[BN] Blitz, Media, Pay Walls, Journalism Survival, etc...

[oldmanfan]

 

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.

I don't pretend to be an expert in this area. But the new editor will likely get a message if few people spend the dollars to get this extra stuff. Or if the website hits go down by a lot.

[SDS]

I'll subscribe to the BN Blitz when Jerry Sullivan is gone. Sorry, I only pay for quality content, not negativity for the sake of negativity. I read better coverage than that right here on TBD for free.

 

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'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.

 

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.

[BUFFALOKIE]

Remember the days when we PAID to have the daily news delivered to our door? Warren Buffet remembers.

[vincec]

It's silly to rail for or against paying for news. It's a business decision on both sides. If you think having access to their coverage is worth $3 per month then you pay. If not, you don't. Complaining either way is really worse than a waste of time since it creates unnecessary acrimony.

[SDS]

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

 

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.

[oldmanfan]

 

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.

You claimI didn't follow the thread but I posted earlier I would not want to be a jjournalist today. I get that.

 

If I were still living in WNY I would likely have an online subscription since it would be the best way to keep up with my hometown. Being out of townI like to log on and see what's going on in town but if I miss a day or two it doesn't affect me much.

 

If the News is hurting for revenue then why do they have so many columnists covering sports? It's nice they do so I guess but that would be an easy place to cut expenses.

[SDS]

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.

 

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.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's all hitting home isn't it. I am simply callous to the plight. We'all screwed ourselves, now we have to care?

 

Sorry, I can't. There are less gratuitous industries to care about. "Journalism" is a cheap commodity, deal with it just like the Walmart greeter does.

 

Let it die in the small markets or compete their azzes off

[SDS]

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...

 

If you want to see something different at the BN then people should speak up.

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.

 

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.

[Bad Things]

I certainly understand that people should get paid for the work they do. I also have no problem at all, paying for things that I like.

 

That said, I will never pay for the Buffalo News if it means Jerry Sullivan, Bucky Gleason or even Vic Carucci are getting any of my money. No way.

 

I will never forget their behavior towards the end of last season. It was nothing short of an embarrassment.

[oldmanfan]

 

You aren't really comprehending the numbers here. It's like you didn't read anything posted in this thread, nor the link in the original post.

I Have read through the entire thread. Excuse me if I don't necessarily agree. All I ever read about is how papers are looking for hits to their website. Perhaps you can explain your background as you seem to be an expert in the field. If you want me to come around to your line of thinking them explain it better.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

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.

I wonder if you were this indignant when amazon killed big box stores...

 

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.

Using the words buffalo news and properly run business in the same sentence is a reach. I for one don't trust the paid propagandists of the mainstream media anyway, so it's no loss to me. But I find the Washington post's motto somewhat ironic when it appears above a paywall. Edited September 17, 2017 by joesixpack

[YoloinOhio]

It's silly to rail for or against paying for news. It's a business decision on both sides. If you think having access to their coverage is worth $3 per month then you pay. If not, you don't. Complaining either way is really worse than a waste of time since it creates unnecessary acrimony.

pretty much

[Lurker]

 

If you want to see something different at the BN then people should speak up.

 

Agreed. But I'd wager that the BN decision makers would pay more attention to a group of 'pitchfork and torch' carrying TBD posters than to individual Snooze subscribers.

 

There's power in numbers. Maybe your passion on this issue--and the TB platform--can rattle a few cages...

Edited September 17, 2017 by Lurker

[BUFFALOKIE]

Why is the thread pinned? What does this have to do with the BUFFALO BILLS?

[smuvtalker]

Remember the days when we PAID to have the daily news delivered to our door? Warren Buffet remembers.

I certainly do. My very first "real" job was delivering papers, yep, I was a bonafide paperboy! I delivered The Washington Post, 7 days a week, doorstep service. The days it would rain I would roll the paper up and put it in a nice clear plastic sleeve. At the end of the month I would go door-to-door, collecting my fees. I remember, I earned 136 dollars a month (not including tips. I remember one guy, even though his monthly subscription was 7 dollars, he always gave me a 20 every month. He was the leader of an up and coming rock band. The name of his group was The Misfits. He was really nice, and even gave me some Misfit t-shirts, hats and stickers.) To me, that 136 dollars a month was a fortune!

 

Don't really know where I was going with that one, completely lost my train of thought....sorry guys.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I certainly do. My very first "real" job was delivering papers, yep, I was a bonafide paperboy! I delivered The Washington Post, 7 days a week, doorstep service. The days it would rain I would roll the paper up and put it in a nice clear plastic sleeve. At the end of the month I would go door-to-door, collecting my fees. I remember, I earned 136 dollars a month (not including tips. I remember one guy, even though his monthly subscription was 7 dollars, he always gave me a 20 every month. He was the leader of an up and coming rock band. The name of his group was The Misfits. He was really nice, and even gave me some Misfit t-shirts, hats and stickers.) To me, that 136 dollars a month was a fortune!

 

Don't really know where I was going with that one, completely lost my train of thought....sorry guys.

You had Glenn Danzig on your paper route?

[Just Jack]

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.

My uncle was the head of the accounting dept for one NY city newspaper, that was (and probably still is) losing money. The owners solution to bring in more money? Buy another small city newspaper that was losing money. My uncle only stayed as long as he did because he felt sorry for the other employees, not the owner. Once he finally decided to leave, it was a huge relief, he's been a lot happier than he was there wondering if they'd make payroll each week.

 

 

Why is the thread pinned? What does this have to do with the BUFFALO BILLS?

Because the owner of this site (SDS) decided to pin it since there's been so many people complaining about it.

[sullim4]

 

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.

 

This happens all the time in business - companies get stuck in a certain way of thinking and then get bit in the behind when the times change. Business school case studies have numerous examples of this - Sony with the Walkman. Blockbuster with the video store. Kodak with film. Hell the company I work for, Microsoft, got killed in the phone business by Apple because they failed to adapt.

 

I mean, do you have any examples demonstrating that newspapers have tried revenue streams other than ad-supported revenue and subscription-based revenue? These are the same wells they've been tapping since the dawn of the newspaper. Most of these papers are controlled by large groups like Hearst or Gannett, neither of which seem eager to change.

 

To make money in the media realm nowadays, you have to be creative. Newspapers still think they can survive by printing stories from 8PM the previous day on physical paper, delivering to homes each morning, and supplement that with online subscriptions. That's just not going to work in 2017, and the financials of the major newspapers prove that.

 

Again, I'll reiterate... give me a media pass for $20 good across most newspapers and media outlets across the nation, let me pick and choose articles I want to read at whatever price you want to attach, say $.25 per view... and then I think you'd see some traction. Micropayments are all the rage right now. Or, team with one of the big media companies that has captive customers (like Comcast or Charter), and offer their customers access to your content for a cut of their fees. That's what ESPN3 is doing right now.

[Heavy Kevi]

 

This happens all the time in business - companies get stuck in a certain way of thinking and then get bit in the behind when the times change. Business school case studies have numerous examples of this - Sony with the Walkman. Blockbuster with the video store. Kodak with film. Hell the company I work for, Microsoft, got killed in the phone business by Apple because they failed to adapt.

 

I mean, do you have any examples demonstrating that newspapers have tried revenue streams other than ad-supported revenue and subscription-based revenue? These are the same wells they've been tapping since the dawn of the newspaper. Most of these papers are controlled by large groups like Hearst or Gannett, neither of which seem eager to change.

 

To make money in the media realm nowadays, you have to be creative. Newspapers still think they can survive by printing stories from 8PM the previous day on physical paper, delivering to homes each morning, and supplement that with online subscriptions. That's just not going to work in 2017, and the financials of the major newspapers prove that.

 

Again, I'll reiterate... give me a media pass for $20 good across most newspapers and media outlets across the nation, let me pick and choose articles I want to read at whatever price you want to attach, say $.25 per view... and then I think you'd see some traction. Micropayments are all the rage right now. Or, team with one of the big media companies that has captive customers (like Comcast or Charter), and offer their customers access to your content for a cut of their fees. That's what ESPN3 is doing right now.

You make some very legitimate points.

 

I know many with clout around here are pro-media, but I myself have no skin in the game. Objectively, it looks like an industry painfully adjusting to the state of information delivery right now. You can't really blame them, it happened so darned fast they could not have seen it coming.

 

I agree that micropayments could be their secrect sauce if tapped. But either way there will be many news orgs that fall casualty in the transition. This is just the cycle of a free-market system in my opinion, just like your examples of Kodak, where my Grandfather worked, so this is not the first time I have seen something like this.

 

I don't intend to ruffle high flying feathers, but I think the state of the media is at an all time low. Maybe it is being forced to write clickbait for ad revenue, maybe aggressively fighting to stay relevant, or maybe it's a loss of the original goal of media: unbiased reporting. Honestly, it has been a loooo...

 

 

 

 

....ooooong time since I have seen unbiased reporting; on any topic, from any outlet, at any time. Perhaps even that is a symptom of people wanting to hear what they already believe in an echo chamber. People only want to hear things they already agree with these days, and silence the opposition. Scary.