Comments on: Readers owe nothing to publishers

By: 128.197.245.3

128.197.245.3 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:42:47 +0000

I am not in the newspaper business. I’m ‘just’ one of the readers out there.

I would gladly pay a small monthly fee to access an ad-free version of the paper. I suspect you’d find a lot more people like me if you investigated a bit.

Ron

By: 152.52.16.3

152.52.16.3 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:47:29 +0000

Some good points, but get real. The push to make money to support the bloated reporter/editor (whole infrastructure) salaries is what gets news sties into this trouble.
Of course they are wrong. No one wants to admit they will never make the margins necessary to support even the most cost-effective print newsroom in the market.
But your dream “ad-supported publishing business” would never support a newsroom of professionals.

By: 204.65.38.222

204.65.38.222 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:26:27 +0000

After 17 years I failed to renew my subscription to the Houston Chronicle. It wasn’t any one reason that drove me away but many small ones that simply added up. Some of those reasons were discussed in this fine article. The Chronicle still doesn’t get it.

By: 96.232.129.157

96.232.129.157 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:17:55 +0000

There is a broadcast corallary derived, I think, from the same mindset. The CBS, nee Westinghouse, radio stations that tout themselves as “all news all the time” are rapidly becoming “all promotion all the time.” Last night, a New York City television station teased a tease.

The prevailing attitude seems to be that there aren’t very many people of ordinary intelligence who would find value in useful information. Consequently, content is sacrificed to bells and whistles at every opportunity.

By: 192.18.43.225

192.18.43.225 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:29:15 +0000

Here’s a “rule of sixes” that Newspaper sites are ignoring when they design and add content (including advertising) to their websites:

*) Six good experiences and you have me for life.

*) Six bad experiences (including bad ads) and you
lose me for life.

Most News sites are very good at the bad experiences corollary. Their traffic stats show this: In a time of explosive growth for general news and comment websites; daily paper sites especially, just can’t find a way to grow. Here’s what I would suggest:

*) Don’t give me a bad experience.
*) Don’t make me register, charge me a fee or
otherwise harvest my name, or even let me
suspect that you might be.
*) Don’t make me click more than three times to
get to one of your top 25 stories.
*) TELL ME SOMETHING I NEED TO KNOW, every day.

These guidelines will make your troubles disappear.

milt brewster

By: 216.114.151.72

216.114.151.72 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:20:06 +0000

Publishers have been too quick to rely on advertising gimmicks to halt declining circulation. One paper I worked for began slapping those stickies on the front page – usually right over the top right headline. Another is using its Saturday teaser spot to promo the coupon savings inside. So, that means there’s no news worth reading? The hyperlocal I’m now working at is trying to balance content and advertising in a redesign. No pop-ups; no constant “survey” questions. Editorial and advertising are working together to create space for both. Of course, we’re so small its hard not to collaborate. But after having worked at papers where marketing and news barely acknowledged each other, it’s very refreshing.

By: 148.100.211.184

148.100.211.184 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:33:22 +0000

Well Bob, you’ve nicely summarized how annoying pervasive advertising can be.
But that is a problem, not a solution.
Oh, put readers first and disregard the needs of advertisers? Sure, that works. I think that’s called “public television” or “national public radio”…and it works fairly well, so long as donors and benefactors pick up the tab.
Hmmm…what’s at the center of the storm here? Oh, money – money to pay salaries of professional journalists.
I subscribe to Consumer Reports. No ads. I pay about 4 times as much for that mag as I do for Golf Digest. I was in the business for 17 years – we all know how it works. We can be “mass media” or we can be “elite media.”

By: 66.224.142.138

66.224.142.138 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:51:10 +0000

A couple of the most recent posts are a bit more adversarial toward advertising than, I believe, the original article warrants. Ads are not evil- the advertisers’ desires for profit are no worse than the newspapers’ desires for profit (and many more of the advertisers are actually locally owned and put their profits back into the community… what percentage of today’s newspapers can say that?)

The point of the original article- which I enjoyed very much- was not that ads are bad, but that the presentation of editorial content of the publication should not be submerged to the presentation of the advertising.

Unless you’re putting out an independent newsletter or something along those lines, advertising IS content. The industry just needs to keep in mind that editorial is also content, and that each flavor of content has its own place and purpose in the publication.

-rkr

By: 66.93.168.115

66.93.168.115 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:30:22 +0000

Any editor of a small town daily will tell you that the obits and wedding announcements are the best-read parts of the paper. People have long turned to their local newspapers for gossip and the hope of seeing themselves or their neighbors. Then they

By: edward maurer

edward maurer — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:11:24 +0000

Much to my chagrin, back in J-school, I had to cut a story to make space for an ad. The prof winked at me reminding me that, if not for ads, there would be no paper. Didn’t like to hear that then, don’t now. I prefer to think that, if not for READERS, there would be no paper!