re enlightener Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 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. agree, but can you take their stories of 2bd? im tired of clicking them and then realizing its the pay service. alot of stories about the bills dont appear on 2bd, espn insider ie. why is this still showing up.
HappyDays Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I think it's more about the perceived "quality" of the writing than it is the money. A substantial vocal portion of the fanbase takes any criticism of the team almost as if it were an attack on their family. They don't want accurate reporting, they want to be told how great this team is going to be every year. Being negative all the time is at least as bad as being positive all the time. I'm cool with accurate pessimism but that's not what reporters like Jerry Sullivan do. He always finds the most annoying negative take, and writes it. I'm not gonna subscribe to that. Seems like the BN feels entitled to their money. Get better content and the money will come.
The Crowing Rooster Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I'm neutral on this paywall thing because I understand that a newspaper or any business has to make money to survive but I think it is just human nature to resent having to pay for something when it was once free.
NewEra Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 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. I don't care either way. I'm fine without the BN. I haven't commented about the premium payment until this thread. I think it's hilarious that these hacks are considered "premium". No complaints on my end
HappyDays Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I'm neutral on this paywall thing because I understand that a newspaper or any business has to make money to survive but I think it is just human nature to resent having to pay for something when it was once free. Media was never free until the internet. What happened is we've had a Wild West web for about 20 years and users have become numb to banner ads. No one looks at them, no one clicks on them. So advertisers decided they're not worth the money anymore. Websites have 2 choices now: intrusive pop-up ads, or subscriptions. This is why I don't use ad-block, it is actually very harmful to websites. When you browse a website with ad-block on you don't contribute clicks to that website which means you are essentially stealing their content. By the same token I won't steal the BN Blitz articles. I won't pay for them but I won't steal them either. No one is entitled to free media, then again there are great posters here like Shaw66 and his Rockpile Review is free of charge. Or Bocephuz's All-22 coverage. I'd be more willing to pay $3 a month to read that than to read some of the garbage published by the BN.
sullim4 Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 My two cents... The media would be wise to learn how other industries monetize their free services. Google is able to offer search and GMail for free because of data mining. Microsoft does the same thing with Outlook mail. Facebook and Twitter with social media. The COGS on these services are billions of dollars per year and somehow these services are profitable - consumers exchange their personal data for a free service. This is the model that's proving to be profitable nowadays. The newsprint media is married to advertising and subscriptions as a form of revenue because that's all they know. But have they given any thought to partnering with, say, Amazon to deliver content to Prime subscribers for a cut of the Prime revenue? Or, ally with a bunch of newspapers and offer a system where you can pay five cents per article read across multiple sources? How about partnering with libraries to offer access for their members, similar to what Consumer Reports does? Why not offer to bundle it with internet subscriptions like ESPN3 does with the major cable internet providers? Heck, if you really want to have an honest conversation about costs, why are newspapers still printing hardcopies and delivering them? Most newspapers are losing money on their print subscribers. I know the administrators of this board are fairly close to a number of members of the media, so I understand why they feel the way that they feel. But times change and the media refuses to change with them. They're locked into old thinking and refuse to change.
dubs Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) I would happily pay much more than 3 bucks for high quality content. Sadly, the BN does not qualify. I wouldn't pay a single cent for the low quality garbage they put out. Truth be told, there isn't really much quality news to read these days. From the NYT to ESPN to the BN, it's pretty much all either sensationalism, jamming narratives, or tabloid journalism. I happen to believe that we are in just in the middle of a huge disruption in media. It'll get better, especially since most people have recognized what a joke it is. All my humble opinion of course. I think all media would do much better simply reporting news stories, being balanced in their coverage, get rid of opinion journalism, and just get back to their core mission. Most people are smart enough to read an article and form their own opinion on the topic. I also believe most people reject being told how to think or feel, whether overtly or subtly. Edited September 16, 2017 by dubs
Chilly Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 If I cared about Buffalo News' coverage, I would absolutely pay for it. I'm a subscriber to HornsDigest, and very much enjoy the quality content they produce on UT. I pay for a SiriusXM subscription mainly for their fantastic sports content that isn't available anywhere else. What I want out of football content is education about the game. Why are the coaches making Xs & Os decisions that they are making? Why is the offense setup the way it is? What tendencies are they specifically trying to exploit? The guys at SiriusXM are fantastic at this, and there are some smaller Bills sites (like Cover1) going after it too. I haven't seen traditional media do this well yet, if BN becomes this with high quality content, I'm in.
YoloinOhio Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) If I cared about Buffalo News' coverage, I would absolutely pay for it. I'm a subscriber to HornsDigest, and very much enjoy the quality content they produce on UT. I pay for a SiriusXM subscription mainly for their fantastic sports content that isn't available anywhere else. What I want out of football content is education about the game. Why are the coaches making Xs & Os decisions that they are making? Why is the offense setup the way it is? What tendencies are they specifically trying to exploit? The guys at SiriusXM are fantastic at this, and there are some smaller Bills sites (like Cover1) going after it too. I haven't seen traditional media do this well yet, if BN becomes this with high quality content, I'm in. Chris Trapasso is new to TBN and that is his specialty. It's very good and he's always been very balanced on twitter (not overly negative or positive with the Bills). I think you can get 2 weeks free on Blitz so you check it out and see if you it's worth it to you to pay. I think it is personally, along with some of the other content. I like Cover One as well. Edited September 16, 2017 by YoloinOhio
Chilly Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Chris Trapasso is new to TBN and that is his specialty. It's very good and he's always been very balanced on twitter (not overly negative or positive with the Bills). I think you can get 2 weeks free on Blitz so you check it out and see if you it's worth it to you to pay. I think it is personally, along with some of the other content. I like Cover One as well. Oh I like Chris a lot, been following him on Twitter for a while, before he was the editor of Buffalo Rumblings. Had no idea he joined TBN, thanks! Edited September 16, 2017 by Chilly
JaCrispy Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) I love print. I just like the feel of paper in my hand. Maybe it's because my father worked at the news for 25+ years but I support the BN... even if I dislike Sullivan's hot takes Funny, I feel the same way about boobies...to each his own, I guess. Edited September 16, 2017 by JaCrispy
WotAGuy Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I wonder if the situation would be different if the Bills were halfway decent, making the playoffs now and then and occasionally a deep playoff run. If there was something to read about, maybe more people would be willing to fork over $3. Honestly, after this long of a drought, I've lost interest compared to the first 33 years of my being a fan.
Heavy Kevi Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 Media was never free until the internet. What happened is we've had a Wild West web for about 20 years and users have become numb to banner ads. No one looks at them, no one clicks on them. So advertisers decided they're not worth the money anymore. Websites have 2 choices now: intrusive pop-up ads, or subscriptions. This is why I don't use ad-block, it is actually very harmful to websites. When you browse a website with ad-block on you don't contribute clicks to that website which means you are essentially stealing their content. By the same token I won't steal the BN Blitz articles. I won't pay for them but I won't steal them either. No one is entitled to free media, then again there are great posters here like Shaw66 and his Rockpile Review is free of charge. Or Bocephuz's All-22 coverage. I'd be more willing to pay $3 a month to read that than to read some of the garbage published by the BN. That sums it up for me. I get better info here, with biases from all sides and I can form opinions that way. Not to mention it's fast. I don't do the twitter thing, but all news is here approximately 4 seconds after it's tweeted (shoutout to YOLO)... I would actually pay $3 for TBD if it was neccesary. But paying the BN just isn't something I would ever even consider.
HardyBoy Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 Here is some info on the 'free' internet and what it truly costs...they even mention how much 'free' costs at the end of the video...I'll give you one guess (this really is an interesting video, highly recommend): https://youtu.be/5pFX2P7JLwA
yungmack Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I just went back and read the link, all of what James wrote is very true. My Fiancée is the CFO of the major newspaper out here and is in charge of balancing the budget, and people have no idea how tough it is to stay in the black in that industry. Just HAVING a sports staff is EXTREMELY difficult. Does she know about your screen name?
Lurker Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 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. That would be great. I've been a critic of the BN sports columnists for many years. With Josh Barnett now in charge, maybe we can get the ball rolling on better quality (i.e., akin to the hiring of Sean Kirst as a replacement for Donn Esmonde) rather than the 'drunk on a barstool' commentary we get now...
transient Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I'd be more likely to do this if there was a means to "allocate" the subscription fee to "reward" content I chose while "penalizing" and limiting access to content I refuse to read. I read an article by Kimberly Martin yesterday and literally said to myself afterwards that it was refreshing to read an article devoid of the agenda that is layered throughout content churned out by the BN's old guard. I refuse to subscribe to a service that somehow justifies Sullivan's and Gleason's continued existence at BN, and have grown weary of Graham and Carruci in similar fashion over the last several years. While $3 per month is in no way unreasonable for a quality product, acquiescing to pay it for this content under these circumstances, symbolically, is not something I'm willing to do. If I find I'm jonesing for hometown coverage I may take SDS's advice and write the BN, but I suspect the absence of content won't leave too tremendous a void in my life.
BuffaloBillsGospel Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 Solid take SDS, I'm just wondering, when was the last time you read the Buffalo News and thought "wow this is a meaningful article?", I can't remember the last time for me but then again I stopped receiving the BN years ago.
SDS Posted September 16, 2017 Author Posted September 16, 2017 If those guys go down it will be because they dug their own grave. You certainly don't expect someone who stopped reading their stuff because of their constant negativity to turn around and pay them to read the same stuff. In my opinion in the last 3-5 years if your not a frustrated Bills fan looking for someone to confirm that you have a valid reason to be bummed, there really is no reason to go to them at all. They may have gotten better by now but I wouldn't know because I'm not giving them my $3. 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. I understand the world of media is changing rapidly. I would not want to be a writer in today's environment. At some point the newspaper you hold in your hand will disappear and everything found on your choice of device. For the News and other papers to survive they'll have to depend on the online ads. If the News ever goes to online subscriptions only I'll make my decision then, as I will when SI and others magazines I've read for years do so. But right now I can keep up with the Bills without paying for the blitz; given that plus what I perceive as often poorly written commentary it's just not worth it. Maybe I should write their editor, but I suspect they are mostly concerned with how many folks are responding (either positive or negative) as it means there are interested folks out there. Best way to send a message is to just not hit the site 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.
Recommended Posts