. I don't really want my reporters to be about their personalities which is obviously social media places in the foreground. I'd probably just have a news feed on twitter and then have columnists/digital media specialists to interface between the reporters and the social media world. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-279943 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:59 +0000 lisathewaitress 279943@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>@somertime - I didn't know at the time I wrote the piece. The person contacts me in response to what I wrote. Until that point, I had no indication that they cared about the issue. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-279934 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:44:03 +0000 Rockmastermike 279934@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>geedeck wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-279930"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite> My bet is that once they hit $100, we'll see newspapers start including them as part of subscription packages.</p></blockquote> <p>that would not surprise me one bit. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/15#post-279930 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:35:21 +0000 geedeck 279930@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p> Side note: The Kindle is a slick device and I think that something like it will be the answer, but not at $299 a pop. I'd say that even at $99 it would be too expensive. You're going to need a reader that is within the reach of almost anyone. I'd say that $10-20 per reader is where we are going to have to be for mass acceptance. At that point you go from selling a few thousand subscriptions to a few hundred thousand, and then we're talking real revenue.</p></blockquote> <p>Actually, the main company that does processors for eReaders recently announced a new faster, cheaper custom CPU that should help the devices drop down to $150. My bet is that once they hit $100, we'll see newspapers start including them as part of subscription packages. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279926 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:28:32 +0000 geedeck 279926@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote>I'm just messing with you people now because you are impossible. But that is why I love you, now, isn't it?</blockquote></p> <p>Well, if you're looking for a good way to make a bad impression, then yes you should stereotype anyone who dares to participate in a community as part of some lock-step mindset. </p> <p>The real problem is that traditional local news sources existed in a time of monopolies. Not traditional monopolies, but one built around the physical cost of distributing information. The only people they had to worry about were competitors. And that's the mindset they still have, seemingly. Local news in the 21st century is an ecosystem. It's not just Dispatch, it's not just Columbus Underground, it's not just the Other Paper, it's not just local tweets, it's not just local individual bloggers, it's not just local Yelp reviews. It's the whole thing. That change needs to be recognized. But we're in a significant economic downturn, and the one resource that we have in an almost unlimited quantity for nearly free cost, is communication. More than any time in human history. </p> <p>If the traditional news media doesn't want to recognize that citizens are a stronger part of the human media ecosystem, more than anytime in sapient history on Earth, well that's their problem.</p> <p>or tl;dr, qq moar 21st century media noobs </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279875 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:13:35 +0000 somertimeoh 279875@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>lisathewaitress wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279873"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>somertimeoh wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279837"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>lifeliberty wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279830"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Snarf, I think your reading too much into it. I thought his responses were good from the ones I did read.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think it's OK to say that for those that have technologically advanced past the Dispatch, we have to stop asking them to keep up as we are a small minority. These things that are old hat to us - Twitter, blogs, etc. - are new phenomena to most of the world. It's probably just a matter of getting the right intern in there that could get them going. I doubt they have the budget to pay for a social media expert - whatever that is.</p> </blockquote> <p>He does say himself that they have the highest readership in their division. I would argue that means we aren't in the minority.<br /> Also, I did hear from someone who said they had been hired (by the dispatch) recently to work on many of the topics I brought up. And from what I know of this person, they will do a good job. </p></blockquote> <p>Right, and the average person probably sees nothing wrong with the Dispatch website. </p> <p>I'm confused. If you knew they recently hired someone to help them work through this online media maze, why criticize them for what they are doing now when you know it's going to evolve. That seems odd. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279874 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:12:50 +0000 Walker 279874@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>lisathewaitress wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279873"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Also, I did hear from someone who said they had been hired (by the dispatch) recently to work on many of the topics I brought up. And from what I know of this person, they will do a good job.</p></blockquote> <p>+1 to that. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279873 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:01:08 +0000 lisathewaitress 279873@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>somertimeoh wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279837"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>lifeliberty wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279830"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Snarf, I think your reading too much into it. I thought his responses were good from the ones I did read. </p></blockquote> <p>I think it's OK to say that for those that have technologically advanced past the Dispatch, we have to stop asking them to keep up as we are a small minority. These things that are old hat to us - Twitter, blogs, etc. - are new phenomena to most of the world. It's probably just a matter of getting the right intern in there that could get them going. I doubt they have the budget to pay for a social media expert - whatever that is. </p></blockquote> <p>He does say himself that they have the highest readership in their division. I would argue that means we aren't in the minority.</p> <p>Also, I did hear from someone who said they had been hired (by the dispatch) recently to work on many of the topics I brought up. And from what I know of this person, they will do a good job. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279871 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:56:11 +0000 lisathewaitress 279871@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>drew wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279827"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Pleasantly surprised that he responded, he has at least some legitimate points.<br /> He needs to realize, though, that Twitter is by its nature largely a two-way medium. Don't want to respond to tweets, don't tweet.</p></blockquote> <p>i, too was pleasantly surprised that he responded. Also I used Twitter as the example. I should have been clearer in saying their lack of communication isn't just about Twitter. It's about all conversation. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279867 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:51:24 +0000 Rockmastermike 279867@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>michaelcoyote wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279861"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> As for the Dispatch, I've not found it to be that great. Would it be worth $7/m to me? Probably not, but the WSJ, NYT, FT or SpiegelOnline might get into my News budget if I had a device like that.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm paying $13/month for daily NYT. A serious bargain compared to the price of the paper version. </p> <p>you KNOW the price of readers is going to go down. This kind of tech almost always does. Early adopters pay the price. (In my case offset by what I would be paying for the newspaper.)</p> <p>Also... and this may be more important to me than most other people... being able to SELECT the news stories you see leads to a greater tendency to only see news that is either reinforcing what you are already interested in or, in the case of editorials, only ones that reinforce your own views.</p> <p> Personally I try to avoid that and absorb a little of everything and at least read the first paragraph of every article before I decide it's not worth reading the rest. This allows me to discover a lot of things I would otherwise not have bothered with.</p> <p> The "paper" makes that very easy, the kindle makes it pretty easy too. The web site makes that nearly impossible unless you want to go through and click every link and wait for it to load (or, as I used to do, just grab the RSS feed and re-process it into an Ebook). </p> <p> The website under micropayment (unless it gave free previews) would make that style of reading basically impossible and would also put a greater bias on stories I read to ones I would want to actually PAY for individually.</p> <p>It's easy enough to lock yourself into a tunnel on the internet where you only see what you want to see, and plug your ears and say "LALALALALALA" at everything else. I don't think that's wise. Frankly, I feel this may be something that is contributing to what is widely thought to be a growing partisan divide that has developed over the last 10 years. I suspect a system that encourages greater reader bias selection will only make the situation worse.</p> <p>It's this avoidance of reader bias that leads me to listen to the BBC and other 'national' radio stations too. yeah, I can fast forward past a story i don't care about, but generally you just listen. I pick up all kinds of weird stuff that way. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279866 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:47:55 +0000 misskitty 279866@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>my medium is dying wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279846"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>Rockmastermike wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/dispatch-contemplates-going-paysubscription-for-online-content/page/14#post-279831"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> The free weekly papers? (talk about hit and miss!) </p></blockquote> <p>That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me.</p></blockquote> <p>If it makes you feel any better I enjoyed your article about the Dispatch casino situation this week. It pretty much confirmed everything I was thinking. </p>