Photo: Todd GillNWAnews.com to begin charging for content
In an effort to try and protect its Northwest Arkansas print business, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette announced today that the content available on NWAnews.com will no longer be free as of Wednesday, August 5, 2009.
The news comes just days after the announcement that the New York Times will try once again to successfully charge readers for its online content – something it abandoned two years ago.
NWAnews.com is the website of the Northwest Arkansas Times, the Benton County Daily Record, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s Northwest Edition as well as a handful of weekly papers. When the change occurs next month, current print subscribers of those publications will not be charged for accessing the online content but a fee of $5.95 per month will be required for nonsubscribers.
No more free access to NWAnews.com.
Printed advertisements have long since been the backbone of the newspaper industry’s business model. And since there’s no literal translation of a full-page ad on a website, many publishers are left to wonder how they’ll make the inevitable transition to online-only content.
To some, offering free news on the web means losing print subscribers and in turn, means the death of the entire organization. “If we continue a policy of offering our newspaper content free on the Internet, the day will come when it just won’t be there,” reads a quote from Arkansas Democrat-Gazette publisher Walter Hussman in today’s Northwest Arkansas Times.
Citing his belief that the internet is not an effective place to advertise, Hussman further states his case for erecting a pay wall by asking, “When was the last time you responded to a banner ad or a pop-up ad online and bought something?”
Clearly, innovation in online advertising isn’t something Hussman is willing to experiment with. But who can blame him? Newspapers have survived (and thrived) on the current model of placing a picture of an advertisement on a piece of paper for over a hundred years. Unfortunately, the act of purchasing and reading news on a piece of paper will eventually be a thing of the past.
In the meantime – and in an effort to appease both its print and web audiences – the online team has been tasked with adding complementary features to NWAnews.com and it recently hired former Fayetteville Flyer contributor Jon Schleuss to fill its newly-created position of online editor. “Our goal at the end of the day is for visitors to have a very different experience on the Web site than what they do when they read the newspaper,” said online director Mat Costa.
A tweet from Northwest Arkansas Times online director Mat Costa in reference to former Flyer contributor Jon Schleuss
For those willing to pay up, it might be worth it to see some shiny new features on NWAnews.com but “blogs, polls, breaking news alerts, original videos and more” don’t answer the question of how the newspaper is going to make money when the printing presses are eventually shut off. At only six bucks a month for a subscription, the state’s largest newspaper won’t be able to make it without ad revenue.
Which begs the question: Did you really just tell your current and potential advertisers that there’s no value in placing ads on your website?
In the coming days, we’ll be exploring what this There’s been enough discussion here on this topic for now.new old (oldnew?) approach will mean for the Northwest Arkansas Times, the citizens of Fayetteville, and the websites and blogs who talk about and link to the newspaper’s online content on a daily basis.
In the meantime, what’s your first thought?
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Travis Williams
July 12, 2009
http://www.nwaonline.net is still free. That is my fiirst thought.
Me
July 12, 2009
Man, the internet has made me spoiled… I check the NWA Times website everyday, but I cannot see myself paying for the content. Not that it isn’t worth the money… it just means another monthly payment to keep up with.
Christopher Spencer
July 12, 2009
One of the interesting points when it comes to newspapers and ownership of what they do is that, according to the law, no one can “own” the news, that is the facts. They can only own the expression of those facts.
So for bloggers (or some TV newscasters or morning radio announcers) who like to cut and paste newspaper stories, or read them verbatim on the air, the Demozette can now argue copyright infringement more effectively because they are limiting their content to paid subscribers.
For good bloggers and others who take a newspaper’s content and rewrite and either tease the story with a link to the original source or cull the most important facts from the story, then this just means they are going to have fork over the money for the subscriptions to get the entire story. In turn, their subscribers will not have to because the blogger can pull out the facts and rewrite them.
I’m not saying that’s the ethical thing, but it is the legally allowable thing unless the copyright law changes.
I think many many people will be content with that stripped down version of the events that a good online aggregator can provide.
Christopher Spencer
July 12, 2009
Here’s a link from Nolo.com I meant to provide that gives some direction on copyright law.
http://www.nolopress.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/4AD99C3E-270C-41B4-B5B167D1924CCED3/catID/B2BF24DF-082A-4813-A840F5080C3EAB71/310/276/240/QNA/
Kyle Judkins
July 12, 2009
It’s good to experiment and try new things, but it’s INCREDIBLY hard to go from free to paid. I wish them all the luck in the world, but I won’t pay for it, especially if nwaonlie.net stays free. Also, the Flyer gets me all the news I really want. :D
I think things like sponsored posts (like the Flyer has) would have been a much better experiment. They might have also tried page takeovers or asked their readers how much advertising they could take online and what format. People are willing to take more advertising in their face if the choice is more ads and the content is free or no ads and the content is paid. At least, I am.
The Internet is about experimenting, but we just aren’t seeing a ton of it in some traditional media spaces. I’ve rambled long enough. Just a few thoughts that came to my mind. I’d love to hear the other side, though. Maybe I’m missing something.
halfdeserted
July 12, 2009
me– My thoughts exactly. I read nwanews.com almost daily as well, but I can’t see myself paying for it.
Unfortunately, nwaonline has a lot less content, at least in my experience.
Roger Benningfield
July 12, 2009
FAIL. A paywall means no more linking to nwanews.com. No more links means irrelevancy, and a fairly huge opening for players like, well, this very site. You guys be sure and send ‘em s big cookie bouquet or something.
anon
July 12, 2009
when was the last (or even first) time you got some Really Timely And Important News from NWAnews.com?
justin
July 12, 2009
NWAnews.com has to be one of the worst websites I’ve ever seen. Their RSS feed shows a complete lack of planning (no sections, only one giant feed etc). They could get more web traffic by getting their web game tight. It still wouldn’t make enough difference to keep things free, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
By the way, the Fayetteville Flyer city council twitter feed just made half of NWAnews irrelevant.
justin
July 13, 2009
Oh yeah, and why is it that NWAnews only thinks that something is newsworthy if some rural kids get touched by a creepy teacher or if some creep gets busted for creepy, illegal prono? I swear to god that is half the stories in their RSS feed. Perhaps I will not be paying for that.
Another local resident
July 13, 2009
You know they’re in a panic when they make this decision without any experimentation. Their website hasn’t changed in years, and now this?
My prediction? Everyone already knows the Times is failing. This will just delay it for a few more years.
dugrrr
July 13, 2009
A few years ago, I asked the ADG if I could get a subscription for just online viewing (using their ‘Olive’ viewer) WITHOUT getting the paper. I lived in an apartment at the time and didn’t have recycling.
They said no.
Today, I get both the NWAnews.com and NWAonline.net RSS feeds but I use my browser’s (Opera 10) feed preview to view the feeds as pages.
Newspapers seem to have been slow to understand that their product is not the delivery vehicle (whether it be dead trees or photons), but rather their journalism staff. This is especially true of local news.
It might not be fair to compare news content to television entertainment, but there was an interesting article a few weeks ago about how The Simpsons is now more profitable on Hulu than on Fox.
(here’s the article):
http://www.pcworld.com/article/167344the_simpsons_worth_more_on_hulu_than_fox.html
This works by controling the content with a viewer that plays a few commercials during the show. While I don’t like the ‘Olive’ viewer (which both ADG and Morning News use), if that was their only online presence, it would give their (print) ads more relevance.
Mullva
July 13, 2009
This is a stupid decision made by old guys who just don’t get it!
If I was a print subscriber I would be even madder! What in the flip would I want to add $6 to my monthly bill?? Just to be able to view the print articles at work?
I read that site everyday no matter where I travel for business to try to keep up a little with local news, but I will not be paying six bucks for a website that doesn’t even put all of daily print articles on the site? There are often articles that will hang out there for weeks at a time. You can’t tell me that there is not news that is more timely than some of those. Even bringing in new contributors will not fill the content void to justify the cost.
I fired off a couple of e-mails when I read the news on their site this morning, but I doubt if it will do any good.
Their are lots of news sites (local tv stations, nwa online, etc.), news aggregators and plain ole’ Google news that all add a mix of free and local content
But they just don’t get it!
Changeling
July 13, 2009
umm. the article says print subscribers will NOT be charged (that wouldn’t make a lot of sense). its the net users that don’t purchase the dead tree edition that are going to have to pay the monthly fee
sg
July 13, 2009
Here in KC, The Star charges subscribers if they would like to be able to pull up archived content (over a week old). Otherwise, the information is free — what good is it to report news if you’re charging your readers to read it. It’s mainly news, not all editorial content.
Tracy
July 13, 2009
I think the biggest misconception is that current subscribers will have to add $5.95 to their bill to get the online version. The $5.95 is just for an ONLINE ONLY version. If you already have a print subscription, you can access the website for free.
Another local resident
July 13, 2009
No, the biggest misconception is that the only successful model for providing content online is to do it with a subscription. I guess the thousands of popular websites producing original content with free access with healthy balance sheets are just remnants of the Internet bubble.
[second paragraph deleted by Flyer staff]
Anna
July 13, 2009
From an advertisers perspective, the audience who pays to view content is far more valuable than users who access the content for free. You might have volume with free content, but who are those people? When you are targeting a local market, you don’t really want to pay for the viewers that are outside the area, which can be 80% of the hits for free content that gets linked on digg or a national feed.
Also, paid content gets repeat viewers — an absolute must for advertisers. It’s all about FREQUENCY. I want you to see my ad 15 times because I know that the more you see it, the more likely you are to think of me when you need my product/service. If NWANews.com can deliver content that people want to see, people will pay for it. If they have paying subscribers and can deliver demographic data to an advertiser, advertisers will pay more for the online ads. It’s a successful business model if they can deliver the content.
burgerboy
July 13, 2009
Yeah, this is dumb. Charging for content will only send people elsewhere.
The smart thing to do would have been to revamp the site and try to make it profitable via advertising, limit the content, etc.
I’d like to see just how many subscribers they get when there are dozens of other outlets to get the same information.
I get most of my breaking news from Twitter now, anyway.
chancevb
July 13, 2009
Dear NWAnews.com,
HUGE.FAIL!
Print subscriptions will continue to decline as access to the internet becomes available to a larger audience: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0403/. These numbers will continue to increase year after year, and it increases the likelihood for people to use the internet for their news source.
Charging a subscription for online access is a very short term answer to your problem of declining print subscribers. Yes, the current advertisers are losing out (‘being cheated) if they are paying fees based on the number of print subscribers ONLY, but this does not mean that you need to charge for online subscriptions. Take the time to quantify the users that are visiting the site. You can see how they got to the site, where they are when they’re reading it, what site they go to after they read your articles, how long they stayed on each page, what keywords they used to find the site, receive direct comments on articles, edit mistakes in real-time versus waiting for the next day’s print to come out, and the list of advantages goes on and on and on. You can usually find out anything you’d ever want to know about each unique visitor except their name, but most of the time the visitor will provide you with this information as well. You take all of this information and continue to tweak your business model to meet their needs. Then you can charge for advertising if you want based on this information. The thing that is important to remember is that online users want content – not banners, pop-ups, or any of the other annoying online marketing efforts that have failed over and over.
If you’d like to stay afloat and not lose out to bloggers and free news sources, please take the time to read, Planet Google, and let it sink in before making any more crazy decisions like this. Another article that highlights some good points about why newspapers should not require visitors to pay, but : http://socialnomics.net/2009/06/18/will-subscription-based-newspaper-models-work-online/
-Chance
——————————————————————————
Dear Fayettevilleflyer.com,
Thank you for remaining free and seeing the big picture. I wish you the best of luck and hope that you will capitalize on this crazy move being made by NWAnews.com. Congratulations for getting it. I love your articles/information/contests and honest approach to sharing real time information.
-Chance
reporter
July 13, 2009
Unfortunately, the average citizen does not understand what reporters do. Sure, you can get your news from Twitter and sites like the Flyer but you will not get the full story. Yes, the Flyer does a great job of telling us what’s going on in Fayetteville, but they are not paid to go to meetings, to stalk the mayor at City Hall, to ask the tough questions. You will not find a Flyer writer at the scene of a house fire or a shooting. They will not be on the phone to Police Chief Greg Tabor everyday hounding him for updates on a murder case. They will not be in Washington Co. Judge Marilyn Edwards’ office asking her to explain why the county is turning down federal stimulus money. This is what reporters are paid and trained to do. It’s sad that some of you find no value to this. It’s sad for those of us who have worked hard to bring accurate, unbiased news to you every single day. We provide a service and sometimes, especially in times like these, services can’t come free. I appreciate the Flyer for what it is and I hope it will not try to become what it isn’t, as many of these comments suggest. If you are relying on this site to stay informed on the issues affecting Northwest Arkansas, I would venture to say that you are not well-informed.
aquachong
July 13, 2009
nothing like watching a falling dinosaur shoot itself in the foot.
George
July 13, 2009
It’s not that people don’t see value in the reporting aspect. It’s just another example of how the higher-ups often don’t get it.
The same thing happened (and is still happening) in the music industry. The record labels didn’t get it. Their answer was to sue the people offering the free content. Eliminate the piracy and control the revenue. You can’t do that with the internet. It’s the freaking wild wild west of information flow.
“When was the last time you responded to a banner ad or a pop-up ad online and bought something?”????? Sorry, but what a stupid thing to say. When’s the last time you bought something in response to a print ad? I don’t know.
Let’s restrict traffic to our site, watch our ad revenue dwindle and our subscriptions slowly disappear. That sounds like a great business model!
Sincerely -
A Loyal Dem-Gaz Subscriber
burgerboy
July 13, 2009
There is no shortage of information today.
Between TV News and the internet, I feel like I’m swamped with more information about local news and events than I really need anyway.
I had a subscription to the Ardemgaz for 6 months, weekends only. At first I’d read it occasionally. I find the newspaper fun to have on Saturdays for the sports section Gameday edition. After the novelty wore off, my newspapers just became garbage sitting on my porch that I had to remember to throw away.
The first rule of business is that “People Are Creative Maximizers of their Own Utility”. That means, if people can get something for free, or cheaper, they will. Counting on people to pay for nwanews.com out of a sense of moral duty won’t work. They won’t.
I don’t really know what the solution is for newspapers. It could be that our media has reached the point of being so free and so fast, that we will ultimately rely on each other for news rather than anyone trying to sell something.
Matthew Petty
July 13, 2009
@Reporter – You make a great point, but you also misread the reaction you are witnessing.
It is at least true that the paper has done almost no experimentation with different advertising models. Entering into a paid-only model seems like the easy way out for decision makers who aren’t willing to experiment.
@Anna – I find it hard to believe that paid subscribers would find advertising more relevant than those who will not pay. The only way to make a website profitable for the long haul is to use new advertising models, and the paper is using advertising models that have been around since advertising on the Internet first started.
In the end, this will only hurt the newsroom.
Aaron
July 13, 2009
Isn’t a better idea to do like ESPN does and provide an Insider option where the newspaper gives you more in depth on stories, more pictures, or special sports features and interviews, etc… that only subscribers can get. They have reporters dedicated to finding in depth information on various subjects, so use the details and in depth information to get people to pay more.
At the very least, it draws people interest into what those details and stories could be.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Like everyone said, the real issue should be how bad they have performed with their horrendous page layout, and lack of effort in trying to obtain advertising. It’s hard to believe that their site couldn’t have easily made significant gains in advertising just based on the fact of how hard it is to find any archived information on the site.
There is no going back to 1979 when local newspapers owned the news market, and the current subscriber plan is more likely going to be the death of the Northwest Arkansas Times rather than the savior.
TMR
July 13, 2009
[First two paragraphs deleted by Flyer staff for containing quotes from a deleted comment from above]
Why do you assume this decision comes from [NWA] when it’s based on the model implemented by the ADG in LR years ago? Way to show your ignorance and remind me why I avoid web comments like the plague.
I also love that people are throwing a hissy when nothing has happened yet and no one knows the outcome or what the changes will be.
chancevb
July 13, 2009
@reporter: your comment is Nawsome
The FFlyer is like a chocolate doughnut for my low-information diet. The information they provide every single day is just too good to pass up. NWAnews.com on the other hand…I gave it up during my ‘low-information diet’ (4hr work week, pgs. 86-88), and haven’t missed it since.
“to stalk the mayor at City Hall” – No reason to stalk him (that’s just weird), he updates on Facebook more than most teenagers and responds to e-mails/facebook messages VERY quickly.
“find a Flyer writer at the scene of a house fire or a shooting.” – You can’t find them there because they are too busy updating us (free readers) on the GOOD side of news, art, and life in Fayetteville, AR.
reporter
July 13, 2009
@chancevb: It’s a good thing that not everyone is on “low-information” diet. There are still people who want to be informed on real issues, like a millage increase to fund a proposed high school or discussions about light rail in Northwest Arkansas. I too like to know who is playing on Dickson St. on any given night or what the show at the Walton Arts Center is all about, but I also like to be educated about the city and county I live in, the taxes I pay, and the leaders I elect.
@Matthew Petty: I don’t think I misread the reactions here. I was responding to the comments that suggest a news site is not necessary when you have the Flyer. The Flyer is a great asset to the community, but it is not, and they have said this themselves, a replacement for community newspapers.
Matthew Petty
July 13, 2009
@reporter – You’re right. I guess I was just referring to the opening bit of your comment … “sites like Twitter and the Flyer.”
The point is that, eventually, we will be able to do just that. The newspaper refusing to learn from successful online models only serves to further isolate itself from an expanding marketplace.
I want to emphasize there are successful online models out there that definitely count as real reporting. I don’t know of any that consider charging for online content a working long-term solution.
When it comes down to it, it’s just too expensive to print so much. The printing is the drain on the whole business. It doesn’t need to go away, but it needs to be radically changed.
George
July 13, 2009
Much of the mainstream media is (and has been) out of touch with a large segment of the population…a segment that doesn’t give a rat’s tiny ass about a “house fire.” I’m not unsympathetic, but if the fire’s not in MY house…it’s not news to me.
I think reporter is a good example. I can feel your frustration, but I’m not sure u really get it. Does a site like The Flyer lean on the papers for in-depth info sometimes? Sure it does, but not in a parasitic way. They are driving traffic to the ADG’s content that normally wouldn’t be there. Seems like it should be a symbiotic relationship.
So what does the ADG think? They cut off the content and the freebie sites will dry up? “If we’re going down, you’re going down with us!!!” Hah. The news will survive.
Todd Gill
July 13, 2009
Some notes regarding the above comments:
@anon – Personally, I receive important news from NWAnews.com on a daily basis. I mention that because you asked.
@justin – I’m glad you like our City Council Twitter feed. I can’t guarantee that there will be one for every single meeting, though. Most likely, that practice will only occur on the juicy issue nights. Also, if we’re by chance at a demolition (or homerun) derby or something cool like that, the City Council will have to take a back seat. Priorities, y’know?
@Mullva – @Changeling is right. If you’re a print subscriber, you’ve got nothing to worry about. You won’t be paying extra for online content.
@Another local resident – Name-calling is just gonna get everyone all ticked off.
@reporter – If you’re personally at meetings, at City Hall and at the scenes of fires, then you’ve seen us. Or maybe you just happen to miss us when we’re there. We do kind of blend in. Are we at all of these events? Nope. Are we at some of them? Yep. Do we link to your stories when we don’t have our own? Absolutely. You’re right about one thing, though. We’re certainly not a replacement for a newspaper.
@chancevb – Mmm, chocolate doughnuts.
chancevb
July 13, 2009
@report- Sorry to call your comment ‘nawsome.’ The Awesome or Nawsome rating should not be applied to people’s opinions, and I apologize for calling you out. Thanks for sharing your newspaper-insider opinion with us. Some people do appreciate how much depth you provide in your stories, and I hope that you will use your dedicated research/stalking/hounding skills to study the effects of charging folks to read their news online. That is the issue we are commenting on.
@Todd Gill- I forgot to mention sprinkles. Yea, ya’ll are that good.
Anna
July 13, 2009
@Matthew Petty: Three main things you missed about my post. 1) Targeted audience – paid subscribers are there for a reason. With a local newspaper, 99% of the time it is because they are local. If I am advertising a local pizza place, why would I want to pay for “viewers” or “hits” from people in 1,000 miles away? When you are looking at users of free content, a significant portion of the viewers, especially in the case I mentioned (national feed or on digg) are not local. 2) Frequency. Paid subscribers are more likely to go back to the site every day because they are paying for the privilege to see it. Content that people who don’t pay can’t see (there’s a lot to be said for the “premium” user, as most free-to-play video game companies have discovered). 3) Demographics. If you are tracking subscribers, you know where they live, how old they are, gender – and if you bump your subscriber list against one of the major marketing databases, you also know their spending habits, whether they own their house (Hello big brother). You give me all three of these as an advertiser, I will pay you 10x what I would pay for a simple banner ad. And trust me, I’m sure they are already looking at a plethora of other advertising medium available to them with paid subscribers beyond a banner ad that simply isn’t possible with anonymous viewers. (Before you mention “registration” how often have you given accurate information beyond your email address when registering online for something that didn’t require a payment?)
news_reader
July 13, 2009
I get a copy of the NWA Times in my driveway every morning, but I get the majority of my local news on various websites (nwaonline, Fayetteville Flyer, nwanews, 40/29, channel 5, etc). Today I called and canceled my subscription to the Times. I don’t agree with the paper’s decision to charge for online content. I’ll continue to get my local news from all of the above mentioned websites, minus nwanews.com
Dustin
July 13, 2009
I hope this works, mainly for some of the incredible people I’ve met that work at the Times, and their families.
Matthew Petty
July 13, 2009
@Anna – Every one of the things you mention is within reach without a paid subscription model.
1) Browsers of a local newspaper are mostly local because it’s a local newspaper, not because the site requires paid subscriptions.
2) Any quality service attracts daily visitors whether the content is paid or not.
3) The best sites have great reports on their demographics whether they charge for subscriptions or not.
I’ll say it again: mediocre performance of Internet advertising is a result of using old models. If you’re an advertiser that is disappointed with Internet results, stop partnering with people who don’t know how to advertise successfully on the Internet.
It’s easy to only see the amateur websites out there, but all you have to do is browse for a few minutes to find examples that are highly professional and highly profitable.
Courtney
July 13, 2009
Thanks for mentioning the little guys, Dustin. I was starting to think the general consensus was that they should be “yelled” at.
Christopher Spencer
July 13, 2009
I hope it’s a successful experiment as well, Dustin.
The service provided by newspapers – as objective as possible, in-depth reporting that shines light and questions the spin all people put on events – is critical to our democracy. And I happen to know and hope the best for many fellow co-workers in the business.
However, the news culture needs to change in the newsroom and that’s not a rank-and-file reporter issue, but a management issue. Too many among management are willing to go down with the ship rather than experiment in bold ways online.
TMR
July 13, 2009
I feel a bit about this as I feel about people who say that they hope that Wal-Mart shuts down. Think of the human impact here, people. Think of the number of people — not just the reporters, editors and editorial writers that you seem to loathe, but the newspaper delivery people in the 12 counties covered by the NW Dem-Gazette and the other weeklies and dailies, the customer service reps, etc. — who would lose their jobs. Everyone seems to snark on the Times, but there are three dailies and numerous weeklies that we are talking about here. There are production workers, office clerks, business office personnel, classified personnel, etc., who would no longer have jobs if what you wish for comes true. I think it’s callous, esp. in this economic environment, that anyone should wish for that.
Schleuss
July 13, 2009
Please see the update on the shortcuts page.
Also, I can’t imagine posting anonymous comments. Can’t your name stand by your word?
sg
July 13, 2009
@Christopher Spencer — What you said hits the nail on the head with a hammer in the hand (I THINK that’s the saying, right?). Informative reporting is essential to our democracy. But the way that some newspapers’ business models are set up are completely outdated.
I, for one, don’t think that this move will provide the positive needle movements that is expected. Which, as @TMR notes, will probably end up costing people their jobs. With all of the negative attention that this is currently attracting, I can’t imagine what’s going to happen on August 5th when those content doors are shut.
It’s so cliché, but newspapers need to find ways to reinvent themselves, not simply try to revamp their current business model in the online world. Why would one pay to see that content when other newspapers and television stations are reporting the same news on sites that are free? Maybe a partnering with television stations is a possibility? Or how about a partnering with local internet service providers? I’m sure those have all been suggested and turned down — but my solution wouldn’t be charging people for information that doesn’t have a spin to it.
@Aaron mentioned that what if they did a subscription based area for exclusive content? Wouldn’t that make more sense? Maybe not in this case. No offense to Wally Hall, but I’m not going to pay money to read his commentary.
It’s clear that newspapers need to do something quick, but I really think this is a step in the wrong direction.
Rather than complaining, does anyone have some suggestions as to what the NWA Times COULD do to generate money? @Matthew_Petty and @Anna have an interesting conversation going on about ad revenue (ad revenue that could likely fall with decreased traffic). Ads aren’t the only way to make money. What else can be done?
Schleuss
July 13, 2009
@SG via @ Aaron Good point on “what if they did a subscription based area for exclusive content?” This is what we’re doing, but apparently that part of the article was hard to find. There will be blogs, photos, videos, interactive content, breaking news, wire and other content that will sit in front of the pay wall.
More ideas, less attacks would be nice. There are over 300 Northwest Arkansas employees of ADG papers.
Urk
July 14, 2009
Hey, did my comment get pulled because of language, or tone? sorry if it was the language. I’ll try to say it more nicely: Yes, Newspapers are a valuable cornerstone of Democracy, but the Times, despite the hard work of good reporters on and off over the years, rarely asked the kind of hard questions that make newspapers so valuable. I’d like those good working people to keep their jobs, but I’d also like the longtime hometown newspaper to have content worth paying for, and I’m don’t think that’s the case.
Todd Gill
July 14, 2009
@Urk – I really, really hate deleting comments. But yes, language and tone were both factors. Please understand that we want you to express your opinion but we have to make some judgement calls sometimes when it comes to language and overall tone. It’s nothing personal. We all get worked up sometimes.
Matthew Petty
July 14, 2009
Here’s another idea…
Why are you charging me for the whole site? Sorry, I never read the sports, classifieds, What’s Up, Living, etc. I usually turn to the Arkansas Business Journal for business news.
In fact, I really only read the news section (about half of it, since I don’t care to read the obits or wedding announcements), and the opinion columns.
Can I have the news delivered via email? You could send me only the columns I want (and pay for).
Urk
July 14, 2009
@Todd, I don’t mind modulating the language at all. Tone is harder to separate from content & I’d suggest is dicier. I hope that the Flyer doesn’t put itself in the position of sifting out disagreeable sentiments.
TMR
July 14, 2009
Matt: That’s actually what Little Rock does, only on a less high-tech scale. (ie, you have to go in and pick each article you want to read daily). It would be nice to be able to pick and choose certain columns or sections, but I don’t know if that’s within reach at this point. I suppose we will all just have to wait and see what the NWANews.com team has up their sleeves. None of us will know anything until Aug. 5 really.
George
July 14, 2009
@TMR, Schleuss, et al – I don’t think anyone here wants the ADG to go under…at least I hope not. The article asked for opinions and people are giving them.
I had a cat a few years back that I loved very much. He was my favorite pet ever, but a little too adventurous. I said many times, “If Ziggy keeps wandering off across the highway, he’s going to get run over.” And he did. In no way did I want the cat to die.
I’m a long time ADG subscriber. I think it’s a well written, enjoyable paper. I want to see it succeed for selfish reasons and for the sake of the employees. Here’s pulling for you!
Another local resident
July 14, 2009
I disagree with the whole notion that we have good reporting here. Noone holds our elected leaders feet to the fire. Petty and Madison might get a little torn up (Petty for being progressive and Madison for being a freakin idiot), but there’s virtually no questioning of other decisions.
There isn’t really any publication that does that. It seems like only the blogs have the balls.
The Business Journal was mentioned and that’s a classic case of lazy journalism. Each issue has 30 industry-sponsored news releases, 3 articles with no additional information, and an op-ed or two to make everyone feel like they’re doing a good job.
Case in point, Jordan just voted against his own staff’s recommendation not to prioritize a neighborhood master plan. Did any of the papers mention it?
Hell, the Times doesn’t even fact check their columnists, and they won’t publish any local op-ed’s that aren’t conservative. They’d rather pay money for articles from the First Amendment Center and Minute Man Media than publish a local’s opinion.
And I noticed one of my paragraphs was deleted earlier for calling out Mat Costa and Greg Harton. Maybe I shouldn’t have called names, but they should take responsibility for being complacent as the Times’ webpage has remained a cornhole for years. They should put more pressure on the publisher to get with the times (pun).
Urk
July 14, 2009
What another local resident just said: that’s the gist of my deleted comment, tho mine had less detail and more cussing.
TMR
July 14, 2009
Dear ALR:
Would you put pressure on your boss and tell him/her to “get with the times”? Somehow, I think not. That may be all well and good in hyperbolic internet land, but in the real world it just doesn’t happen. I am fortunate at present to work for people I respect, but it hasn’t always been the case. And when it’s not, you put your head down and you deal or you tell your bosses what you think and usually you get a pink slip. That’s reality in most work environments. Sad, but true.
T.
Another local resident
July 14, 2009
If I was the EXECUTIVE editor. You bet I would.
Hobo on the Hill
July 14, 2009
Does anyone know how long Costa has been assigned as the Online Director? Perhaps this is a new move by ADG an entire revamping of the site and who runs it… true it has been a “cornhole” for years, maybe they’ve had some restructuring and this is all apart of that… new director, new web design, etc. I have a feeling it will be pretty similar to what the LR page is- pay for all of it, what you want, etc. They’ve already said there’s going to be free content kept, just havent said what it’ll be… It’ll be interesting to see how this all pans out, but come on people, alot of you are jumping the gun and assuming the worst. Who know what ADG has up their sleeves… I can’t expect them to give away their product though… Print costs money, running a website costs money, nothing is free, so why the big problem paying for the service you use? I pay my trash bill, my water bill, my electric bill… It’s a SERVICE! I don’t have to pay for these, but if I want to keep cool and have a shower every night then I’m willing to pay. Elkins hiked their water/ sewer because the cost to have those things wasnt being covered by their fees- everyone griped for a few months but got over it. Same concept here. Basically, if you don’t want it, don’t pay for it, but don’t expect to get it for free… Last time I checked, you can walk into Wal-Mart for free, but if you want to take anything out or use any of the products you have to pay for them…
mischki
July 14, 2009
Okay, this is kinda off-topic, and I’m showing my own stupidity here, but I just had to share…:
I just had a truly blonde moment – I was on the “Shortcuts” page and saw the pic of the login screen at the top and thought, “what? Is the flyer asking us to register now too?”
It was just a fleeting thought and after mousing over it I realized it was the picture to go with this story. It’s kinda like when the radio plays a siren and you’re in your car – you look around wondering if they’re pulling you over when you realize it’s just the radio.
Like I said, not relevant – I just had to share.
matty-atty
July 14, 2009
While I haven’t overtly noticed it in the comments I read, I feel like many people my age have a real hostility towards physical newspapers. They gloat about the death of that dinosaur that can’t keep up with this new internet era. (What, are we on Web 2.3 now? Where everything is a beta version?)
I really can’t understand it. Stories do better on certain mediums. I’m sure broadcast news and RSS feeds and twitter own the who, what, when and where — but print journalism will always own the why. So why is it that so many people are cheering on the woes of newspapers, which I’m pretty certain are the largest employer of print reporters?
Matthew Petty
July 14, 2009
Matty-atty, if your belief that “stories do better on certain mediums… print journalism will always own the why” were true anymore, newspapers would not be in the predicament they are in.
Good stories do better. The medium doesn’t matter, and arrogance about any medium isn’t going to change any of these trends.
There are plenty of websites who made major dents in the news market who prove the point.
Mullva
July 14, 2009
Just read this article over on Wired.
It is written by the wired magazine guys and the geeks over at Ars Technica.
It hits exactly on what ADG and the NWAT are up against and even suggest some solutions.
Good read on the subject we have all been commenting on!
http://www.wired.com/dualperspectives/article/news/2009/07/dp_newspaper_wired0714
sg
July 14, 2009
For whatever reason, this whole situation is stuck in my head. The way newspapers are consumed in the physical sense is completely different in how people consume information online. In a physical newspaper, you have a finite amount of information organized in a finite way — usually aesthetically pleasing. On a web site, we’ll say MOST news reporting sites, it’s a giant list of links. But people don’t just sit there and read every headline and move on to the next page. Users need options on how they consume information and something we might be overlooking is how social media is changing everything on the internet.
One thing that I’m impressed with the NYTimes is their prototype skimmer interface — they’re trying to address how users consume information by making it easier to glance at:
http://www.ronnestam.com/2009/02/14/new-york-times-reinvents-online-newspaper-reading-with-a-new-skimmering-interface/
I vaguely recall something else the Times did earlier this year, some type of newspaper viewer which created an environment very similar to reading a physical newspaper. But for the life of me I can’t remember, or find, where that is.
A last thought I had was a tweak to the subscription-based model that started this whole debate. What if ANYONE could create an account and access nwanews.com. Each account would have an article bandwidth per day of 5-7 articles. After those “freebies” were used up (whether it was a click from the home page or a link from a third party site), the web site would lock the user out unless they had a “pro” account. Think of it like Flickr — you get a bandwidth amount per month for free, but to use more, you have to upgrade. Free users would probably be subjected to more online advertising and/or interstitial ads, but the news would still be free, kinda.
Maybe?
Urk
July 15, 2009
I love the physical apsect of reading newspapers, and I really can’t imagine a digital interface that would replicate that. But the piling up of old newspapers, the physical maintenance of reading material that’s designed to be timely and which is quickly and serially replaced the following day with more of said same, is a hassle. Not a big hassle, but one that given the alternative of keeping up with news online, probably accounts for me buying less and less papers these days.
Part of this is specific to me and people in my subset. I’m in grad school, I do research online and grab a little news while I’m there. But it makes me wonder if newspapers in general might benefit from private pro-active customer recycling programs. What if that newspaper that’s so fun to read not only showed up by itself but left the house with without me having to think about it much either, except for knowing that it was being recycled. And then, maybe a once a month or 3- 4 times a year optional customized cull of articles that I might want to keep hardcopies of. that’d be worth paying for.
sg
July 15, 2009
This is what I was referring to in my comment — The Times Reader. It’s an Adobe Air application and it drastically changes the way a newspaper can be viewed online.
http://firstlook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/sneak-peek-of-times-reader-20/
chancevb
July 15, 2009
Poll update: Will you pay to read NWAnews.com
144 votes – 9(yes):123(no):12(already a print subscriber)
news_reader
July 15, 2009
it’s a good thing not many people read the print version of the newspaper. the front page of the Morning News today is embarrassing.
Matthew Petty
July 15, 2009
@sg – the Times Reader is brilliant.
It’s too bad they won’t be sharing it with other news agencies.
Schleuss
July 15, 2009
@mpetty “There are plenty of websites who made major dents in the news market who prove the point.”
Please list several examples. Be sure to include all relevant data.
Matthew Petty
July 15, 2009
Data? I might include some data if I was getting paid to explore this issue. (Tell your boss I’m for hire.) That said, there is no data that says “a reduction of subscribers to Wired is a direct result of ArsTechnica’s success.” Rather, the proof is in the pudding in the whole industry: subscriber rates have been falling and falling, even before this economy tanked.
Craigslist for directories (duh).
Politico, Drudge Report, the Talking Points Memo – on national politics
News in the tech category has the most examples: ArsTechnica, TechCrunch, etc
The Huffington Post is a great example of a website that includes both copycat crap and quality original content. Crowd-sourcing at its finest.
And I think it’s pretty short sighted to think the Flyer hasn’t impacted the Free Weekly and What’s Up. Even though it’s not a replacement for the newspapers, you’re already seeing people use it as such. It’s a trend.
Matthew Petty
July 15, 2009
Also, the Tolbert Report (local).
Plus, we haven’t even started talking about other news services going online, and that causing impacts on the newspapers. Television networks are entering into the realm of text, and that doesn’t help the papers either.
Do all of the CNN, ABC, and Bloomberg blogs have an effect on the papers? I think so.
And we’ve only barely talked about how the internet has changed niche reporting. Niche reporting is the future, and unless papers can get away from the idea of printed news being the only worthy news, they won’t recover from this mess.
Schleuss
July 15, 2009
My concern with your examples is that none of those examples are newspapers. They may be “news” generators, but they do not have a physical product. Also, most of those Web sites have a national and international focus. Do you have any examples local-focused Web sites that are generating profit?
mischki
July 15, 2009
@mpetty: I’m finally jumping in because of your last paragraph. I don’t want to take “sides” in the D-G conversation. I was a news reporter myself in a long-past lifetime (although not for a newspaper), and now I’m a geek for a living. So I can see both points, and I have a lot of friends in both businesses. But I wanted to share this in hopes that it might help those reading this trying to making decisions about the direction they might go. I’m going to try to be very careful how I say this because I don’t want to offend anybody or hurt somebody’s feelings.
I used to really look forward to Thursdays and “The Freakly” – but it seems it’s not as edgy and doesn’t have as much content as I remember it having when it was truly independent. (I really miss The Grapevine – but then again I also miss ROTC on Dickson). If it weren’t for Daddy Warbucks, and the profiles of local bands, I probably wouldn’t look for it anymore. I can get my all-important music schedule here. In fact, last Thursday, it wasn’t delivered to my office building. I looked for it like always, but when it wasn’t here, I realized I just wasn’t that crushed. I think I actually said, “oh well, I’ll just read it online.”
For me the Flyer is what the Free Weekly used to be only better. The Flyer can make (and has made) corrections instantaneously when needed (no “retractions” or apologies necessary in the next week’s edition) and the interactive nature of it (this discussion for example, which I have been following closely since the article came out) is especially rewarding. I don’t think I’ve seen many (if any) comments and conversations on the Free Weekly’s website.
I don’t want to be negative, or argue any point; I’m just sharing my recent personal experience where an internet site has slowly but surely replaced a print medium in my daily/weekly routine.
Matthew Petty
July 15, 2009
That’s a fair question, but remember my original point was that there are websites who have impacted the news industry. Newspapers are a part of – but only a part – of the news industry, and they are affected by those impacts.
A great example of a local-focused website that generated a profit is Gawker, which started out as an NYC gossip rag, that has since gone national with many vertical sections.
I will also note that Craigslist started out as a local service, then exploded into what it is today over more than a decade. In 1995 it was an email list, in 1996 it was a website that was making money. It wasn’t until just a few years ago that it was in more than a hundred cities.
I’m sure there are hyperlocal services that are making (or stand to make) a profit. I want to point out that it’s only in the past three years that hyperlocal online coverage has caught on, and like most small businesses, it can take three or four or five years to turn a profit and be a strong business.
Now I’ve answered your question. Answer mine: do you have any examples of daily newspapers that are making a profit?
mischki
July 15, 2009
Oops, @mpetty posted something while I was composing my comment. By “last paragraph” I meant:
“And I think it’s pretty short sighted to think the Flyer hasn’t impacted the Free Weekly and What’s Up. Even though it’s not a replacement for the newspapers, you’re already seeing people use it as such. It’s a trend.”
Sorry!
Urk
July 15, 2009
The flyer is much better than the Free Weekly ever was. The Free Weekly is & was always a little too fluffy for my taste. I miss the Grapevine too & the short lived Ozark Gazette & Fayetteville Begin.
Now, before anyone gets their hackles up or takes this personally let me say that the quality of a paper depends on their editors, particular the executive editor(s), the people who set editorial policy, assign and nix stories, direct coverage, choose columnists and approve final edits and rewrites. I’ve had friends over the years who worked for all 3 of the papers currently distributed in NWA, people who did or tried to do good reporting under editorial regimes of varying quality. I don’t think there’s been a particularly good mainstream paper in the whole state since Gannett took over the Gazette way back when. But even by the standards of not particularly good papers, The Times has always been poor, a more or less wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce and a paper not willing to ask any hard, critical questions of local powers that be, public or private. In a climate where even papers that do the things that make newspapers valuable to a community are having trouble, a paper as largely irrelevant as the Times in a market served by other papers, is going to find it very hard to survive.
I keep coming back to this because it seems like alot of this thread is dominated by questions about how newspapers in general survive, and those are important questions. But, the nature of this particular paper in this particular market has something to do with the conversation and ought to be taken into account when evaluating (what seems to be) the trouble its in.
el sabio
July 15, 2009
I think newspapers have forgotten what business they’re in. They don’t sell news, they sell advertisements. They don’t make money from selling subscriptions and never have. The news and content gives them an audience. They make money from selling ads to that audience. The larger the audience, the more the ads are worth. The better the content the larger the audience will be.
If newspapers cannot figure out how to monetize that audience online, then they are doomed. There’s simply no way around that simple fact. Once newspapers had the monopoly on the distribution means…printing. Adapt or die.
Complaining about Google aggregating content instead of seeing it as a free traffic generator should show you pretty quickly how out of touch they are. Now they want to REDUCE their online traffic by charging for content available for free. Until new leaders that see the internet as opportunity instead of a threat take control of newspapers, they’ll continue their downward spiral into irrelevancy.
Matthew Petty
July 15, 2009
@Urk – I hope no one has their hackles up about this. I read on Twitter that Schleuss is getting some hate mail.
That’s not cool. This is a great debate among friends and Internet-acquaintences, but I really hope no one is being offended.
(@Schleuss – You might be the best hope for the Times and NWAnews.com. Don’t listen to the haters.)
Innarested Observer
July 15, 2009
Chane, chane, chane, chane of fools….
chancevb
July 15, 2009
Got a call from the newspaper, tried to silent bc/ i was in a meeting, but I answered and had no option, but to hang up. Sorry about that.
Schleuss
July 15, 2009
@mpetty Word. Thanks for the responses.
Profits Are Down, But Many Newspapers Still Make Money from Tony Rogers
news_reader
July 18, 2009
@el sabio – you’re absolutely right!
chancevb
July 21, 2009
How One iPhone App Could Save Public Radio: http://tinyurl.com/klpobk
Trackbacks