SDS

Please create a reasonable title for this thread.

[This is an automated response] The topic title needs some TLC... The topic starter can edit the topic title line to make it more appropriate. Thank you.

[This is an automated response] The thread is no longer contributing positively to the community and therefore the discussion has been closed. Thank you.

The sports editor for the Buffalo news is going to hold a question and answer session for the community. I believe he's going to make a post in the morning and request that people who would like to know more about what is going on over at the news send him an email with their question. After that, he's going to gather them all the questions, answer them and post the responses here. This is your chance to speak to the new sheriff in a respectful way and let them know what you want to see from the Buffalo news sports section or have him address any concerns you have about the content or the pay wall they have implemented.

[This is an automated response]<br /><br />The thread is no longer contributing positively to the community and therefore the discussion has been closed.<br /><br />Thank you.

Not picking on you specifically, but these countdown posts are really unnecessary. I have been hoping they would just get old and go away but they seem to be sticking around.

There are 30 articles currently on the front page. 20 are from different sources and 10 are from the Buffalo news. Yes, there are 10 in a row because our article poster posted them in a row as he went through the BN current articles for the day. This isn't that hard to understand.

Another Norman Einstein. Maybe it's because the hometown newspaper posts the most content?

There is really only one "admin" here in that regard. I am not being paid. I left your post. A moderator saw it differently and removed it. I restored it. Thank you for alerting me.

I would like to point out again, similar to what Rubes said above, the purpose of my thread was: 1. To inform readers that just because you run ads it doesn't mean you have a healthy, sustainable business. 2. To inform readers that after 15 years of free, that there is going to be a TREMENDOUS push to go back to a subscription model. This is because chasing pennies per click has failed local newspapers. Readers will need to adjust their opinions on what should be free and what will no longer be free. 3. That the grousing over $3 is absurd. You don't have to pay, but stop pretending this is some major imposition.

You should ask Josh Barnett. Right now, it isn't clear if this is going to happen with Sabres coverage also.

We don't promote ways to steal another business's product.

If you want to see something different at the BN then people should speak up. Subscribing doesn't mean they don't have metrics. Jerry and Bucky will get paid if people are reading their content, not just because they have subscribers. If the other columnists outperform them 10 to 1, then a properly run business will make adjustments.

No offense, but given the 100's of suffering publications in this country and the 10,000's of people employed - it's safe to say more than a few people have scratched their head's on the problem the last 15 years, given that their livelihoods depend on it.

Maybe we could slow the roll on the premium talk though? Again, we are talking $3 for a month. At 5 articles a day, I think that is 2 cents per article. So, I don't know - maybe if a stick of gum was $3 I would call it premium or maybe a 4oz yogurt. $3/month sounds like survival money to me.

Jerry Sullivan isn't their only columnist. If this is your excuse, then what you are really saying is that you will never pay for content. And although our site is free to you, it certainly isn't free. It costs $1000s to keep it running every year. Ad supported (no thank you to the ad-blockers out there). But this isn't someone's employment, someone's source of health insurance and there are no professionally trained journalists and editors. So, we can pay our bills. We should not be confused with a newspaper that covers the events of an entire city. I agree with this. I'm also saying it's time for everyone to pull up their big boy pants and recognize the state of journalism today.

Constant negativity about a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 17 years? Got it. I'm sure their negative takes have been completely unrealistic in the face of unparalleled success. "I'm not giving them my $3." I'm quoting this just for how hilarious it sounds. Today I had a $2 bottle of water at the mall and debated a $2.95 lemon square for dessert. Yeah, the NEW sports editor probably doesn't want to hear from the readership. and maybe you just aren't following closely enough, but those who are depending on the online ads are bleeding money, laying off people or going out of business. Maybe you haven't followed anything that has been written in this thread.

That is the consequence of a free model chasing falling revenues and a society of consumers with installed pop-blockers trying to make the free model work. The other choices are low cost subscriptions or to do without.

For those who didn't read the article in my original post, here are some important paragraphs: "What I learned along the way is there is a big disconnect between what the public believes is happening in media and what is actually happening. Journalists are not losing their jobs because they are bad at what they do. The No. 1 killer of newspapers and websites and radio and television appear to be next is ad rates, in print and online. As Facebook and Google corner the ad market, and companies increasingly turn to social avenues to promote themselves, ad rates are dropping, often at exceptional rates. In the (recent) past, you could attempt to make money online by going for scale a high number of clicks but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Even a very high-end website, like the New York Times, has online ad rates of about $8 CPM (cost per thousand impressions). Most newspapers and websites are much lower than that and the number seems to be falling every year. Even very well read stories for large outlets may only generate $75 or $100 in revenue online. Not enough to pay a writer for a days work, let alone add in an editor, or any other costs associated with a large company producing content. And those are the ones that hit relatively big. Others about more niche subjects, or that require a high level of sophistication, research and time, would generate even less revenue relative to the cost to produce them, in that click-per-penny model. That, on a basic level, is why newspapers like the New York Times and The Globe and Mail are pursuing a subscription model. They have to in order to produce the content that makes those brands what they are. They have done the math that shows getting even two or three subscribers for a story is worth more than 20,000 hits. The alternative is to chase web pennies and bleed millions of dollars a year." That's your value proposition. There is nothing wrong with that. But I will say it again and again - this isn't just about the BN Bills coverage - it speaks to the larger problem of a society that expects their high quality, edited, professionally researched and written news articles for free.

For anyone just skimming the topic who skipped over that article - it really is a must read. With that said, The Athletic is basically banking on hiring the best laid off talent they can find and the rejection of low quality articles meant to generate clicks to pay the bills. I think they rolled out the site in a smart way. The BN could have handled it better and have a tougher time selling the same lineup instead of creating a new entity. That's up to them to manage and I wish them luck. They are the hometown newspaper. Stay ignorant my friend. 🍺

I will probably have to do something, but I have reached out to the news to discuss the issue. Our mission here has always been about driving eyeballs to the content creators and setting up a community to talk about it. Notice we don't rip the content from the AP/BN/RDC, repackage it and sell it as our own as some other popular blogs do. Also note that every article has a source with it and with our quoted text, you are actually getting something for free. I want John Warrow to get paid, so we have legitimate facts to discuss here. I want Tim Graham to get paid, so we can see the horrific effects this game has inflicted upon past stars. We may set up a Q and A with the BN sports editor if we determine it would be constructive. That was their offer to us.

And if you read what I wrote, and the article I linked to, the implication was clear. You can go high volume/low quality and chase pennies for clicks. Or you can regroup, go higher quality and ask for $3/month. They tried the pennies per click as did many other papers the last 15 years. Some are still trying it. Some are looking for a compromise. The larger issue isn't whether an individual thinks BN Blitz is worth a dime a day - it's the attitude that all news should be high quality, free and viewable with an ad-blocker installed because heaven forbid a professional journalist gets paid a living wage to produce those pieces. And yes, I'm blaming people for their absurd displays of their displeasure. The indignation over $3 per month is ridiculous.

"ridiculously easy to get around it" Way to stick it to the man bro. Make sure you grab extra mints and toothpicks on the way out. "I also disagree that anything else short of a paying money for news content is freeloading - getting eyes on advertisements is worth something. " Yet, no one said that. I TOLD you what it is worth. The article I linked to told you what it is worth. Publications are starting to tell you it isn't worth enough. Educate yourself instead of defending your ability to save 10 cents per day.

Then you need to send your thoughts into Josh Barnett, the new BN sports editor. I would give examples of the poor writing you find for each author listed in your letter. The opinions on this board are often formulated through the consumption of others, BN writers included, plus the interviews, stats and analysis they present, etc... No one here lives in a vacuum. The $12/season price isn't exactly a high dollar vote of confidence. It keeps the doors open and the bills paid.

If anyone is looking for my support against the Buffalo News paywall, you are barking up the wrong tree. It's their content. It's their business. Complaining about the media has become bloodsport in this country and it has risen to destructively absurd levels. Readers rail against low-quality "clickbait" when the content is free, but if the publication tries to offer higher quality for a SMALL price - people freak out and pound their fist on how they will never pay for something that they think should be free. NOTHING IS FREE. Everyone wants high quality journalism, but no one wants to support a business model that actually employs people with talent to create that high quality journalism. If the Buffalo News made $3 per 1000 clicks on an article, one reader would have to read 1000 articles in one month for them to generate the same revenue as one subscriber. It's absurd. Everyone talks about getting their news for "free" elsewhere. What publication is going to produce a piece like Tim Graham did about Darryl Talley? Some blogger on a fan site? How much time and resources did that piece consume in production? Do you think that was covered in "clicks"? If you want an education in the publishing business, read this from The AthleticTO published earlier this year: https://theathletic.com/40690/2017/02/27/letter-from-the-editor-why-the-athletic-has-a-paywall/ THAT is what you need to know about today's market. It sucks. Stop expecting talented people to work for peanuts. And the "news" you find here comes mainly from paid professional writers. When they go away, the news here goes away. Then all you will have is Chris Brown and Bills press releases to no one. The Buffalo News is asking for $12 for the ENTIRE season. There are cities in this country that pay more than that for one hour of minimum wage work. there are a thousand ways to illustrate just how small an amount that is for 4 months worth of content. If Jerry Sullivan isn't what you want to read for $12 a season, send in a letter to the BN. Tell them to hire better quality AND you will support them with subscriber fees. But they have other writers and produce a lot more content than just him at the moment. Ultimately, this is about the getting what you pay for, regardless of the publication. Journalism was ALWAYS a pay to play endeavor for 100 years. They tried 15 years of ad-supported "free". It's failing. Find a publication you value and subscribe. I subscribe to the New York Times for this very purpose. Attitudes need to change. The amount of hysteria surrounding $3/month is appalling. You don't have to subscribe, but stop expecting something for nothing or something for too little.