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  
•       •       •

4152 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 42 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report