BuzzMachine

“Magazine and newspaper editors have canceled their annual conferences (good idea: let’s not talk to one another). But perhaps someone can blow a secret whistle and the publishers and editors could all meet at an undisclosed location.”

Because they have to physically be in the same room to talk. Too bad no one’s come up with some internet-based way to communicate and conference.

I just wrote an email to Carr, subject line “you just doomed newspapers. thanks”. why?
Here is the email I sent:
Oh gosh. You don’t know enough about what the Arkansas paper is doing and how it does it. They basically offer breaking news and just about anything off cycle for free. Everything else is paid.

But, if a web site is doing its job, 90 percent of the content is “breaking news” — news happens all the time and should be on the site in a timely manner. So, that covers it, basically. What is left? A few features and “think pieces”?

I ran the most successful local media site in the country. More successful than the Washington Post and — even your paper — with a local audience. The site is a TV site. WRAL.com. It had (it’s dipped a bit since I left) a 45.5 market penetration for a website according to Media Audit. That was TWICE as good as the newspaper in Raleigh, N.C., the Raleigh News & Observer.

Thanks to your article, newspapers will now run to charge for content and TV stations (who will NEVER charge for content) will blow them away. Already, the Greensboro News & Record (also in North Carolina) is neck and neck with TV stations in its market (and it started on the web in 1994.) I was the founding news editor for the website and have seen it FALL APART over the years.

Here is succinctly why paid model on the web won’t work. And, check out postings on Lostremote.com (a TV web blog) about how gleeful TV websites are about the upcoming decision that you just sealed.

Here is my quick and dirty experience (beyond what I have told you above):

When I was at Belo I was chagrined that just registration was mandatory for users beyond two clicks — forget paying. THIS KILLED our site in Houston — relegating an awesome site to the #3 or #4 site each month (even though we had the #1 ranked TV station).

So, I did a TON of research and determined forced registration only attritbuted to 10 percent of overall revenue.I was blown away. we were killing our market reach for a lousy 10 percent of revenue? (and really, it was not fully 10 percent because had we dropped mandatory registration we still could have very likely kept more than half of that ‘registration’ revenue because our overall reach would have gone up and we could have instituted policies to get registrations through contests or simply by having a larger base to start with) and revenue would have easily been boosted by the other 5 percent.

My argument never won — and Belo still has it now

so where am I going with this?

registration — just registration — killed reach and resulted in little to no revenue. if newspapers only make 6-8 percent of their print revenue through subscriptions, what will that end up being on the online side AND more importantly what would it actually end up hurting them in reach and therefore ad revenue because fewer potential customers of the advetisers will ever see the ads (which will have very limited impressions)

so… this does not even address the issue that while newspapers might move to paid models, the three TV station competitors in their same market likely will not (since thankfully Belo is not everywhere).

and what does that mean? unlike 7 years ago when TV stations might not have been considered competition, they really are now… and when they are free vs. paid they will be REAL…

game over even faster for newspapers.

I had this same discussion point for point number for number with my former boss more than 18 months ago. He could never accept that people would settle for free TV sites vs. paid newspaper sites.

I also said other sites – beyond TV – would pop up to fill the free void. he completely disagreed.

the hubris never disappears among newspaper execs — it only worsens.

The rest of the post:
http://www.lostremote.com/2009/02/07/newspapers-considering-charging-for-content/

Communism has a really hard time growing if the newspapers print real issues. None of this matters because the truth is lacking in every page of every newspaper I come across.
Commrade Obama cannot further the communist agenda if dissent were heard at the levels that now exist.As I told the sales folks for my local Pravda, no my parrot doesn’t shit enough to need more than your Sunday edition, Thank you don’t call back…………………………no news is still no news. My blood pressure is also better.

Hey, Jeff, you forgot to end it with “MOOHOOHAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!”

In all the breast beating about papers like the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the San Francisco Chronicle going down, have any of the journalists mourning them actually read them? There is a reason why The New York Times has typically had one of its strongest markets nationally in the Bay Area.

I also wish Carr had done his historical homework and reached further back. Radio is the medium that really killed the newspaper star and it did so because it was free, ad supported and combined entertainment and more instantaneous information — hmmm, sounds like another medium we know…