Dispatch Contemplates Going Pay/Subscription for Online Content

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Dispatch Contemplates Going Pay/Subscription for Online Content

[293 posts] [58 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by Walker
Latest reply from michaelcoyote

Tags:

« Previous 1…789…15 Next »

Aaron Marshall
Baja Clintonville
Login to Send PM

michaelcoyote wrote >>

Aaron Marshall wrote >>
Just wait until Sean Mitchell gets here too! He's waiting for someone to score in the Crew game so he's going to be a little late...

Unless Sean decides to open his own soccer site with a few other writers and just charge access for exclusive interviews and special content and totally bypass the newspaper model.
To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.
ETA: Probably a more reliable paycheck than this: http://overheardinthenewsroom.com/2010/02/17/3179/

Right. That's why all of the reporters I know are flocking to the Internet to work on start-up pay soccer sites.

Posted 1 year ago #
mavrck
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

As with anything, the value proposition has to be high enough to subscribe. As mentioned, exclusive content is one method to increase value. I personally will have a hard time paying anything for the current Dispatch, online or print. I may have visited their site 2-3 times in the last year, but nothing greater. Any of the overview type stories can be had on a number of other sites. Weather? Sports? Same story. Focus on what you're good at and leave the rest behind.

Posted 1 year ago #
drew

Login to Send PM

Aaron Marshall wrote >>
Right. That's why all of the reporters I know are flocking to the Internet to work on start-up pay soccer sites.

Right. Because reporters have shown perfect foresight on matters such as this before.

Edit - Do you even know why you're here? You're not acting like you're looking for solutions...especially if your litmus test is what 'all of the other reporters' are doing.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

lisathewaitress wrote >>

my medium is dying wrote >>
What Aaron is trying to say, and rightfully so, is that We Brought You Into This World, ColumbusUnderground.
And we will take you out.
xoxo,
teet

Damn Teet!!! Where ya been?! People have been looking for you, ya know. If you tweeted you'd know. Come back!! We miss you!

awwww ... shucks. Thanks, Lisa the Waitress.

I must say I feel a strange mixture of love and hate from this here board. Feels like home.

Posted 1 year ago #
greenhouse1014
Columbus
Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote >>

lisathewaitress wrote >>

my medium is dying wrote >>
What Aaron is trying to say, and rightfully so, is that We Brought You Into This World, ColumbusUnderground.
And we will take you out.
xoxo,
teet

Damn Teet!!! Where ya been?! People have been looking for you, ya know. If you tweeted you'd know. Come back!! We miss you!

awwww ... shucks. Thanks, Lisa the Waitress.
I must say I feel a strange mixture of love and hate from this here board. Feels like home.

meh. Love. Hate. On CU its all the same.

Posted 1 year ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
It's not reporters that we will miss in the digital age without print media, it's editors!

I think we'll miss both... but that said, so true!

Andrew Hall wrote >>
I would pay for something, but it would have to go beyond what is currently offered. ...
I have no idea if there are enough people who would pay for this to make it viable.
A.

I would, and I think micropayment models with large numbers of consumers make this sort of thing viable. Personally I'd lean less toward interactivity and more toward qualitative differentiation of content from unpaid content -- I'm happy to help pay someone to research stuff for me full-time, if they're better at it than they would be if I didn't.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

Aaron Marshall wrote >>

michaelcoyote wrote >>

Aaron Marshall wrote >>
Just wait until Sean Mitchell gets here too! He's waiting for someone to score in the Crew game so he's going to be a little late...

Unless Sean decides to open his own soccer site with a few other writers and just charge access for exclusive interviews and special content and totally bypass the newspaper model.
To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.
ETA: Probably a more reliable paycheck than this: http://overheardinthenewsroom.com/2010/02/17/3179/

Right. That's why all of the reporters I know are flocking to the Internet to work on start-up pay soccer sites.

The whole "just start your own website" solution frequently tossed out by people who don't know any better really frustrates me. By now, most people understand that this is impossible. Stop saying it.

Unless we're starting a news agg site. That is EASY AS PIE. It's like being a nerdy pirate. :)

As much as Walker says the format has changed with more original content, old media still sets a large portion of the agenda for the day's conversation.

Vertical farming, Columbus 2015, a new restaurant opening.

You can't quit us.

I don't care that you rely on us as much as I get annoyed that you trash old media (i.e. "f*ck 'em. i'm not paying") and claim that it is useless or that you don't need it. Dead dinosaur, etc. etc.

I will pay $5 a month for full access to the Dispatch, even after I quit the newspaper business to become a stay at home mama. I think there are a lot of people who would. And as much as I mock Ben Marrison for repeating this constantly, The News is a valuable service worth supporting. And it's not like ANYONE in the business is getting rich. The money would not go to support Fat Cats or whatever.

You have to remember, CU, that you are the savviest of the web savvy, and that you represent about .01 % of web traffic for the city's metro daily.

There are a lot of people in this town other than you. Newspapers are not as important as they think they are. Neither are message board posters.

My point being that I think a lot of people would miss Dispatch.com if it were PAYWALL'D, and I think they would open their wallets to get back in.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

An an aside, the "parasite" comment is interesting considering that the critics and detractors of the Media have long called them parasites, jackals and other forms of critter which feast on the labor of others.

The "news" is really found, raw material. What matters is the value-added to it or individual labor saved (from not needing to find the information personally). The Dispatch and other traditional media are floundering because they have become more parasitic. They seldom add value and too often rely on 'he said, she said' dueling quotes from readily available sources. In many situations, I can find the original information in less time than the value of the subscription. A City Council meeting, for example.

What makes something like CU more successful is that it is adding value to the resource of "news." Discussion, additional information from a plethora of perspectives, humor, links to further information - all of that has value and people are willing to spend their attention on it.

Here is something else I would likely pay for - a personalized Dispatch. Aggregate into a form where I select what topics I want articles and let me read it like that instead of click-back-click-back with trying to find things after they get buried. The idea of "sections" is (again) tied to print form and just stupid online.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Here is something else I would likely pay for - a personalized Dispatch. Aggregate into a form where I select what topics I want articles and let me read it like that instead of click-back-click-back with trying to find things after they get buried. The idea of "sections" is (again) tied to print form and just stupid online.
A.

To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.

This is also a dangerous way of thinking.

We need to be exposed to writers we don't like, bias we don't like and topics we are not interested in.

I hope you understand why this is important.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a Rachel Maddow fan who honestly didn't know that she had a somewhat liberal bias.

This frightens me.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote

a new restaurant opening.
You can't quit us.
...

That is a perfect example. The Dispatch, the Other Paper, etc cover "a restaurant opening" when there are numerous restaurant openings. The Dispatch has restaurant "news" twice a week. It misses numerous openings and is usually well behind the information that is readily available here, Twitter, Fb and beyond. If you are interested in restaurants and food in Columbus, the print media is useless (without even considering the abysmal quality.)

That also begs the question - is that reasonably something that a newspaper should be doing? Most restaurant opening pieces are redaction of press releases. Considering I can get that information directly and more fully, what role should a newspaper even play?

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

michaelcoyote wrote >>
Like Lisa I'd be more interested in some transparent form of micropayment, where I could just pay electronically for the content I'm interested in.

dmerkow wrote >>

Gawd. I am starting to notice a trend.

I realize you're being glib, but CU was "brought into this world" by the same thing as the Dispatch.
Market Forces.

Yes, but he should feel bad about it.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID, WALKER.

YOU KILLED NEWSPAPER.

*runs away crying*

Posted 1 year ago #
groundrules

Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote >>

As much as Walker says the format has changed with more original content, old media still sets a large portion of the agenda for the day's conversation.
Vertical farming, Columbus 2015, a new restaurant opening.
You can't quit us.

No one has yet to explain to me why CUers talking about content on the Dispatch site, especially when it entails readers being directed there via clicks, is BAD for the Dispatch. Would you rather people NOT discuss Dispatch content? As far as I can tell, Walker re-posting headlines and a link to the original work is spreading Dispatch gospel, giving free hype to the writer, and sending traffic to the site. Help me figure out what I'm missing.

Posted 1 year ago #
drew

Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote >>
You have to remember, CU, that you are the savviest of the web savvy, and that you represent about .01 % of web traffic for the city's metro daily.

Then why concern yourself with what is being said here? .01% is nothing.

my medium is dying wrote >>
The whole "just start your own website" solution frequently tossed out by people who don't know any better really frustrates me. By now, most people understand that this is impossible. Stop saying it.

You sure about that? The subscription model is reemerging... frankly, I could see a soccer fan site as having exactly the type of content that could motivate people to pay for it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Here is something else I would likely pay for - a personalized Dispatch. Aggregate into a form where I select what topics I want articles and let me read it like that instead of click-back-click-back with trying to find things after they get buried. The idea of "sections" is (again) tied to print form and just stupid online.
A.

To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.

This is also a dangerous way of thinking.
We need to be exposed to writers we don't like, bias we don't like and topics we are not interested in.
I hope you understand why this is important.
A few weeks ago, I spoke with a Rachel Maddow fan who honestly didn't know that she had a somewhat liberal bias.
This frightens me.

I can do that on my own pretty readily, but thanks for having my back. Good maternal instincts though to assume that I am incapable of doing this on my own.

You utterly miss the point though. As it is configured, it takes me more time than it is worth to find information I want on the Dispatch web site. It isn't a matter of filtering out different perspectives, it is that I want to be able to read more within the limited time that I have. Personalizing the topics I am interested in and aggregating them makes me more efficient and means I can read more - from all sorts of perspectives.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
drew

Login to Send PM

groundrules wrote >>
No one has yet to explain to me why CUers talking about content on the Dispatch site, especially when it entails readers being directed there via clicks, is BAD for the Dispatch. Would you rather people NOT discuss Dispatch content? As far as I can tell, Walker re-posting headlines and a link to the original work is spreading Dispatch gospel, giving free hype to the writer, and sending traffic to the site. Help me figure out what I'm missing.

Actually, I'd love to know how many reporters have actively petitioned CU to put their content/links on this site. I bet the number is greater than zero.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

Is anyone else enjoying the spectacle of customers telling a business what they want and the business replying, "No! This is what you will get."

And then the business wondering why they are floundering.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>

my medium is dying wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Here is something else I would likely pay for - a personalized Dispatch. Aggregate into a form where I select what topics I want articles and let me read it like that instead of click-back-click-back with trying to find things after they get buried. The idea of "sections" is (again) tied to print form and just stupid online.
A.

To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.

This is also a dangerous way of thinking.
We need to be exposed to writers we don't like, bias we don't like and topics we are not interested in.
I hope you understand why this is important.
A few weeks ago, I spoke with a Rachel Maddow fan who honestly didn't know that she had a somewhat liberal bias.
This frightens me.

I can do that on my own pretty readily, but thanks for having my back. Good maternal instincts though to assume that I am incapable of doing this on my own.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Is anyone else enjoying the spectacle of customers telling a business what they want and the business replying, "No! This is what you will get."
And then the business wondering why they are floundering.
A.

But you want something stupid.

Because you understand the importance of differing views and topics, I'm sure you would feel most comfortable if you knew there were writers out there attending all the meetings and covering all sorts of beats and topics that anyone could possibly want to read about -- But you want to us to determine which articles would interest you, aggregate them and feed them to you through a reader.

And you don't want to pay for it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

my medium is dying wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Is anyone else enjoying the spectacle of customers telling a business what they want and the business replying, "No! This is what you will get."
And then the business wondering why they are floundering.
A.

But you want something stupid.
Because you understand the importance of differing views and topics, I'm sure you would feel most comfortable if you knew there were writers out there attending all the meetings and covering all sorts of beats and topics that anyone could possibly want to read about -- But you want to us to determine which articles would interest you, aggregate them and feed them to you through a reader.
And you don't want to pay for it.

You've got baby-brain, dear. I explicitly said above that this is something I would pay for. (As opposed to the free mess that is.)

And I would determine what topics I want. I already do this with my various feeds. Of course it wouldn't be perfect - it would simply be better (thus worth money) that what is (and is dying.)

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
my medium is dying
Bangs, ohio
Login to Send PM

Brant Jones wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

my medium is dying wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Here is something else I would likely pay for - a personalized Dispatch. Aggregate into a form where I select what topics I want articles and let me read it like that instead of click-back-click-back with trying to find things after they get buried. The idea of "sections" is (again) tied to print form and just stupid online.
A.

To be honest it seems more sustainable going forward to subscribe to the writers I like than a whole newspaper.

This is also a dangerous way of thinking.
We need to be exposed to writers we don't like, bias we don't like and topics we are not interested in.
I hope you understand why this is important.
A few weeks ago, I spoke with a Rachel Maddow fan who honestly didn't know that she had a somewhat liberal bias.
This frightens me.

I can do that on my own pretty readily, but thanks for having my back. Good maternal instincts though to assume that I am incapable of doing this on my own.

My mistake. I forgot that empathy and reasoned objectivity rule CU. That is why group think will never thrive here.

Forgive me. Mama just wants what is best for everyone.

Posted 1 year ago #