The latest to give it a shot is the Journal Inquirer, our east-of-the-river brethren, which announced its intentions here.
The JI is not charging its print subscribers to read it online, but is developing some way to make people who are not buying the paper shell out something to eyeball much of its stuff via the internet.
Whether that'll work or not, I have no idea.
But don't be surprised if The Bristol Press makes a similar decision. Following the JI's lead is not a bad strategy for both making money and making a difference.
My suggestion for one and all is to subscribe to the Press. That's what pays my less than breathtaking salary and that's what makes it possible for us to get out there and report the news.
Update on Friday, April 17th -- Apparently, the JI's experiment is going pretty well. They're providing full access to the paper's website for subscribers. Those who don't subscribe can pay the $154 it would have cost them to get the paper for a year -- and if they don't want the dead tree version, they can simply donate the hard copy to the Newspapers in Education program.
What's interesting to me is that some of the new subscribers are from out of the area, presumably retirees who have moved to sunnier climes or just refugees from Connecticut who want to make a living somewhere. Those folks are a new market for the paper, which otherwise had no reasonable way to make any money off of them.
If the JI continues to see this as successful, you can bet your bottom dollar that The Bristol Press won't be the only other daily in Connecticut to give it a try as well. But I trust we'll upgrade our website first!
*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
15 comments:
If I am paying to read my local newspaper on-line, boy it better have a lot more to offer then the print edition.
Didn't the Wall Street Journal and New York Times try this and fail?
Steve, If the BP online becomes a paysite then does that mean the end of your blog? Frankly, I think your blog is far more timely, relevant and compelling than the print edition.
2:15 pm - pictures should suffice for you.
Not worth it. I'll just get the weekly for free, sorry!!!
The New York Times gave up on trying to make people pay online. The Wall Street Journal is making money on it, though, and won't stop.
I think the logic among small papers that require people to pay is that it pushes more to subscribe. So while the online payments may never amount to a whole lot -- though they could someday -- they do help push people back toward print. And that helps.
The fundamental problem is that online ads don't begin to pay for the news you can read online.
As for my blog's fate, I have no idea. I'm sure we'll do it differently if the website becomes one where readers have to pay, but I'm not sure just how.
Your points are well taken Steve but I don't see it working for the BP. If people can't/won't subscribe to the print edition I don't see them forking over $$ to read it online.
There's just not enough content to make it worthwhile and there's many sources to get (at least most) of the same information.
The problem with this and with newspapers in general is more and more people want the news NOW and not tomorrow morning. The internet makes that possible and largely for free. Schroeder should be figuring out a way to offer a product that no one else has. Until that is done it won't work.
3:14PM - your a donkey! That makes no sense what you said. Why would you criticize someone - when you have no idea who they are, who they work for, ect...You my donkey are what they call ignorant.
You may be right, 4:03. We'll see.
One thing, though, that I disagree about is important. There is no alternative source for 95 percent of the BRISTOL news we provide. Without the Press, you simply wouldn't know all of that stuff.
Steve: Don't the advertisers pay the your newspaper for how many on line readers thy are reaching with their adds?
Some advertisers may pay extra to be online, too. But online ads don't come close to paying for the cost of getting the news that's on there.
A story about this subject was posted on Marketwatch today. Check it out...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-solve-newspaper-industrys-woes/story.aspx?guid=%7B4F2C6464%2D6377%2D4C8D%2D8D91%2DD2EDB0A1C900%7D&dist=msr_2
Waterbury's Republican American charges customers a fee and has a robust Web site. You can get some stories for free but for a fee, you can see the entire paper as it is laid out. It is quite affordable for about $9 a month. It is a good compromise. Making the entire site paid can be counter productive.
I'd never pay to read news online. There are plenty of other sources. And besides, who wants to sit there and log-in every time you want to check local news. Sounds annoying to me. I'm willing to bet it won't work for the BP.
I like the idea of making the online view free to subscribers and charging those that don't subscribe. It adds value to the subscription.
Post a Comment