If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsday)   Newsday to charge $5 a week for full access to its online content, calling it a "pioneering Web model" that will no doubt pioneer them right into bankrupcty   (newsday.com) divider line 192
    More: Interesting, Newsday, limited access, Silver Spring, managing editor, By KEIKO MORRIS, subscribers, case study, sales manager  
•       •       •

4149 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:41 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-10-22 10:43:32 AM
Who could think this is a good idea?
 
2009-10-22 10:43:58 AM
Who the fark would pay $5 to read crap news?
 
2009-10-22 10:44:02 AM
...but Fark lite is free!
 
2009-10-22 10:44:05 AM
SUE, DREW, SUE!
 
2009-10-22 10:44:15 AM
shh, No one tell Newsday that there are free sources of news lurking around!
 
2009-10-22 10:44:27 AM
It pioneered me over to a free content news site.

/not really...who the hell outside of Long Island would read that crap rag anyway?
 
2009-10-22 10:44:28 AM
Yes, Subtard, because free has worked out so well for them.
 
2009-10-22 10:44:32 AM
What an ill-advised pioneer may look like:

www.80stees.com
 
2009-10-22 10:44:41 AM
Five bucks a week, and still 7 Ads per page?

How about no.
 
2009-10-22 10:44:59 AM
I can't wait to see M. take it up the arse on this one.
 
2009-10-22 10:45:04 AM
What's Newsday?
 
2009-10-22 10:45:09 AM
MrCheeks: SUE, DREW, SUE!

Who is Sue? Drew's wife?
 
2009-10-22 10:45:12 AM
Shrinkwrap: shh, No one tell Newsday Drew that there are free sources of news lurking around!
 
2009-10-22 10:45:49 AM
ClockCat: Who could think this is a good idea?

Give me 5 bucks and I'll tell you.
 
2009-10-22 10:46:48 AM
I thought all "news" sites just reposted AP and Reuters stories anyways?

/for real news, not cat-stuck-in-a-tree news.
 
2009-10-22 10:47:44 AM
idrow: ClockCat: Who could think this is a good idea?

Give me 5 bucks and I'll tell you.


No.
 
2009-10-22 10:47:48 AM
You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.
 
2009-10-22 10:47:58 AM
A week? Are you kidding me?
 
2009-10-22 10:48:03 AM
Two out of the first twelve responses are farkers; the rest are like me - not going to pay for something that you can get for free (information on the net).
 
2009-10-22 10:48:12 AM
squidgod2000: I thought all "news" sites just reposted AP and Reuters stories anyways?

You "thought" wrong.
 
2009-10-22 10:48:29 AM
Ikam: A week? Are you kidding me?

Yeah, I wouldn't pay more than $5 a month for a collection of garbage news and poorly written headlines.
 
2009-10-22 10:48:57 AM
Seriously, $20/mo for online content?

Good luck with that.
 
2009-10-22 10:50:14 AM
Shrinkwrap: shh, No one tell Newsday that there are free sources of news lurking around!

Not for long, an advertising supported web model is proving to be a major failure for newspaper. They have got to try something new.
 
2009-10-22 10:51:24 AM
i can't line my cat pans with computer monitors.

or wrap fish. seriously, ever try to wrap a salmon in a 17 inch dell monitor?
 
2009-10-22 10:51:29 AM
El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

If by superiority you mean seeing the same story posted 20 times from every news site and blog out there, then yes you are correct.
 
2009-10-22 10:51:50 AM
TwistedIvory: Seriously, $20/mo for online content?

Good luck with that.


My WoW account is cheaper and I never even play it. At least I can log on to that and get verbally abused by teenagers.
 
2009-10-22 10:52:03 AM
kabloink: El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

If by superiority you mean seeing the same story posted 20 times from every news site and blog out there, then yes you are correct.


I mean superiority as in "literate"
 
2009-10-22 10:52:03 AM
Knucklepopper: Yes, Subtard, because free has worked out so well for them.

That is the suby's point..
 
2009-10-22 10:52:50 AM
img23.imageshack.us
 
2009-10-22 10:52:57 AM
H31N0US: MrCheeks: SUE, DREW, SUE!

Who is Sue? Drew's wife?


No, Sue is a troll.
She claims to be fat, but actually she's kinda hot.
Fantastic hips-to-waist ratio.
 
2009-10-22 10:53:00 AM
Relevant:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epicEpic 2015 (new window)
 
2009-10-22 10:53:43 AM
TsukasaK: Relevant:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epicEpic 2015 (new window)


What the shiat.. let's try that again:

That thing I just posted (new window)
 
2009-10-22 10:54:01 AM
Didn't they declare bankruptcy already at some point? And $5 a week, is that more than what you would pay to get it home delivered?
 
2009-10-22 10:54:26 AM
$5 a WEEK????

I don't think anyone would pay $20 a month for access to that ONE website.

"The new strategy comes as newspapers have been scrambling to replace the advertising-based model after years of steep revenue decline. Charging viewers for online content has been debated in the newspaper industry in the past few years."

I guess they'll just see an even steeper decline.
 
2009-10-22 10:54:27 AM
What ever happened to Long Island? They used to be so relevant.
 
2009-10-22 10:54:55 AM
4.3 weeks in a month, not 4 so 4.3 X $5 = 21.50 per month. Pet peeve of mine.
 
2009-10-22 10:54:57 AM
perdu: What's Newsday?

It's where you can find out what the weather will be like in Ronkonkoma and how badly the Islander's lost last night. For only $5 a week.
 
2009-10-22 10:55:30 AM
Under the most optomistic estimate, they could make enough money off this to buy a new Mr. Coffee for the employee lounge.
 
2009-10-22 10:55:41 AM
uberhund72: Didn't they declare bankruptcy already at some point? And $5 a week, is that more than what you would pay to get it home delivered?

Newspapers here are $5/month.
 
2009-10-22 10:55:50 AM
What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!
 
2009-10-22 10:56:22 AM
chandler_vt: That is the suby's point..

Subby's point seems to be that access to the news should be free.
 
2009-10-22 10:56:25 AM
natetimm: TwistedIvory: Seriously, $20/mo for online content?

Good luck with that.

My WoW account is cheaper and I never even play it. At least I can log on to that and get verbally abused by teenagers.


so THIS is wear u post rofl 2 scared to admit my gear owns urs n0000b?
 
2009-10-22 10:56:27 AM
I just signed up twice.
 
2009-10-22 10:56:50 AM
Mr. Slippyfist: perdu: What's Newsday?

It's where you can find out what the weather will be like in Ronkonkoma and how badly the Islander's lost last night. For only $5 a week.


Islanders.

/Sorry Nazis.
 
2009-10-22 10:57:05 AM
Catsaregreen: What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!

Oh no. No no no. You don't have to. That's quite the entire point. Nobody else has to either.

.. Nor will they.
 
2009-10-22 10:57:52 AM
I've had Farkers give me free TF for a month, twice.

It's just not worth it - I got real tired of seeing 20 of the same stories posted.

And most of the threads were empty of comment. Kinda like going to a party, and no one else shows up. What's the fun of that?
 
2009-10-22 10:58:51 AM
However, John Morton, head of the Morton Research Inc., a Silver Spring, Md.-based media consulting firm, said the current model of free online content is not a "rational model."

So Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Myspace, etc etc etc aren't making any money? oh rally? Wait... tv news and radio stations as well... all provide free content and charge advertisers.
 
2009-10-22 10:59:01 AM
Good news: I have tons of in-laws on Long Island that are subscribers, so I can get Newsday online for free

Bad news: See "Good news"
 
2009-10-22 10:59:36 AM
Now what's really interesting and is something I like that Subby missed is the real business plan behind the $20 a month.
NewsDay.com will be free to cable and print subscribers, people who actually support the newspaper and news network.
If you're lame enough to pay $20 a month, then great. But they know people won't and they could care less.
NewsDay is finally take the step papers should have done seven years ago; they're giving their print product some actual farking value.
 
2009-10-22 10:59:42 AM
ClockCat: uberhund72: Didn't they declare bankruptcy already at some point? And $5 a week, is that more than what you would pay to get it home delivered?

Newspapers here are $5/month.


Yeah, this seems more expensive than a paper newspaper, which, unlike a desktop, you can take to the can.
 
2009-10-22 10:59:52 AM
If you all ready pay to the paper delivered to your home shouldn't you also get the online version gratis? That would allow you to peruse the paper while your out of town and the bird cage liners pile up at home.

I wonder how many people are actually paying for both?
 
2009-10-22 11:01:20 AM
Here is my thoughts

1) They will probably give it away to weekly subscribers of the paper.

2) They will probably give it away to any triple pay subscriber to cablevision (FYI Cablevison owns newsday)

3) This means its a marketing vehicle not a paper.

also its the worse site to navigate ever
 
2009-10-22 11:01:21 AM
troykent: So Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Myspace, etc etc etc aren't making any money? oh rally? Wait... tv news and radio stations as well... all provide free content and charge advertisers.

Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Myspace (and Fark) aren't producing news content. Television and stations subsist off ads in their medium not from the Web. Didn't think this was ahrd.
 
2009-10-22 11:01:51 AM
For $20 a month I'll stick with UltraFar @#&DF% +++NO CARRIER
 
2009-10-22 11:02:03 AM
El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

Yous idiots TFers seems tos thinks yours sos superiors withs yours "totals superiorities." Goes chokes.
 
2009-10-22 11:02:37 AM
farm machine: If you all ready pay to the paper delivered to your home shouldn't you also get the online version gratis?

Know how I know you didn't read the article?
 
2009-10-22 11:02:59 AM
farm machine: If you all ready pay to the paper delivered to your home shouldn't you also get the online version gratis? That would allow you to peruse the paper while your out of town and the bird cage liners pile up at home.

I wonder how many people are actually paying for both?


The very first line of tfa: Beginning Wednesday, most of Newsday.com content will only be available to subscribers of Optimum Online, Newsday, or those willing to pay for it.

What was soo hard to understand about that?
 
2009-10-22 11:03:02 AM
who do they think they are, FARK?
 
2009-10-22 11:03:25 AM
Catsaregreen: What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!

$5 a week should pay not only for the "reporter" to copy stories and put them in his/her own words, but the print operator and the paperboy who delivers it. I can employ a lot more people than what they are proposing for my $5 a week.

...and shut up mom and dad's basement hasn't flooded in years and I totally have it all decked out in the cool black light posters I bought on line. Hell as soon as I get my van repaired I'm gonna get some serious action up in here.
 
2009-10-22 11:03:31 AM
Dixie_Normous: I've had Farkers give me free TF for a month, twice.

It's just not worth it - I got real tired of seeing 20 of the same stories posted.

And most of the threads were empty of comment. Kinda like going to a party, and no one else shows up. What's the fun of that?


Pretty much this. I won't be renewing when my totalfark expires.
 
2009-10-22 11:03:32 AM
Catsaregreen: What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!

Baw, every bum wanting charity gets the shaft too.
 
2009-10-22 11:03:44 AM
squidgod2000: I thought all "news" sites just reposted AP and Reuters stories anyways?

/for real news, not cat-stuck-in-a-tree news.


OMG there's a cat stuck in a tree ,,,Where ?
 
2009-10-22 11:04:52 AM
H31N0US: MrCheeks: SUE, DREW, SUE!

Who is Sue? Drew's wife?


No, looks more like Drew was having a 3-some with 2 girls named Sue, unless they were boys named Sue... Ewwwwwwwwwww...
 
2009-10-22 11:05:17 AM
Why don't we just let the government take over the newspapers and Internets? Problem solved.
 
2009-10-22 11:05:18 AM
holybull99: 4.3 weeks in a month, not 4 so 4.3 X $5 = 21.50 per month. Pet peeve of mine.

actually its 4.3333 repeating. So $21.67
 
2009-10-22 11:07:02 AM
Philip J. Fry: Ikam: A week? Are you kidding me?

Yeah, I wouldn't pay more than $5 a month for a collection of garbage news and poorly written headlines.


are you sure? ....that's still $60 a year for a third rate crappy rag.
 
2009-10-22 11:07:41 AM
How about $260 a year you math geeks.
But there are 365.25 days in a year...
 
2009-10-22 11:08:20 AM
tbernot: Dixie_Normous: I've had Farkers give me free TF for a month, twice.

It's just not worth it - I got real tired of seeing 20 of the same stories posted.

And most of the threads were empty of comment. Kinda like going to a party, and no one else shows up. What's the fun of that?

Pretty much this. I won't be renewing when my totalfark expires.


You don't get into TFD much, do you?
 
2009-10-22 11:08:28 AM
I assumed Subby was playing loose with the facts, but s/he was honest. I can only assume the publisher of Newsday uses crack. Their page-hits will plummet when they realize how many non-subscribers viewed their site casually, but will no way in hell pay $5 a week for that privilege.
 
2009-10-22 11:08:46 AM
These media companies that are losing their arses in the real world, are all gonna start charging for online content, and they like using words like revolutionary and pioneering business model. They are idiotic scumbags, who are going to ruin the web now, too.

Please, please, never pay for online content for something you can get for free. And we should all, as web denizens, avoid sites that are completely over-run by ads, and especially by sites that make you, uh hem, watch commercials before the content you want to see. The advertising/marketing has GOT to stop.

I can barely watch football anymore.
 
2009-10-22 11:09:34 AM
poisonedpawn78: actually its 4.3333

pet peeve ?
 
2009-10-22 11:10:26 AM
If you're an Optimum Online subscriber, you have access to the internet, and thus won't be poking around Newsday that much for news. If you're already a Newsday subscriber, there isn't much value-added for going online to view the content, and I fail to see how that would be an additional revenue stream anyway. And if you don't subscribe to web only, you probably won't, because the cost is prohibitive and there's nothing on that site you can't find for free, and better written, somewhere else.

Young people are generally not going to subscribe to Newsday unless they are train commuters. And, unlike prior generations, many train commuters have laptops and an increasing number have Kindles, making a morning paper an option, not a standard.

Enjoy your 65+ demographic while you can, Newsday.
 
2009-10-22 11:10:33 AM
Catsaregreen: What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!

Mr. Catsaregreen:
I'm going to shiat in a bucket and demand $5 for it. If you scoff at the idea of paying me for a bucket of shiat I will then chide you for expecting it for free and make you feel guilty about my poor choice of career. Then we will both make sense.
 
2009-10-22 11:10:44 AM
emerson7: are you sure?

he's sure (notice his snazzy totalfark icon ?)
 
2009-10-22 11:12:49 AM
I don't know what is more ridiculous, Newsweek having the gall to impliment this or that some moron gets paid over a million bucks approved this.
 
2009-10-22 11:13:35 AM
El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

You owe me a new keyboard
 
2009-10-22 11:13:42 AM
WTF is Newsday?
 
2009-10-22 11:14:14 AM
It's stupid to pay $5 a month for crap you can get for free.
 
2009-10-22 11:14:20 AM
dhudd: Two out of the first twelve responses are farkers; the rest are like me - not going to pay for something that you can get for free (information on the net).

I don't mind paying for something - but if its more than the print edition of that something - I refuse.
 
2009-10-22 11:15:44 AM
images.cafepress.com

/hot.
 
2009-10-22 11:16:25 AM
Cheesehead_Dave: What an ill-advised pioneer may look like:

[www.80stees.com image 145x145]


DAMN it, beaten to it. Fail.
 
2009-10-22 11:16:30 AM
moothemagiccow: WTF is Newsday?

Long Island based tabloid. Actually a good read and the website posts all of the local mugshots.
 
2009-10-22 11:17:14 AM
Leonard_Cohen: I don't know what is more ridiculous, Newsweek having the gall to impliment this or that some moron gets paid over a million bucks approved this.

Newsweek is a national magazine. Newsday is a Long Island, NY paper that sometimes thinks it's a New York City paper as well.
 
2009-10-22 11:17:26 AM
as journalism gets consistently worse, some surviving outfit (AP, NYtimes) will figure out a micropayment system that works and then will offer high quality news. Payments will probably look like 1-2 cents per article page or 5 bucks per month. Something along those lines. $5 a week for crap isn't going to cut it.
 
2009-10-22 11:17:38 AM
Who is "Newsday", and why should I pay for their service?
 
2009-10-22 11:18:49 AM
El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

You tell those liter peasants!
*does the secret TF handshake*

In TF land, we get tomorrows news, today. In fact, we're all millionaires who hit the powerball daily.
 
2009-10-22 11:19:03 AM
Farkin' idiots. Nobobdy should be stupid enough to pay.
 
2009-10-22 11:19:23 AM
$5 a week for Newsday content? really?
 
2009-10-22 11:19:36 AM
I could get the NY Times delivered to my home for $0.85 more a week and read it on my commute.

weirdos.
 
2009-10-22 11:19:54 AM
poisonedpawn78: holybull99: 4.3 weeks in a month, not 4 so 4.3 X $5 = 21.50 per month. Pet peeve of mine.

actually its 4.3333 repeating. So $21.67


It's more like 4.3482, so $21.74

/365.25 days = 52.1786 weeks
//math geek
///way to much money for crap news
 
2009-10-22 11:21:51 AM
Knucklepopper: chandler_vt: That is the suby's point..

Subby's point seems to be that access to the news should be free.


Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

Clearly if you are not selling enough papers it means people are not interested in buying them. So for some odd reason they will be willing to pay more money for same content online (which other sources are providing for free)?

And if you believe that news should not be free, you are born in the wrong century.
 
2009-10-22 11:22:24 AM
My local paper with home delivery is only $10 a month..... This will end well.
 
2009-10-22 11:22:39 AM
RodneyToady: Leonard_Cohen: I don't know what is more ridiculous, Newsweek having the gall to impliment this or that some moron gets paid over a million bucks approved this.

Newsweek is a national magazine. has become nothing more than an ultra-left collection of blogs, opinions and foul smelling gas, who's own circulation is spiraling downward and will inevitably end in bankruptcy. Newsday is a Long Island, NY paper that sometimes thinks it's a New York City paper as well.


there ya go. ftfy
 
2009-10-22 11:22:57 AM
Knucklepopper: Subby's point seems to be that access to the news should be free.

Access to the news is free, regardless of subby's point. (new window)
 
2009-10-22 11:23:03 AM
Slartibartfaster: emerson7: are you sure?

he's sure (notice his snazzy totalfark icon ?)


lol...point well taken.

wow....$250 a year is alotta-lotta money. i just cannot imagine this being a winning strategy.
 
2009-10-22 11:23:24 AM
El Chode: kabloink: El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

If by superiority you mean seeing the same story posted 20 times from every news site and blog out there, then yes you are correct.

I mean superiority as in "literate"


As literate as any tabloid reader could be.
 
2009-10-22 11:23:29 AM
poisonedpawn78: holybull99: 4.3 weeks in a month, not 4 so 4.3 X $5 = 21.50 per month. Pet peeve of mine.

actually its 4.3333 repeating. So $21.67


Actually, it is 4.345 weeks in a month.
Wolfram Alpha (new window)
 
2009-10-22 11:24:20 AM
Dixie_Normous: I've had Farkers give me free TF for a month, twice.

It's just not worth it - I got real tired of seeing 20 of the same stories posted.

And most of the threads were empty of comment. Kinda like going to a party, and no one else shows up. What's the fun of that?


You were just doing it wrong.

I miss TF :( I wish I wasn't so broke.

Of course, I wouldn't pay 5 bucks a week for a newspaper either. I liked paying 5 a month for my cheap entertainment/information/news/bad advice and an occasional personal tragedy so awesome I get to laugh for months on end website.
 
2009-10-22 11:26:02 AM
My stepbrother works there so i'm really getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2009-10-22 11:26:25 AM
virtualchoirboy: poisonedpawn78: holybull99: 4.3 weeks in a month, not 4 so 4.3 X $5 = 21.50 per month. Pet peeve of mine.

actually its 4.3333 repeating. So $21.67

It's more like 4.3482, so $21.74

/365.25 days = 52.1786 weeks
//math geek
///way to much money for crap news


now all we need is the astronomy geek to come in and point out that each day is not actually 24 hours long and do the math and we will have completed the circle of nerdism.
 
2009-10-22 11:27:57 AM
chandler_vt: Knucklepopper: chandler_vt: That is the suby's point..

Subby's point seems to be that access to the news should be free.

Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

Clearly if you are not selling enough papers it means people are not interested in buying them. So for some odd reason they will be willing to pay more money for same content online (which other sources are providing for free)?

And if you believe that news should not be free, you are born in the wrong century.


As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

* Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
 
2009-10-22 11:28:11 AM
How long until they fold completely? Any guesses?
 
2009-10-22 11:28:44 AM
The news sites would have to like those asshole colluding oil companies...

You'll wake up one morning and find EVERY SINGLE SITE on the web will be charging this $5.
The next morning, they will be $5.02....and so on.
What a business model. Can't lose.
 
2009-10-22 11:29:06 AM
I honestly had no idea that Newsday was still around.
 
2009-10-22 11:29:13 AM
If I ever neared bankrupcty, I would expect that my accoutnatn would wanr me before it happende.
 
2009-10-22 11:30:18 AM
PitaCJ: Dixie_Normous: I've had Farkers give me free TF for a month, twice.

It's just not worth it - I got real tired of seeing 20 of the same stories posted.

And most of the threads were empty of comment. Kinda like going to a party, and no one else shows up. What's the fun of that?

You were just doing it wrong.

I miss TF :( I wish I wasn't so broke.

Of course, I wouldn't pay 5 bucks a week for a newspaper either. I liked paying 5 a month for my cheap entertainment/information/news/bad advice and an occasional personal tragedy so awesome I get to laugh for months on end website.


If I wasn't also broke, I'd buy you a months worth of TF, since you enjoyed it.

Hope you get some $$ and can TF for yourself again!
 
2009-10-22 11:30:21 AM
emerson7: i just cannot imagine this being a winning strategy

This. Is America.

Pet Rock
Paris Hilton
AIG performance bonuses

Sometimes the WEIRDEST things get a whole LOTTA money
 
2009-10-22 11:31:21 AM
TwistedIvory: Seriously, $20/mo for online content?

Good luck with that.


It works for porn!

Of course, I bet the online content for porn is an assload better than what's on Newsday.
 
2009-10-22 11:33:58 AM
chandler_vt:

I'll take these one at a time.

Q. Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

A. They're not. Online will be free for paying subscribers. What NewsDay is doing is devaluing their Web content and making their cable/print subscription worth something. This is a simple, but good idea. If someone is crazy enough to buy a $20 a month subscription, what they're saying is, splendid. But if they don't, that's okay too because readers do not equal customers.

Q. Clearly if you are not selling enough papers it means people are not interested in buying them. So for some odd reason they will be willing to pay more money for same content online (which other sources are providing for free)?

A. Negative. While some news is wire-generated content, NewsDay actually has a large news staff that produces plenty of original content. (some of the content is going to be free, I assume that's the wire stuff).

Q. And if you believe that news should not be free, you are born in the wrong century.

A. You might think news should be free and that's fine but you can't possibly think news production should be free. If you do, I'd urge you to look at whatever industry you're in and ask yourself whether that also should be free.
 
2009-10-22 11:34:19 AM
Catsaregreen: What?! I have to pay for content that a real, live human being had to put together. Probably a human being with a spouse and children to support. Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! I want everything for free. Mommy and daddy and support me while I live in their basement. Why can't everyone else!

Because that particular whine has always worked in the past.

/like trying to recover from a stall by pulling back on the stick
 
2009-10-22 11:35:28 AM
Knucklepopper: chandler_vt:

I'll take these one at a time.

Q. Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

A. They're not. Online will be free for paying subscribers. What NewsDay is doing is devaluing their Web content and making their cable/print subscription worth something. This is a simple, but good idea. If someone is crazy enough to buy a $20 a month subscription, what they're saying is, splendid. But if they don't, that's okay too because readers do not equal customers.

Q. Clearly if you are not selling enough papers it means people are not interested in buying them. So for some odd reason they will be willing to pay more money for same content online (which other sources are providing for free)?

A. Negative. While some news is wire-generated content, NewsDay actually has a large news staff that produces plenty of original content. (some of the content is going to be free, I assume that's the wire stuff).

Q. And if you believe that news should not be free, you are born in the wrong century.

A. You might think news should be free and that's fine but you can't possibly think news production should be free. If you do, I'd urge you to look at whatever industry you're in and ask yourself whether that also should be free.


A lot of reportedly literate citizens think health care should be free.
 
2009-10-22 11:35:53 AM
This is not New.

This is not pioneering.

Newspapers and Magazines tried this briefly in the 90's, and it didn't work.

It didn't work then.
It won't work now.
 
2009-10-22 11:35:57 AM
I wonder how long it's going to take news companies to realize that nobody wants to pay for thier stupid bullshiat non-stories.

Hopefully long enough for moost if not all of them to go bankrupt. I can go anywhere and find stuff that's not news for free.

Yes, I know bottled water companies have had enormous success selling stuff to morons that they can get anywhere for free, but THEY have good PR and advertising. You news companies? Not so much. Fewer and fewer people are paying attention because not only is the bullshiat you're "reporting" not news, it's not interesting, and people are finally getting tired of it.
 
2009-10-22 11:36:23 AM
Fano: A lot of reportedly literate citizens think health care should be free.

Can't help you there. Don't jack the thread.
 
2009-10-22 11:38:13 AM
ishus37: ClockCat: uberhund72: Didn't they declare bankruptcy already at some point? And $5 a week, is that more than what you would pay to get it home delivered?

Newspapers here are $5/month.

Yeah, this seems more expensive than a paper newspaper, which, unlike a desktop, you can take to the can.


I have a netbook that I have been taking with me all over the place lately. It is light and the battery lasts forever in it even if I'm browsing or watching a video. I have taken that to the bathroom quite a few times. No, it isn't a desktop but it is kind of neat.
 
2009-10-22 11:38:50 AM
jbrooks544: This is not New.

This is not pioneering.

Newspapers and Magazines tried this briefly in the 90's, and it didn't work.

It didn't work then.
It won't work now.


Like gay marriage?
 
2009-10-22 11:39:01 AM
Slartibartfaster:

This. Is America.

Pet Rock
Paris Hilton
AIG performance bonuses

Sometimes the WEIRDEST things get a whole LOTTA money


Paris Hilton = rich daddy
AIG performance bonuses = rich uncle
Pet Rock = ????

if we could only find a pattern here, we might be on to something.
 
2009-10-22 11:39:31 AM
natetimm: TwistedIvory: Seriously, $20/mo for online content?

Good luck with that.

My WoW account is cheaper and I never even play it. At least I can log on to that and get verbally abused by teenagers.


If you don't use it, can I have your $15/month?
( or whatever the price of WoW is these days )

/subscriptions for games... how did the internet get this way?
 
jph
2009-10-22 11:39:51 AM
The only site intended for the general public that has been able to pull this off is WSJ.com. Everything else either has a very specific target audience (eg. professionals of a certain industry).
 
2009-10-22 11:39:57 AM
Celerian: El Chode: You idiots liters seem to not understand the difference between $5 a week for news you can get anywhere else, and $5 a month for total superiority.

Yous idiots TFers seems tos thinks yours sos superiors withs yours "totals superiorities." Goes chokes.


www.furiacontralamaquina.com
Approves.
 
2009-10-22 11:40:13 AM
TsukasaK: epic

That's impressive, and very cool.
 
2009-10-22 11:40:28 AM
@Lt. Cheese Weasel. Do you know who the HA HA guy is supposed to be a drawing of? does anybody?
 
2009-10-22 11:41:18 AM
Pfft, TotalFark. Ultrafark is where it's at. I mean, you can

++++++ CARRIER LOST ++++++
 
2009-10-22 11:41:22 AM
Knucklepopper: chandler_vt:

I'll take these one at a time.

Q. Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

A. They're not. Online will be free for paying subscribers. What NewsDay is doing is devaluing their Web content and making their cable/print subscription worth something. This is a simple, but good idea. If someone is crazy enough to buy a $20 a month subscription, what they're saying is, splendid. But if they don't, that's okay too because readers do not equal customers.


readers = customers when you make a significant portion of your profits off of advertisers.

Also, $5/week has got to be comparable to the cost of print editions. Shouldn't a web version should be some fraction of that. The problem is that the online price is way too steep, and because of that you shrink your potential reader base.
 
2009-10-22 11:42:09 AM
fizzix_is_fun: readers = customers when you make a significant portion of your profits off of advertisers.

They haven't been. Nobody has. THat's the problem.
 
2009-10-22 11:43:00 AM
Fano: A lot of reportedly literate citizens think health care should be free

They think the government should pay for health care. There's a difference, unless you believe we should be moving to a BBC model of government owned news.
 
2009-10-22 11:44:03 AM
Only if it meant you got to drink with Jimmy Breslin.
 
2009-10-22 11:44:46 AM
EmployeeOfTheMinute: How long until they fold completely? Any guesses?

It depends on how long Cablevision is willing to keep shoveling money into it, and whether or not the NY Post and the Daily News will keep their free models. If the model fails rapidly, I think they abandon it in 6 months and try to fight on. If it's a slow decline, maybe 2 years until they cease to be. If the other papers switch over to a similar model, I say maybe 5 years, with some bonus time if the News or Post kicks off first.

You have to keep in mind that for many subscribers who aren't completely enthralled with Newsday, they take the "deals" and switch to other papers when they're done. So they may do a $2 a week promotion for home delivery for 6 weeks or 3 months. When it's up, they wait for the Daily News or Post to run something similar, or even the Times if they're willing to pay a bit more. And they just cycle like that throughout the year. So even subscribers aren't paying full price.
 
2009-10-22 11:49:24 AM
Knucklepopper: fizzix_is_fun: readers = customers when you make a significant portion of your profits off of advertisers.

They haven't been. Nobody has. THat's the problem.


They used to. They overplayed their hands, bringing in crappy flashing, pop-up, scam, sound-playing and slow-loading ads, instead of more reasonable content related ads. However, they shot themselves in the foot, and any web-savvy person has ads blocked by now.

I don't think ad-based is survivable at this point. I also don't think that $5 a week subscription is reasonable at all.

Personally I'd like to see NYtimes charge $1 a month or 1 cent an article and get some good investigative journalism back. Allow news to be distributed for free 2 days after it's published online, opinion and special features can wait a week. What's wrong with this model?
 
2009-10-22 11:50:04 AM
I just read that Hulu will be charging in 2010. I really think that these people wanted advertising supported on air content to fail, the imaginary numbers are too enticing. When you have customers who are getting commercial supported TV or other content, trying to get all of them to pay is too enticing. I don't think it will work as well as they want it to. It's a sad day really.
 
2009-10-22 11:53:00 AM
*************Thread Jack*******************************

Hi all, sorry to jack, but i am getting desperate, I am at work and am getting blocked on most sites regarding cooking, so I am turning to the awsomeness of the fark cooks out there...

I need to butter poach a lobster and I am looking for the best ways to do it, any suggestions would be great of you fine folks. Thanks in advance, and sorry to jack the thread....

*****************end Thread Jack*********************
 
2009-10-22 11:55:13 AM
fizzix_is_fun: They used to. They overplayed their hands, bringing in crappy flashing, pop-up, scam, sound-playing and slow-loading ads, instead of more reasonable content related ads. However, they shot themselves in the foot, and any web-savvy person has ads blocked by now.

I don't think ad-based is survivable at this point. I also don't think that $5 a week subscription is reasonable at all.

Personally I'd like to see NYtimes charge $1 a month or 1 cent an article and get some good investigative journalism back. Allow news to be distributed for free 2 days after it's published online, opinion and special features can wait a week. What's wrong with this model?


Ads have not worked. As far back as 2005, 90 percent of ad revenue came from print and 10 percent from online while 90 percent of readers were online and ten percent in print. The only paper who's managed to flip the inverse was the LA Times but that was only through laying off a significant portion of their staff and growing introvert, focusing on SoCal.
$5 a week subscription is not surviveable but you're missing the point. They're elevating the worth of their print and cable subscriptions by devaluing the Internet. As it should be.
So you are willing to pay one cent an article for good investigative journalism? How nice for you.
I'm willing to pay $3 a month for rent. I'll wish in my pocket while you shiat in yours and we'll see which one fills up first.
 
2009-10-22 11:55:27 AM
olddeegee: I just read that Hulu will be charging in 2010. I really think that these people wanted advertising supported on air content to fail, the imaginary numbers are too enticing. When you have customers who are getting commercial supported TV or other content, trying to get all of them to pay is too enticing. I don't think it will work as well as they want it to. It's a sad day really.

charging for hulu as it is now won't work. Allowing someone to download an episode for 5-10 cents each may work though.

The problem with charging for TV shows is that it's trivial for anyone to digitize it when it airs and put it on a peer-to-peer network. They do this already. I think many people would be willing to pay a nominal fee for a legal alternative. The trick is finding the price at which people say, "fark it, i'm downloading the illegal torrent"
 
2009-10-22 11:56:07 AM
jbrooks544: This is not New.

This is not pioneering.

Newspapers and Magazines tried this briefly in the 90's, and it didn't work.

It didn't work then.
It won't work now.


This. So very this. Back then it was called AOL. And they had a lot of news content behind their paid firewall. This is just the old hoary AOL/Compuserve model dolled up in new clothes. It failed when content providers found they could get more revenue with a free-with-advertising approach than a firewall subscription approach -- and that was during a good economy. Now in a bad economy the rations are probably skewed even more toward the advertising model generating more revenue than the paid firewall model given that there's even less discretionary income floating around.
 
2009-10-22 11:56:39 AM
Sure it's absurd, but just think about this- so far 130+ comments talking about Newsday. That's free word-of-mouth advertising right there...

/had never heard of them til now.
 
2009-10-22 11:57:17 AM
fizzix_is_fun: The trick is finding the price at which people say, "fark it, i'm downloading the illegal torrent"

And then Fark will be filled with raucous cries of how unfair it is to have to pay as the industry starts suing against the download crowd. 2003 all over again.
 
2009-10-22 12:01:45 PM
Knucklepopper: So you are willing to pay one cent an article for good investigative journalism? How nice for you.

If by "good investigative journalism" you mean rephrasing a White House press release, then even 1¢ per article is too much.
 
2009-10-22 12:03:01 PM
Alien Robot: If by "good investigative journalism" you mean rephrasing a White House press release, then even 1¢ per article is too much.

Yes, because that's exactly what I meant.
 
2009-10-22 12:07:16 PM
Tigggy: Sure it's absurd, but just think about this- so far 130+ comments talking about Newsday. That's free word-of-mouth advertising right there...

/had never heard of them til now.


So that makes them not quite as popular as horse sex.

//straight from the ......
 
2009-10-22 12:07:18 PM
Knucklepopper: fizzix_is_fun: They used to. They overplayed their hands, bringing in crappy flashing, pop-up, scam, sound-playing and slow-loading ads, instead of more reasonable content related ads. However, they shot themselves in the foot, and any web-savvy person has ads blocked by now.

I don't think ad-based is survivable at this point. I also don't think that $5 a week subscription is reasonable at all.

Personally I'd like to see NYtimes charge $1 a month or 1 cent an article and get some good investigative journalism back. Allow news to be distributed for free 2 days after it's published online, opinion and special features can wait a week. What's wrong with this model?

Ads have not worked. As far back as 2005, 90 percent of ad revenue came from print and 10 percent from online while 90 percent of readers were online and ten percent in print. The only paper who's managed to flip the inverse was the LA Times but that was only through laying off a significant portion of their staff and growing introvert, focusing on SoCal.
$5 a week subscription is not surviveable but you're missing the point. They're elevating the worth of their print and cable subscriptions by devaluing the Internet. As it should be.


Putting something online and charging for it is a huge cost saver for a company that doesn't have to print and distribute an actual print copy. The cost of reading an article online should be reflected in that cost saving. The internet is an amazing tool of dissemination and making your product visible to a larger audience. Devaluing that seems like an extremely poor business model.


So you are willing to pay one cent an article for good investigative journalism? How nice for you.
I'm willing to pay $3 a month for rent. I'll wish in my pocket while you shiat in yours and we'll see which one fills up first.


you missed the point as well. Right now, where can I go for investigative journalism? I pick up a newspaper every so often and it's filled with complete crap. The closest thing to news articles are stories copied directly from the AP wire, but they can hardly be called investigative. The point is, if you're going to charge for your news, it better be something good. Maybe Newsday is a huge bastion of in-depth reporting. I don't know. Skimming their website, it doesn't seem so though.

Of course if you want to continue the model of overcharging for crap, you can enjoy your slow march into bankruptcy. I can get the same level of crap for free.
 
2009-10-22 12:08:00 PM
Knucklepopper: Alien Robot: If by "good investigative journalism" you mean rephrasing a White House press release, then even 1¢ per article is too much.

Yes, because that's exactly what I meant.


"good" and "investigative journalism" don't belong in the same sentence ballpark planet galaxy universe these days.

What's happening is that "news" is losing its value as cost of distribution approaches zero.. kinda like the music industry. The price of a song nowadays (that people are willing to pay) is around US$1.00
 
2009-10-22 12:09:09 PM
MedianJoe: @Lt. Cheese Weasel. Do you know who the HA HA guy is supposed to be a drawing of? does anybody?

i141.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-22 12:09:37 PM
Knucklepopper: They're elevating the worth of their print and cable subscriptions by devaluing the Internet. As it should be.

Their print subscriptions aren't exactly doing stellar, and it's not because people are simply deciding, "I love Newsday, but I can read it for free online." It's more like "I like local sports, business, and national news, and I can find more and better content for those things, for free, elsewhere." Advertisers aren't exactly flocking to newspapers, either. And the alternative revenue streams of classified ads and job listings have been done better online.

If Cablevision decides to include a Newsday subscription (including web content) to all Cablevision customers, then maybe the advertisers will come back, and they can live on for a while longer. But this new model of pay-for-content isn't going to work. Devaluing your internet content only makes sense if you're able to float on your print model, and NewsDay hasn't shown evidence that it can. Not in this environment of multiple and varied competitors.
 
2009-10-22 12:10:37 PM
perdu: What's Newsday?

kevra: *************Thread Jack*******************************

Hi all, sorry to jack, but i am getting desperate, I am at work and am getting blocked on most sites regarding cooking, so I am turning to the awsomeness of the fark cooks out there...

I need to butter poach a lobster
and I am looking for the best ways to do it, any suggestions would be great of you fine folks. Thanks in advance, and sorry to jack the thread....

*****************end Thread Jack*********************


Poaching is illegal. No Farker will contribute to illegal activity.

Try Newsday.
 
2009-10-22 12:16:44 PM
Fano:
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

* Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"


Pffft!

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Centauri Monopoly"
 
2009-10-22 12:18:24 PM
TsukasaK: "good" and "investigative journalism" don't belong in the same sentence ballpark planet galaxy universe these days.

What does this even mean?

What's happening is that "news" is losing its value as cost of distribution approaches zero.. kinda like the music industry. The price of a song nowadays (that people are willing to pay) is around US$1.00

When I was buying cassettes in the late 1980s, they were about $10 for anywhere from 8-11 songs. That seems like a fairly consistent value.
Distribution is the not the issue; production is.
 
2009-10-22 12:19:16 PM
That is probably more than their physical subscription.
 
2009-10-22 12:21:20 PM
Here's a question: Who is clicking on all these ad links on the internet?

I mean, is it people clicking by accident, or is it all the people online who are not that web savvy? Like my mom for instance.

Because I have never in 10-12 years voluntarily clicked on an ad link/banner. I even avert my eyes and hit mute when I am forced to watch a commercial on a site.
 
2009-10-22 12:23:02 PM
MedianJoe: @Lt. Cheese Weasel. Do you know who the HA HA guy is supposed to be a drawing of? does anybody?

It was some sort of antediluvian denture-adhesive advertisement that someone scanned in. Something like "HA! HA! I'm using FORBES INSOLUBLE PLATES!"
 
2009-10-22 12:23:48 PM
emerson7: if we could only find a pattern here, we might be on to something.

My Dad always used to say (and I miss him for more than just this)

"Remember the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes all the rules"

Yeah I know he didnt write it. But the older I get the more it seems irrefutable.
 
2009-10-22 12:23:49 PM
RodneyToady: If Cablevision decides to include a Newsday subscription (including web content) to all Cablevision customers, then maybe the advertisers will come back, and they can live on for a while longer. But this new model of pay-for-content isn't going to work. Devaluing your internet content only makes sense if you're able to float on your print model, and NewsDay hasn't shown evidence that it can. Not in this environment of multiple and varied competitors.

One of the reasons they haven't had a boost in print subscribers is because they've made their news available online.
They started talking about charging back in February and they're nearly the only newspaper willing to give it a shot. Myself, I think it's a great idea; clearly the free online model hasn't worked.
 
2009-10-22 12:28:31 PM
Knucklepopper: When I was buying cassettes in the late 1980s, they were about $10 for anywhere from 8-11 songs. That seems like a fairly consistent value.

And you could get a huge multi-section newspaper filled with hundreds of stories, sports scores, comics, TV guide, etc all for 25¢ a day at the Kwik-E-Mart (subscriptions were even less). That was far less than 1¢ per story.
 
2009-10-22 12:28:48 PM
Tissot: Here's a question: Who is clicking on all these ad links on the internet?

I mean, is it people clicking by accident, or is it all the people online who are not that web savvy? Like my mom for instance.

Because I have never in 10-12 years voluntarily clicked on an ad link/banner. I even avert my eyes and hit mute when I am forced to watch a commercial on a site.


I do almost all my shopping online, and many ad links bring you to the same retailers I use, AND they act as coupons in many cases.
 
2009-10-22 12:29:32 PM
Earlier this year, the Detroit News & Free Press switched to delivery only on Thursday, Friday, & Sunday. ut I was already paid-up for a year. I have to go online for the other days of the week. Of course, I could go to any free online site. And the Sunday paper is nothing but rehash, fluff, & advertisements. When my subscription expires, I will not renew.
 
2009-10-22 12:31:41 PM
Farker T: perdu: What's Newsday?

kevra: *************Thread Jack*******************************

Hi all, sorry to jack, but i am getting desperate, I am at work and am getting blocked on most sites regarding cooking, so I am turning to the awsomeness of the fark cooks out there...

I need to butter poach a lobster and I am looking for the best ways to do it, any suggestions would be great of you fine folks. Thanks in advance, and sorry to jack the thread....

*****************end Thread Jack*********************

Poaching is illegal. No Farker will contribute to illegal activity.

Try Newsday.


My Stepbrother is a chef at Newsday so I really did get a kick out of this reply...
 
2009-10-22 12:34:13 PM
Pioneer this.
 
2009-10-22 12:37:09 PM
I guess going bankrupt once wasn't enough for them.
 
2009-10-22 12:40:33 PM
$260/year, huh? Any Newsday subscribers out there care to tell us how this compares to the cost of the printed paper?
 
2009-10-22 12:40:54 PM
RodneyToady: If Cablevision decides to include a Newsday subscription (including web content) to all Cablevision customers

They are. Of course since I live in NJ now I don't really care, especially since they changed their website to make it harder to find stories. However, I can see Cablevision keeping some LI customers from defecting to Fios with this.

/used to work for Times Mirror -- Newsday's old parent company
//was in NY Newsday's old office space on Park Ave for a time
 
2009-10-22 12:46:11 PM
MedianJoe: @Lt. Cheese Weasel. Do you know who the HA HA guy is supposed to be a drawing of? does anybody?



This is the real origin of Ha Ha guy. It is generally thought to be from some time between 1850 and 1900. It advertises Forbes Dry Photographic Plates, and you can see a reverse watermark from the scanner saying "Photographic" backwards across his face.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/HA!_HA!_Guy says...

The "Internets" version first appeared on SA in January 2003 from whence it spread to Fark like a farking Zerg Rush. In a desperate attempt to stop the flood, on the weekend of the 15th of July (a weekend renowned in the annals of mediocrity as "The Grey Wave") the mods encouraged posters to post HA! HA! in every thread they could in the hope of wearing the meme out.
 
2009-10-22 12:46:42 PM
Knucklepopper: One of the reasons they haven't had a boost in print subscribers is because they've made their news available online.

I won't deny it's a reason, I just don't see it a major one. And I don't see this current model as providing a boost to what I consider their "legitimate" subscription rates. "Legitimate" to me are subscriptions at full-price.

Part of the problem is there is a lot of missing data here. What were Newsday's page-view rates overall? What were the page-view rates from subscribers? What were they from viable non-subscribers (as in, not from people in Illinois who would never subscribe to a Long Island paper, but from the LI/NYC/CT/Northern NJ area)? How many were from Cablevision customers? How many viewed 5 articles a day? How many viewed 10? How many viewed the equivalent of an entire paper?

It doesn't cost Newsday much to put their articles online, so they can do it for subscribers and Cablevision customers at little cost. At the same time, it doesn't cost them much extra to have non-subscribers read the articles, either, and it's probably a wash considering the ad exposure, especially since they'd be putting it up for the subscribers anyway. One viewer is not the same as another.

Market segmentation. You have people from outside the viable subscription area, who are now shut out from content (which pisses them off, but costs Newsday a tiny bit less in bandwidth). You have Cablevision subscribers who may or may not already have been subscribing to Newsday, and who may drop their subscriptions, knowing that they've already essentially paid for the content. You have subscribers who will continue to subscribe (or cancel subscriptions, as the trend may be). And you have viable non-subscribers, who now will have to pay to view the content targeted to them, that they may have gotten for free before the switch.

That last group, the only one that actually matters, I think is probably more likely to say "screw you, Newsday" and move on, than pick up and subscribe. In which case, Newsday does absolutely nothing to help their bottom line. I fail to see how this idea is worth the trouble.
 
2009-10-22 12:48:49 PM
That's the problem with being a pioneer. You're much more likely to be the first to die.
 
2009-10-22 12:55:09 PM
Knucklepopper: chandler_vt:

I'll take these one at a time.

Q. Subby's point is - what makes you think people will pay $5 when you can hardly get people to read it for free?

A. They're not. Online will be free for paying subscribers. What NewsDay is doing is devaluing their Web content and making their cable/print subscription worth something. This is a simple, but good idea. If someone is crazy enough to buy a $20 a month subscription, what they're saying is, splendid. But if they don't, that's okay too because readers do not equal customers.

Q. Clearly if you are not selling enough papers it means people are not interested in buying them. So for some odd reason they will be willing to pay more money for same content online (which other sources are providing for free)?

A. Negative. While some news is wire-generated content, NewsDay actually has a large news staff that produces plenty of original content. (some of the content is going to be free, I assume that's the wire stuff).

Q. And if you believe that news should not be free, you are born in the wrong century.

A. You might think news should be free and that's fine but you can't possibly think news production should be free. If you do, I'd urge you to look at whatever industry you're in and ask yourself whether that also should be free.


So, if I have this correct, you are saying that Newsday (print) and Optimum cable customers will not have to pay to view Newsday exclusive online content and all others will...but you don't think the 'other' customers will pay for this $20 service. So, essentially, what you are saying is that Newsday will not create any additional revenue from the online subscriptions but will succeed in decreasing its total online viewership....which, in turn, means less online advertising revenue.

Sounds like a winner to me!
 
2009-10-22 01:02:17 PM
So, essentially, what you are saying is that Newsday will not create any additional revenue from the online subscriptions but will succeed in decreasing its total online viewership....which, in turn, means less online advertising revenue.

I have to assume that they believe that the resulting increase in subscriptions will more than make up for lost online ad revenue. Otherwise, why would they do it?
 
2009-10-22 01:03:46 PM
Fano: A. You might think news should be free and that's fine but you can't possibly think news production should be free. If you do, I'd urge you to look at whatever industry you're in and ask yourself whether that also should be free.

A lot of reportedly literate citizens think health care should be free.


Not free, just not profit driven, you troll.

And I don't have an opinion on whether information (news) should be free, it simply is.
 
2009-10-22 01:07:42 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: i can't line my cat pans with computer monitors.

or wrap fish. seriously, ever try to wrap a salmon in a 17 inch dell monitor?


you're right... you need to use a 20" monitor
 
2009-10-22 01:14:26 PM
mmmmmmmDROP!: So, if I have this correct, you are saying that Newsday (print) and Optimum cable customers will not have to pay to view Newsday exclusive online content and all others will...but you don't think the 'other' customers will pay for this $20 service. So, essentially, what you are saying is that Newsday will not create any additional revenue from the online subscriptions but will succeed in decreasing its total online viewership....which, in turn, means less online advertising revenue.

In your goofy mind, I guess you think the subscriber rate will stay stagnant. Guess you don't own a business.
If you can increase your print subscribers, not only will they pay for the delivery themselves, but they'll boost your adrates. This doesn't seem difficult.
 
2009-10-22 01:20:25 PM
RodneyToady: It doesn't cost Newsday much to put their articles online, so they can do it for subscribers and Cablevision customers at little cost. At the same time, it doesn't cost them much extra to have non-subscribers read the articles, either, and it's probably a wash considering the ad exposure, especially since they'd be putting it up for the subscribers anyway. One viewer is not the same as another.

You're still stuck on the notion that newspapers can subsist off online ads. They can't, it just doesn't work. This was true four years ago, it's true today.
90-10 model.
It costs them extra in having non-paying readers in that, potentially, some of those non-paying readers will subscribe. The ones who won't are irrelevant anyway. Why should they get for free what I'm paying for? They shouldn't.
 
2009-10-22 01:29:07 PM
Knucklepopper: RodneyToady: It doesn't cost Newsday much to put their articles online, so they can do it for subscribers and Cablevision customers at little cost. At the same time, it doesn't cost them much extra to have non-subscribers read the articles, either, and it's probably a wash considering the ad exposure, especially since they'd be putting it up for the subscribers anyway. One viewer is not the same as another.

You're still stuck on the notion that newspapers can subsist off online ads. They can't, it just doesn't work. This was true four years ago, it's true today.
90-10 model.
It costs them extra in having non-paying readers in that, potentially, some of those non-paying readers will subscribe. The ones who won't are irrelevant anyway. Why should they get for free what I'm paying for? They shouldn't.


That's really up to the company to decide, buddy.

Free news is here to stay. And to those who think they'll be able to switch to a paid model, GOOD FARKING LUCK. Don't let the bankruptcy lawyers bite your ass on the way out.
 
2009-10-22 01:38:34 PM
TsukasaK: That's really up to the company to decide, buddy.

Free news is here to stay. And to those who think they'll be able to switch to a paid model, GOOD FARKING LUCK. Don't let the bankruptcy lawyers bite your ass on the way out.


Sure, sure. Remind me of this thread when Fark starts charging everyone $2 a month to pay for the news it links to. Your free ride's coming to an end. And thank God for that.
 
2009-10-22 01:52:24 PM
Well duh, how else do you think Dolan will pay for Stephon Marbury and Isaiah Thomas?

This isn't that tough, people.
 
2009-10-22 01:57:26 PM
AS a cablevision subscriber, I won't have to pay. Not that I even go to the site very often anyway.
 
2009-10-22 02:05:47 PM
Eh, this isnt going to work. If the newspapers started charging online, most people will just shift away to the cable tv news websites such as cnn or lolfox, or your local news on network tv websites. Theres always going to be free information on the internet, even if the powers that be decide to attempt to stop it.
 
2009-10-22 02:10:44 PM
TsukasaK: Knucklepopper: RodneyToady: It doesn't cost Newsday much to put their articles online, so they can do it for subscribers and Cablevision customers at little cost. At the same time, it doesn't cost them much extra to have non-subscribers read the articles, either, and it's probably a wash considering the ad exposure, especially since they'd be putting it up for the subscribers anyway. One viewer is not the same as another.

You're still stuck on the notion that newspapers can subsist off online ads. They can't, it just doesn't work. This was true four years ago, it's true today.
90-10 model.
It costs them extra in having non-paying readers in that, potentially, some of those non-paying readers will subscribe. The ones who won't are irrelevant anyway. Why should they get for free what I'm paying for? They shouldn't.

That's really up to the company to decide, buddy.

Free news is here to stay. And to those who think they'll be able to switch to a paid model, GOOD FARKING LUCK. Don't let the bankruptcy lawyers bite your ass on the way out.


fizzix_is_fun: olddeegee: I just read that Hulu will be charging in 2010. I really think that these people wanted advertising supported on air content to fail, the imaginary numbers are too enticing. When you have customers who are getting commercial supported TV or other content, trying to get all of them to pay is too enticing. I don't think it will work as well as they want it to. It's a sad day really.

charging for hulu as it is now won't work. Allowing someone to download an episode for 5-10 cents each may work though.

The problem with charging for TV shows is that it's trivial for anyone to digitize it when it airs and put it on a peer-to-peer network. They do this already. I think many people would be willing to pay a nominal fee for a legal alternative. The trick is finding the price at which people say, "fark it, i'm downloading the illegal torrent"


People who have more time than money will always be able to download whatever content they want for free. There may be a lot of hoops you have to jump through to do this, though. Things that are easy to use are easy to track, and thus easy to shut down.

Most adults with jobs have more money than time. I haven't downloaded a song for free in years - since I left college and got a job and a life, I simply have more money than time. So the 99 cents a song on iTunes, or $9 an album is worth it.

As long as there are legitimate, convenient and reasonably priced ways to access content, people will pay for them in enough quantity to justify their production.

The wild west of free solely ad-supported content on the internet (and in print these days) is a bust. It doesn't work. It leads to mediocrity, which leads to less watchers and the downward spiral of death. Fortunately with the internet its much easier to cater to niche consumers willing to put their money where their interests are.
 
2009-10-22 02:12:43 PM
Knucklepopper: You're still stuck on the notion that newspapers can subsist off online ads. They can't, it just doesn't work. This was true four years ago, it's true today.
90-10 model.
It costs them extra in having non-paying readers in that, potentially, some of those non-paying readers will subscribe. The ones who won't are irrelevant anyway. Why should they get for free what I'm paying for? They shouldn't.


It's not free if the people who will never subscribe because they're outside the viable potential subscription base make up the "-10" part of the "90-10" model you talk about. I think that's part of what you're not seeing here.

The majority of the Fark readership will never, ever become subscribers to Newsday, because Newsday is not a national paper, and most Farkers are not in the NY tri-state area. When Farkers go to Newsday sites, if the sites had national advertisers, they'd be reaching a target audience. It costs Newsday virtually nothing to allow the majority of Farkers to read their articles, because Farkers are essentially an additional, almost zero cost but small positive gain, revenue stream.

I'm not saying that newspapers can subsist on just online ads. I'm saying that online ads can generate money from readers who will never in a million years buy the physical paper or subscribe.

For the target subscribership, once you factor out all the current subscribers and the Cablevision viewers, how big of a pool are we actually talking about? You're under this idea that either the freeloading, non-subscribing Newsday lovers will jump on the bandwagon and pay up (a tiny number of people, I assure you), or the casual online reader who maybe reads 2 Newsday articles a day or less will say, yeah, those 10 articles a week are worth $5, and join up. I'm telling you that's even more unlikely.

Honestly, what can Newsday give an online reader that he or she can't easily get for free elsewhere? And, assuming those things exist, are they truly worth paying $5 a week for those individual elements?

I don't need sports coverage in a newspaper if I get it from my teams' websites or Yahoo Sports or the free stuff on ESPN. I don't need business coverage if I get it from CNBC/Fox Business/Bloomberg TV/Radio. I don't need classifieds if I have Monster.Com or craigslist. I don't need inter/national news coverage if I have a television and the Internet with access to hundreds of television websites. Editorials? Letters to the Editor? All online, all free, and the "letters to the editor" are actually interactive. What's left but local news? And I'm not paying $5 a week to read about potholes and cats in trees.

Maybe the senior citizens still will, but most of the younger generation won't.
 
2009-10-22 02:20:47 PM
Man On Pink Corner: /like trying to recover from a stall by pulling back on the stick

What if they are inverted?

/No, he was man.
//It was a really great move.
///He was inverted.
 
2009-10-22 02:20:48 PM
Knucklepopper: In your goofy mind, I guess you think the subscriber rate will stay stagnant. Guess you don't own a business.
If you can increase your print subscribers, not only will they pay for the delivery themselves, but they'll boost your adrates. This doesn't seem difficult.


Yes, that is true, but you too are following a false assumption. In order for your model to make sense, the increase in print subscribers needs to be significant enough to offset the revenue loss for reduced site hits. You have not addressed this.

Knucklepopper: You're still stuck on the notion that newspapers can subsist off online ads. They can't, it just doesn't work. This was true four years ago, it's true today.
90-10 model.
It costs them extra in having non-paying readers in that, potentially, some of those non-paying readers will subscribe. The ones who won't are irrelevant anyway. Why should they get for free what I'm paying for? They shouldn't.


You're right that newspapers can not subsist on online ads. It's this all eggs in one basket approach that's gotten them where they are now. The problem with the news industry is that it's a dinosaur that won't evolve.

The concept of production and distribution being one entity are a thing of the past. In the old days, production and distribution were forced together. With the speed of information we've been granted, we have the two pushing against each other.

Our sources of news are turning into producers and agregators. The producers are trying to do both and getting hammered for it. Small blog sites and the like are doing well because they stay in the producer realm without trying to push distribution. Things like Fark.com and The Daily Show do well because they agregate news and distribute it.

The reason newspaper companies are getting hit so hard is that they have the worst of both worlds. Their production and agregation are hampered by the limitations of a physical output. If it wasn't for the logistical nightmare to actually distribute their medium, things would be different.

My guess is that print media is slowly going to fade out of existence. Like local radio dj, the newspaper will be slowly be replaced by cheaper distribution methods.
 
2009-10-22 02:30:24 PM
RodneyToady: When Farkers go to Newsday sites, if the sites had national advertisers, they'd be reaching a target audience. It costs Newsday virtually nothing to allow the majority of Farkers to read their articles, because Farkers are essentially an additional, almost zero cost but small positive gain, revenue stream.

Again, there is no advertising model that works here. There are no national ads. What it costs Newsday to continue the free model is the potential client-base who may buy a subscription. Cablevision is likely offering television and newspaper packages that people will come to.
What you're failing to see is that newspapers are slowly coming around to the pay-model. The Denver Post is charging $5 a month; here in Arizona, two papers are already charging.
You're also not assuring me of shiat. You have no idea how many current non-subscribers will pay for access. Nobody does. I'm just applauding the effort they're making because clearly, the current free model has to change.
You say you can get all the national news you want for free from television stations and their Web sites? Go for it. Just don't complain about the shallow coverage. You're going to get what you pay for.
 
2009-10-22 02:34:28 PM
0100010: Yes, that is true, but you too are following a false assumption. In order for your model to make sense, the increase in print subscribers needs to be significant enough to offset the revenue loss for reduced site hits. You have not addressed this.

We don't know, nobody does.
In Arizona, the Arizona Guardian covers capitol news for $30 a month. They have a staff of five and have been doing this for four years; it may work.
In Denver, some former Rocky Mountain News employees tried to do this for $5 a month but closed after two months. They had 200 subscribers.
A colleague runs a money laundering web site in Florida and does very well for himself. I cover a niche topic, the Mexican border, and I'm starting a paywall next month. I'm cognizant that I'll lose 95 percent of my readers. The math suggests that the five percent who choose to support the news service will enable me to turn a small profit. We'll see.
But Newsday gets my kudos because they're actually trying something different here. All the other newspapers seem to be waiting to see who'll go first.
 
2009-10-22 03:02:56 PM
We get Newsday more for the coupons than the news. They beg people to buy it, we get ours for only $2 a week. They even give out $100 gift cards to new customers.

/takes them 4 days to report what I get in an instant online

//owned by the Dolans, you know it sucks

///My father worked a side job there, they have squashed everyone down to one building, they've cut the paper in half (in size and pages), the union there has truck drivers making $60 -100,000 a year, they won't be here in 5 years
 
2009-10-22 03:05:12 PM
Knucklepopper: 0100010: Yes, that is true, but you too are following a false assumption. In order for your model to make sense, the increase in print subscribers needs to be significant enough to offset the revenue loss for reduced site hits. You have not addressed this.

We don't know, nobody does.
In Arizona, the Arizona Guardian covers capitol news for $30 a month. They have a staff of five and have been doing this for four years; it may work.
In Denver, some former Rocky Mountain News employees tried to do this for $5 a month but closed after two months. They had 200 subscribers.
A colleague runs a money laundering web site in Florida and does very well for himself. I cover a niche topic, the Mexican border, and I'm starting a paywall next month. I'm cognizant that I'll lose 95 percent of my readers. The math suggests that the five percent who choose to support the news service will enable me to turn a small profit. We'll see.
But Newsday gets my kudos because they're actually trying something different here. All the other newspapers seem to be waiting to see who'll go first.


You're missing the point. You can't dismiss mmmmmmmDROP's assertion that the plan will reduce revenue with the assumption of a raise in print subscriptions that has no basis. As it stands, they are going to reduce revenue from their online division. The only way this will not happen is if online subscriptions will bring in at least as much money as was lost from the drop in hits.

Chances of this motivating someone to become a subscriber are about as likely as someone paying the online fee. That's my assumption, but it does have some basis. Whether local or not, this is in reference to someone accessing the material online. The person is going to be just as likely to look at one of the other online offerings.

You might be a bit more careful when you throw around terms like "goofy". If you're on shaky ground, it makes you look foolish.
 
2009-10-22 03:10:31 PM
0100010: Chances of this motivating someone to become a subscriber are about as likely as someone paying the online fee. That's my assumption, but it does have some basis. Whether local or not, this is in reference to someone accessing the material online. The person is going to be just as likely to look at one of the other online offerings.

? No, goofy's a word I use to describe assertions that are supported by weasel words. You know, words like "That's my assumption."
I'll stand by what I said, I hope this works for NewsDay and I hope the other news companies follow suit and start putting a value back on their product.
 
2009-10-22 03:25:03 PM
Knucklepopper: Again, there is no advertising model that works here. There are no national ads. What it costs Newsday to continue the free model is the potential client-base who may buy a subscription. Cablevision is likely offering television and newspaper packages that people will come to.
What you're failing to see is that newspapers are slowly coming around to the pay-model. The Denver Post is charging $5 a month; here in Arizona, two papers are already charging.
You're also not assuring me of shiat. You have no idea how many current non-subscribers will pay for access. Nobody does. I'm just applauding the effort they're making because clearly, the current free model has to change.
You say you can get all the national news you want for free from television stations and their Web sites? Go for it. Just don't complain about the shallow coverage. You're going to get what you pay for.


What do you mean, "there are no national ads"? Car manufacturers, McDonalds, movie studios? These aren't national? I was listening to Pandora, there was an ad for Where The Wild Things Are. Are you suggesting that this was for a local NJ theater (which conveniently forgot to mention its location), or that Newsday would be incapable of landing major national advertisers, but an internet radio station is?

As far as Cablevision goes, someone higher up in the thread already mentioned that they give Newsday subscriptions to its own subscribers, since they share ownership. Obviously, Cablevision subscribers are not going to buy a second subscription to Newsday if they're already getting one, and will be given the online content anyway.

Long Island isn't Denver or Arizona. There are four major newspapers that vie for readership out here. There is major overlap of content between the News, The Post, The Times, and Newsday, aside from Long Island-specific coverage. If you factor out the common elements, what you're really left with is the question of "Will non-subscribers who are otherwise mildly interested in Newsday now subscribe to get the online content, specifically the unique-ish Long Island coverage?" And my answer is "probably not many." I obviously don't own a crystal ball, so I can't say for certain. With subscription numbers and circulation numbers broken down by demographic data, I could probably give a more informed guess.

This to me is like if the local video stores in the early to mid-90s started blaming their decreasing revenue on people stealing their tapes, instead of seeing Blockbuster Video across the street and the full saturation of cable television into their neighborhood. And their way of trying to stay afloat is putting stronger theft deterrents on each tape.

Applaud them all you want, I just don't see this as helping in the short or long run.
 
2009-10-22 03:44:02 PM
Dear Newsday,
i141.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-22 04:04:13 PM
Knucklepopper: 0100010: Chances of this motivating someone to become a subscriber are about as likely as someone paying the online fee. That's my assumption, but it does have some basis. Whether local or not, this is in reference to someone accessing the material online. The person is going to be just as likely to look at one of the other online offerings.

? No, goofy's a word I use to describe assertions that are supported by weasel words. You know, words like "That's my assumption."
I'll stand by what I said, I hope this works for NewsDay and I hope the other news companies follow suit and start putting a value back on their product.


The only time assumption becomes a "weasel word" is when it's dressed up and handed out as fact. I've done no such thing. You're quite free with your thinly veiled insults. It's sad you aren't as adept with logic. Is this going to degenerate into defining terms?

Newspapers jumped at an online presence when it became available, seeing ad money for little cost. This profit was great because they were essentially reselling their product with little overhead.

They made money until internet popularity began to eat away at their print subscriptions. Print subscriptions were where they made the bulk of their money and suddenly profit turned into loss.

All this tactic is doing is pulling back from an online presence. Unfortunately, this would only work if they have either a restricted market or exclusive content. The Internet negates the former and only niche communities have the latter.

My prediction (not fact, but my opinion) is that a printed daily will fade. Printed papers are too slow to get information distributed. News will come from online and broadcast media almost exclusively, with local weeklies taking up the slack.
 
2009-10-22 04:06:10 PM
Might as well pay $30/month for unlimited PDF versions of actual newspapers (new window). This company has a crapload of newspapers from around the world.

I wouldn't pay $5 a week, but maybe $5 a month if I had unlimited access to their archives, going back to their 1st issue. Gots to have "value added" shiat homes.
 
2009-10-22 04:32:09 PM
rancidPlasma: Might as well pay $30/month for unlimited PDF versions of actual newspapers (new window). This company has a crapload of newspapers from around the world.

Ooh! Thanks for the link.

Now if I could rig up my printer to somehow connect to this and spew out WSJ and NYT every morning, i'd be golden.

(Then again, I'd probably get a Kindle and be done with it)

There's something... i dunno. Charming? About newspapers that you can't get in any digital medium. Maybe I'm just crazy.
 
2009-10-22 05:54:08 PM
CygnusDarius: idrow: ClockCat: Who could think this is a good idea?

Give me 5 bucks and I'll tell you.

No.


img25.imageshack.us
 
2009-10-22 08:56:59 PM
what is newsday? Never heard of it.
 
2009-10-22 09:55:01 PM
Everyone misses the point. If this is the best place for local news, then people who want good reliable local news will use the service. Everyone else won't, meaning they save on bandwidth. Its genius and I hope it works.
 
2009-10-23 09:47:07 AM
I live in Huntington, I work in Melville, 3 mins from their building and I wouldn't take that rag for free, even if toilet paper were a rare commodity and Newsday was the best "toilet paper-like" substance out there. Newsday couldn't have the priviledge of wiping the shiat off my ass.

And my opinion about them goes back to the Blackhawk Down incident where they published pictures of the servicemen who were killed in Mog, then dragged through the streets.

Fark Newsday and fark their farking editors. On a side note, when they later reviewed the movie Blackhawk Down, the reviewer for Newsday stated that the movie was RACIST. fark em.
 
2009-10-23 02:39:30 PM
IAmTheLaw: I live in Huntington, I work in Melville, 3 mins from their building and I wouldn't take that rag for free, even if toilet paper were a rare commodity and Newsday was the best "toilet paper-like" substance out there. Newsday couldn't have the priviledge of wiping the shiat off my ass.

And my opinion about them goes back to the Blackhawk Down incident where they published pictures of the servicemen who were killed in Mog, then dragged through the streets.

Fark Newsday and fark their farking editors. On a side note, when they later reviewed the movie Blackhawk Down, the reviewer for Newsday stated that the movie was RACIST. fark em.


I miss their sports section. I'll send you a couple of issues of the OC Register and you'll be begging for Newsday
 
Displayed 192 of 192 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report