[Gannett flagship's recently redesigned site; screenshot, above]
Despite two rounds of cuts that have cost 200 newsroom jobs, The New York Times has protected its core news-reporting operation, while simultaneously building one of the industry's best Websites. That's even more true for The Wall Street Journal, which has trimmed fewer resources, and is the only major daily now charging online readers an annual subscription fee. (Heck, the Journal now even charges for using its iPhone application.)
Now, consider your newspaper or broadcast station. Gannett has relentlessly chopped its news-gathering for years, reducing the volume and quality of what should be exclusive news and information in its print editions, which provide most of the content for online. More than 1,300 U.S. newspaper jobs were eliminated in July alone. Amid furloughs this quarter, and the possibility of more to come in the second quarter, there are few signs that the company is going to boost resources devoted to creating news content.Meanwhile, the New York Times Co. has just unveiled its long-awaited online pay model, one where people can read a set number of articles each month; they'll have to pay for access after that. Details are to come before the plan goes into effect next year.
Gannett gave away its news, video and other information in the years when it was more plentiful. Now, when content is weaker than ever, is there any chance readers will pay for a degraded product? Would you pay to access your own site?
Related: NYT media columnist David Carr writes about advantages of a so-called meter. "By building a metered system, the executives have installed a dial on the huge, heaving content machine of The New York Times. Access can be gradually ramped up or down depending on macro trends in the market,'' he says.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Image: today's Cincinnati Enquirer, which cut 100 jobs last summer]
What does Gannett "content" and a box of popcorn have in common?
ReplyDeleteOnce consumed, neither will make you feel full :)
I read a few Gannett sites a day, but would never pay for the service. I'd pay to read the Guardian, but not anything Gannett, including USAT.
ReplyDeleteI will probably pay for the online NYT. I'm already paying for a (reduced) subscription for the MCI paper I work for, so I would not pay for online content.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I pay for poorly written content? Most of the stories are not well written, and they lack any depth. This company is more interested in promoting beer and ta tas, oops, I mean Metromix, than covering news that matters. Also, why would I give any money back to a company that does not care about quality? Being let go in favor of people less competent does not make good business sense.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't pay to read usatoday.com. Far too many errors in copy, graphics, etc. All the bells and whistles have little or no substance.
ReplyDeleteI live in Phoenix and work at a Gannett property there. No way would I pay to use azcentral.com. I barely use it now when it's free. There's very little real news (that's easy to find), just mindless entertainment slide shows (we love cleavage on celebs and in nightclubs!) and links to momslickme. Put up a pay wall and I'll skip the site completely.
ReplyDeleteThe next time your publisher or station manager brags about the quality of your website, ask why they aren't charging for access.
ReplyDeleteI've given it some thought, and I would.
ReplyDeleteMy web site gives me more photos, longer stories and more see-for-yourself documents than the dead-tree edition. I can't watch a video in my dead-tree edition unless I cut a hole in it.
My web site is focused on local news and sports, unlike my dead-tree edition, which still has world and national news and sports for which I have better sources.
(I would pay for a paper that dropped all the world and national wire and went strictly local, even if it meant converting from broadsheet to tab. It would be a better product.)
My web site doesn't have newshole reduced by several pages of legal notices or paid obituaries.
My web site has more and better classified ads.
I don't like everything about my web site, but it's better than the dead-tree edition.
Gannett has an amazing ability to deny reality. We offer a weak product filled with amateurish crap and re-written press releases, but I'll bet some clown at corporate thinks people will buy online subscriptions.
ReplyDelete