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

[smuvtalker]

Well said; I completely agree and as I said in the other thread, It's less than a cup of coffee per month. I don't read Jerry Sullivan but I do read many of the others. I don't understand the outrage, though I suppose it must be a matter of principle. That's to each their own I guess, but don't really get it.

Yolo, you are one of the most respected members on this board. You contribute a TON to this place, you provide alot of information, insight and humor, and for the most part I agree with much of what you say. I have never thought of you as a liar, until now.

 

How DARE you try and compare a monthly subscription to the Buffalo News to a cup of coffee??? Where in the Lord's name do you get a quality cup of coffee for 3 dollars? You disgust me, you dishonest, deceitful heathen! You, you...oh wait.

 

You said LESS than a cup of coffee...

 

My bad. Disregard the above post. You're still a great guy.

Edited September 16, 2017 by smuvtalker

[BuffaloMatt]

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.

Surprised you didn't ask for payment to read your post. The paper who shall remain nameless should seek ad revenue or survey revenue.

[SDS]

Scott,

 

Thanks for the post and the link. Had no idea it was that bad. I've been reading buffalo news sports articles since I was ten years old - and back then there was also the courier express. That's over 36 yrs. I've been out of the area for the last 17 and I still feel a connection to the Bills and WNY mainly through this site and the Buffalo News. I'll gladly pay $3 a month even if I don't read a single article just to support. Agree the outrage is ridiculous - I know people that spend double that at Starbucks DAILY.

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.

Surprised you didn't ask for payment to read your post. The paper who shall remain nameless should seek ad revenue or survey revenue.

Stay ignorant my friend. 🍺

[mead107]

As long as those Q's are asked ahead of time. I can see many "Fire Sullivan!" and "Why should I pay?" questions to one actual question.As to whether to pay or not pay? I would pay if I use the resource. I recently noticed a $10 charge on my Paypal account I could not recall making. Investigating further, I realized it was a yearly charge I have set up for a hiking forum I'm on, but haven't been on in a while. So while it's not a lot, it did get me to go back there and check out some of the threads and what people have been up to in the past several months.

agree Question would need to be prescreened. Otherwise stupidity would raise its ugly head.

 

 

 

 

I pay for the Schenectady Gazette, have it delivered and an on line version.

 

If people don't like reading the sports news, don't read it. Don't pay for it. No one is making you.

[ExiledInIllinois]

At the end of the day, I don't need well-written in depth news articles on a sport. Give me recaps of scores, transactions, and injury updates. This industry has grown into a lot of people patting themselves on the back for what amounts to talking about men playing a kids game.

This.

[SDS]

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."

At the end of the day, I don't need well-written in depth news articles on a sport. Give me recaps of scores, transactions, and injury updates. This industry has grown into a lot of people patting themselves on the back for what amounts to talking about men playing a kids game.

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.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Well said; I completely agree and as I said in the other thread, It's less than a cup of coffee per month. I don't read Jerry Sullivan but I do read many of the others. I don't understand the outrage, though I suppose it must be a matter of principle. That's to each their own I guess, but don't really get it.

 

...ditto...print media is dying.....and even their news updates sorely lack the 24/7 news outlets......they are in survival mode....with Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle, very movement is met by a pop up ad of a commercial video.....annoying as hell if you just want to read unfettered, but it is about survival....

[Buffalo716]

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

[SDS]

 

...ditto...print media is dying.....and even their news updates sorely lack the 24/7 news outlets......they are in survival mode....with Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle, very movement is met by a pop up ad of a commercial video.....annoying as hell if you just want to read unfettered, but it is about survival....

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.

[Just Jack]

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.

If my local paper will start proofreading their articles for grammar and spelling mistakes before posting them, and quit labeling everything above the Tappen Zee as Upstate (hello? You live in Syracuse, call it Syracuse or Central NY) then maybe I'll pay.

[oldmanfan]

I understand why they're doing this. I hope they understand I'm not interested in paying for columnists that I don't think are particularly talented or informative.

[Just Jack]

I understand why they're doing this. I hope they understand I'm not interested in paying for columnists that I don't think are particularly talented or informative.

Then follow Scott's suggestion

 

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.

[zonabb]

It is a value proposition and you can harp on the point about people wanting their content for free. There is an entire subset that feels entitled to free content. However, you and those that live here are pro-media, apparently because it helps your model, which makes your argument full of its own biases. All my warning points are for criticizing garbage media. You censure posters when they challenge John Warlow. But you're making a massive leap in logic, and that's that the Buffalo News sports reporters have value to everyone and we should all buy it. That's a false assumption and massive hole in your logic. I'm not one to complain about the idea of a paywall, but when I make a value proposition (your words) there's no value for me in supporting bad journalism. Giving the news $3 month for substandard snark and opinion that would keep Sullivan employed ain't happening. Dunne was good and worthy, the rest are tired and played out and I didn't read for free. And I'm not alone. It's a market outside the top 50 in the US, so what does that mean for talent? It's means it's limited on a good day, non existent on most. This is capitalism, the weak die off and the print media's days are numbered because they waited too long to develop a better model and now they cry about it.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

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 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.

[mead107]

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.

We seem to have major problems. Sometimes someone will just throw stuff out in social media and not have any facts right and before you know it millions of people think it is the truth.

[oldmanfan]

 

Then follow Scott's suggestion

 

 

Perhaps I will but I don't really miss reading their stuff. I just like to look at the News online and catch up with the hometown

[Madd Charlie]

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.

[oldmanfan]

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

[hondo in seattle]

SDS, good argument for the other side.

 

I'm one of the guys who said he wouldn't pay $2.99 to read Sully's rants.

 

But now that I've seen that the BN has added content, I admit I'm tempted to pay the $3. It's not much after all.

Edited September 16, 2017 by hondo in seattle

[HappyDays]

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.