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

[Lurker]

I know a former Director at the Washington Post very well.

They did tons of studies about their digital presence and estimated that adding a paywall would turn away 80%+ of their digital readers. They put it up.

Paper advertising nor PPC is not creating the returns expected by businesses, and most consumers find ads in any capacity to be very annoying.

You're going to see more and more of this.

Fine with me. I subscribe to the online content at the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. If a news organization is going to deliver content I find worthy of their subscription price, I'll always be a customer...

[plenzmd1]

Fine with me. I subscribe to the online content at the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. If a news organization is going to deliver content I find worthy of their subscription price, I'll always be a customer...

I agree

[Hapless Bills Fan]

About 90% of the links at two Bills drive are all links to Buffalo news. Are you paid by them? I'd post a screenshot, but some diversity of sources would be nice. And no, I won't ever pay to read the crap.

 

I think if you scroll down a few pages on Two Bills Drive, you will find usually a page, sometimes 2, of content from other sources. TBN has the most, so it usually fills the first page.

 

I'd post a screenshot too, but I think you can go look for yourself now that you have the secret decoder ring.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

HA! You have a point. I was reading Scott's post about spending $2 on bottled water and $2.95 for a lemon square, and thinking like "Yeah, Yeah, to manage our family money we made a decision to cut that stuff out". Amazing how much can get spent in a month on daily lunch at work, bottles of water, snacks etc.

 

And then I remembered Back in The Day when Online wasn't a thing and the Bills were revving up the KGun and contending, I used to subscribe to Shout! and a couple of other print Bills publications, and I was a starving grad student then. So yeah - if there was something more positive to read about, I'd probably have a different attitude towards paying TBN. Heck, my family used to give me NFL Game Pass for my birthday and I'd watch the Condensed and the All 22 usually a couple times.

 

This year they bought me a paddling-style life jacket. Really nice one.

Fine with me. I subscribe to the online content at the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. If a news organization is going to deliver content I find worthy of their subscription price, I'll always be a customer...

 

I don't do that exact list, but yeah, there are 3-4 news organizations I do support with online subscriptions because I appreciate the content.

 

Lose Jerry Sullivan or wind him back to what he used to be in the late '80s and lose Bucky or fetch him a similar new attitude and I might bite.

[SDS]

The post I just deleted was extremely inappropriate.

[Bill from NYC]

 

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.

 

Scott, I don't pretend to fully understand this issue but I find it interesting. That said, the following is a question, NOT a suggestion.......

 

Would it make sense if posters on TBD paid you, and you in turn could make whatever arrangements with the BN, etc. as you deem fit? This way, we could still get the benefits of this site and you could decide how much money (if any) to allot to local publications. If you think this would work, count me in. I am not a rich man but 3 dollars per month or 12 dollars per year is nothing but again, I don't pretend to understand this business.

 

As far as the NYT, I agree with you 100%. I think the Times is a garbage publication but I also think that those who like it should pay if that's what it takes.

[Fadingpain]

Scott, I don't pretend to fully understand this issue but I find it interesting. That said, the following is a question, NOT a suggestion.......

 

Would it make sense if posters on TBD paid you, and you in turn could make whatever arrangements with the BN, etc. as you deem fit? This way, we could still get the benefits of this site and you could decide how much money (if any) to allot to local publications. If you think this would work, count me in. I am not a rich man but 3 dollars per month or 12 dollars per year is nothing but again, I don't pretend to understand this business.

 

As far as the NYT, I agree with you 100%. I think the Times is a garbage publication but I also think that those who like it should pay if that's what it takes.

 

 

[Dr.Sack]

The reason mainstream media is dying and alternative media is thriving is because we don't need to be told how to think. I can get more information out of Cover 1, and many die-hard posters on here like Yolo & Promo than I can off the News.

[Lurker]

The reason mainstream media is dying and alternative media is thriving is because we don't need to be told how to think.

I don't want to make this a PPP thread but many people also frequent only 'news' providers who tell them what they want to hear. That's the insideous nature of web click ad sales businesses masquerading as 'news organizations' and the polarization and self-sorting of people in general.

 

If you really want to stay on top of an issue and/or Bills coverage you have to read multiple sites with multiple POVs. That includes providers like the BN, although not necessarily Sully and Little Bucky...

[Delete This Account]

I think, nay, demand that I get my wings for free. And it should be a double order of whichever ones I prefer. And I want them now. Crispy, of course.

The entitled crowd that has ruined modern music by claiming "ownership" demanding it be free has moved on to wah-wahing about having to pay to read something they should've been paying for from the start of the internet.

As if information gathering doesn't require work or resources, or informed professionals should somehow work for pennies.

How pathetic. Perhaps, mommy or daddy can tie up your diapers.

Don't like it. Don't buy it.

Go to some fan-site and get all your information for free, because after all, Michael Vick is always a few posts away from someone's cousins, brother's gardener from being spotted at the airport.

Want proof the Buffalo News has an influence? How many Jerry Sullivan posts pop up here on a weekly basis complaining about one thing or another. For some folks who don't read him, his columns sure do get around.

But of course my take is typical, because work in the business and newspapers are supposedly dying.

Well, here's a way newspapers are not.

It'll cost you. As it should.

 

I don't work for free. You shouldn't have to either.

The thought of that is preposterous.

 

jw

The reason mainstream media is dying and alternative media is thriving is because we don't need to be told how to think. I can get more information out of Cover 1, and many die-hard posters on here like Yolo & Promo than I can off the News.

pure and unfiltered baloney. here you are telling me, through your post, how to think.

and this bs about mainstream media, a crutch of a phrase used by the narrow-minded who don't have the capacity, patience or literate skills to evaluate a topic from different points of view.

the truth is beyond you.

Edited September 19, 2017 by john wawrow

[Delete This Account]

Well said.

 

I don't want to make this a PPP thread but many people also frequent only 'news' providers who tell them what they want to hear. That's the insideous nature of web click ad sales businesses masquerading as 'news organizations' and the polarization and self-sorting of people in general.

 

If you really want to stay on top of an issue and/or Bills coverage you have to read multiple sites with multiple POVs. That includes providers like the BN, although not necessarily Sully and Little Bucky...

Edited September 19, 2017 by john wawrow

[Bad Things]

 

Have you ever thought about clicking pages "2" and "3" at the bottom of the page???

 

Idiot.

What a dickhead!

[plenzmd1]

I think, nay, demand that I get my wings for free. And it should be a double order of whichever ones I prefer. And I want them now. Crispy, of course.

The entitled crowd that has ruined modern music by claiming "ownership" demanding it be free has moved on to wah-wahing about having to pay to read something they should've been paying for from the start of the internet.

As if information gathering doesn't require work or resources, or informed professionals should somehow work for pennies.

How pathetic. Perhaps, mommy or daddy can tie up your diapers.

Don't like it. Don't buy it.

Go to some fan-site and get all your information for free, because after all, Michael Vick is always a few posts away from someone's cousins, brother's gardener from being spotted at the airport.

Want proof the Buffalo News has an influence? How many Jerry Sullivan posts pop up here on a weekly basis complaining about one thing or another. For some folks who don't read him, his columns sure do get around.

But of course my take is typical, because work in the business and newspapers are supposedly dying.

Well, here's a way newspapers are not.

It'll cost you. As it should.

 

I don't work for free. You shouldn't have to either.

The thought of that is preposterous.

 

jw

 

 

John, for me this has nothing to do with the $2.99/month, as i don't believe that amount in today's day and age is even a blip to 99% of people on this board. It is pure content driven, and by content, i mean Sully, Gleason, Graham, and Harrington.

 

I was always a paid digital subscriber of the BN , even though avoiding the paywall was and still is easy peazy . I believe in paying for things I consume if there is a charge, as I do with my WAPO and WSJ subscriptions, I pay for all my music through legitimate sites etc.

 

But the day Gleason said I was a loser was the last straw, and I canceled my subscription to the BN that day, and let them know the reason why. I know there is other good content on the Blitz and the BN in general now, but out of principle, I will not spend a cent on that paper until some of that crowd is weeded out. Might be biting my nose, I understand that, but what is a better suggestion from you on how to show my displeasure with the "talent" than withholding my money, as little as that may be. My sense and I could be dead wrong and would love to get your insight, is these guys are protected by the guild and have been able to push an agenda since the very first meeting with Terry way back in the day.

 

Maybe the new Editor can make some changes.

 

 

Having said that, I do not use illegal ways to go around the paywall, as easy as that is. I do read articles non-sports articles from the BN, from my allotted free ones, and will continue in that method to some changes in the sports department are made.

Edited September 19, 2017 by plenzmd1

[oldmanfan]

I sent the following to Josh Barnett this morning:

 

Hi Josh:

 

I wanted to respond to your gracious offer on the twobillsdrive site. I have been a Bills fan since 1960, and a Sabres fan since 1970 (and a big Bisons fan before that). I grew up reading three newspapers a day (the News, the Courier, and the Tonawanda News) and I can appreciate the difficulties traditional media outlets face in this era of folks wanting news immediately on a 24/7 basis. Now that I do not live in WNY, I rely on the News and other sites to keep up with the hometown, and some of the conversation in the current thread make it clear to me that I should pony up for an online News subscription. I’ll look at the Blitz and see if it is something I would value. With respect to your request for questions and/or concerns from readers, I would offer the following:

 

1. Do you feel that the News is overstaffed with columnists for the size of the market? With the hiring of Kimberly Martin you now have 4 full time columnists that opine on the Bills (Graham, Sullivan, Gleason, Martin), and four for the Sabres (Harrington, Graham, Sullivan, Gleason). While I applaud the News for trying to provide as comprehensive a coverage as possible, would money not be better spent on beat reporters? What drives your decision to have so many opinion writers?
2. How do you balance the need for accurate reporting with the need to be out front in the era of social media, and increased competition between different media sites, bloggers, etc.? I have always admired Vic Carucci but this past season he changed stories many times with respect to the coaching hires, GM situations, etc. Changes were made almost daily. Is that due to poor sourcing, or the need to immediately report whatever one hears without doing the kind of background digging needed to confirm? If I am going to pay for a paper to provide me with news, I want that news to be accurate.
3. How much do hits to your website count in terms of your business model? I hear conflicting things about the importance of this. Sometimes I read that a news organization depends and tracks website hits to help drive advertising revenue, some other things I read say it means nothing. What is your take on this as the editor?
4. I have an issue with some of the opinion writers for your paper, in particular Sullivan and Gleason. I have no problem with criticism of the local sports teams, their decisions, etc. That is what a columnist should do. I grew up reading Larry Felser and he could be as critical as anyone, but he never made it personal and he never resorted to insult to make a point. I do, however, have a problem when criticism becomes personal, and when personal insults and what I consider to be snarky and immature comments take the place of actual criticism. I will give you an example of a recent one. After the Bills victory against the Jets, in a column by Sullivan he refers to a statement from McDermott referring to the “building”, i.e. New Era Field. Sullivan has to throw in a comment about how he wouldn’t call it a building. Explain to me what the purpose of such a statement is when writing about the Bills victory. It is simply the author trying to throw in a gratuitous insult, or the author trying to show he is smarter than the coach. It adds nothing, it is simply to me a snarky comment. I could point out other examples if I went back through columns. And the recent column from Gleason about why we should not be fans is an insult to someone like me who has been a Bills fan for 57 years. So if I decide to get the Blitz, I will simply avoid reading anything from Gleason because I won’t pay money to be insulted. I like a lot of Sullivan’s stuff when he writes about colleges, golf, etc. because he for whatever reason does not choose to report to the kind of snarky and insulting language he uses when writing about the Bills and Sabres. What are your thoughts regarding how to choose columnists, and how do you as an editor decide when something written may be over the top? In short, what are your journalistic standards with respect to commentary?

 

Thanks again for being willing to answer questions. I wish you much success as you go forward, and hope you’ll have a long and successful tenure with the News.

 

 

I sent the following to Josh Barnett this morning:

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

BTW, if you haven't noticed yet you will see that Jerry's and Bucky's columns are no longer behind a paywall.

[TakeYouToTasker]

A different perspective:

 

As a Bills fan who does not, and has never, lived in Buffalo or the surrounding area, $3/mo. is not worth it to support local Buffalo media.

 

In a vacuum, the fee seems reasonable, it's only $3/mo. after all. But we aren't in a vacuum.

 

This is a trend across the entire industry, and with so much "must read" content out there, most of it not even sports related, $3/mo. adds up quickly, and it becomes impossible to justify the purchase when you start talking about wanting to read content locked behind a paywall from upwards of 10 or more providers. If you get to just 20 providers with a $3/mo. paywall, all of a sudden you're looking at a $720 annual outlay.

 

I certainly understand the desire/need to monetize readership directly, and have no problem with any business doing exactly this; but as an individual with no real desire to subsidize a small local shop that's not local to me, and without enough top end content to make "must read" with my personal preferences, the decision to go behind a paywall is a decision to lose me as a consumer.

 

Sadly, in today's online environment, I'm not sure that media outlets really have any other choice, which is a shame.

[plenzmd1]

BTW, if you haven't noticed yet you will see that Jerry's and Bucky's columns are no longer behind a paywall.

I did not, thank you for pointing that out.

 

Still in the same quandary though..those guys are still there, and I do not want to give any money till a couple of those guys are gone.

[blitzboy54]

John, for me this has nothing to do with the $2.99/month, as i don't believe that amount in today's day and age is even a blip to 99% of people on this board. It is pure content driven, and by content, i mean Sully, Gleason, Graham, and Harrington.

 

I was always a paid digital subscriber of the BN , even though avoiding the paywall was and still is easy peazy . I believe in paying for things I consume if there is a charge, as I do with my WAPO and WSJ subscriptions, I pay for all my music through legitimate sites etc.

 

But the day Gleason said I was a loser was the last straw, and I canceled my subscription to the BN that day, and let them know the reason why. I know there is other good content on the Blitz and the BN in general now, but out of principle, I will not spend a cent on that paper until some of that crowd is weeded out. Might be biting my nose, I understand that, but what is a better suggestion from you on how to show my displeasure with the "talent" than withholding my money, as little as that may be. My sense and I could be dead wrong and would love to get your insight, is these guys are protected by the guild and have been able to push an agenda since the very first meeting with Terry way back in the day.

 

Maybe the new Editor can make some changes.

 

 

Having said that, I do not use illegal ways to go around the paywall, as easy as that is. I do read articles non-sports articles from the BN, from my allotted free ones, and will continue in that method to some changes in the sports department are made.

Same, Tim Graham made me a believer. I paid for the BN for 6-7 months. The day Bucky called me and my family losers and then refused to apologize for making it personal I quit. I actually WANT to pay for the BN. But until Gleason apologizes in print I'm done. I will hold that grudge forever.

 

The BN made the tank more controversial than it needed to be. They made a business model out of attackig the fan base and doing everything possible to turn them against each other.

 

When I get an apology they get a subscription. ... in the mean time I don't poach it, I just listen to the TG show podcast and live without.

Edited September 19, 2017 by blitzboy54

[Bad Things]

I did not, thank you for pointing that out.

 

Still in the same quandary though..those guys are still there, and I do not want to give any money till a couple of those guys are gone.

+1

[Lurker]

Meanwhile, just down the road...

 

http://rbj.net/2017/09/19/democrat-and-chronicle-lays-off-three-newsroom-employees/

 

Democrat and Chronicle lays off three newsroom employees

Rochester Business Journal - September 19, 2017

Gannett Co. Inc.—parent company of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and USA Today—has laid off three members of its local newsroom staff.

Gannett President and CEO Robert Dickey this month announced plans for a corporate restructuring that would result in the elimination of roughly 1 percent of its employees across the company’s more than 100 news outlets.

 

In 2011 there were 86 people under the union’s banner, officials said. On Tuesday that number had dropped to 32.

 

“Some of those positions were lost to advances in technology and changes in the way newspapers deliver their product,” Guild officials said. “But the end result has been fewer people gathering news and ensuring the stories we tell in words and photographs and videos are as polished and complete as they can be and live up to the quality that our longtime readers had come to expect of the D&C.”