Comments on: Purcell: Herald To Charge For Online Content

By: Zippo

Zippo — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:05:04 +0000

I love the idea of pay per view. We’d finally know which columnists area really worth something.

By: Fred West Lynn

Fred West Lynn — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:15:34 +0000

Here’s the killer app for newspaper publishers: how many of your well-paid and highly promoted columnists — as opposed to dogged daily reports — will people pay to read?

Over the past 20 years, I believe, one of the insidious trends in the newspaper business has been to try to be more like magazines. That is, “star” bylines sell papers, not news.

Fine for New York, The New Yorker or even Vanity Fair, but not for a daily newspaper. Its purpose is to provide news and a context to consider that news.

The Globe, in particular its sports section, seems to feel otherwise. Red Sox win the Championship? Clearly the region needs to know what Dan Shaughnessey thinks. That’s why his column, with large type headline and facial graphic, dominates the front page. Not the front page of Sports, but the front page.

Well, here’s an excellent time to test that business theory. Put it all online on a pay-by-view basis. People thirst to know how Ron Borges rates the Pats on his report card? Charge ‘em all a dime to read it and see how much rolls in. The Globe thinks that people are dying to read Shank’s reminiscence of the ’89 Series just as the 2009 Championship Series gets underway? Let them send 15 cents via PayPal to back up the bravest columnist! I’m tempted to shell out the nickel and dime myself to know how badly the earthquake disrupted Dan’s room service!

My point is that people still value legitimate news reporting; I doubt that they value the internally promoted “star columnists.” But I could be wrong. Let the market decide!

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:14:56 +0000

There is no better way to put insufferable print media hacks in their place than to show them plummeting readership numbers once a paid-for model is implemented. If this ‘sure-thing’ didn’t bear fruit when people had disposable income, it sure won’t now.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:11:35 +0000

This is no different than airline fare wars: No one does it unless they all do it. The dilemma is ad rates. What can they charge given the FACT that readership and clicks will plummet? And will people still be bludgeoned by click ads after paying for their on-line access? That’s a sure way to ensure failure.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:48:58 +0000

In case we needed any more proof to add to the mountain of evidence that Objective Bruce either works or worked for the Globe, now, all of a sudden OB lumps in ESPN.com with WEEI, coincidentally right after ESPN.com raided half the Globe’s staff, even though he never put them on his “bad” list before.

By: sam

sam — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:14:26 +0000

a globe subscription might be worthwhile if they bundled online content with a copy of the sunday/weekend paper, got rid of dead wood like shaughnessey and almost all the oped writers in sports and elsewhere as there is no need for glorified blogs like shaughnessy’s column. they must also devote most of their revenue to serious journalism and good to great writing. only then will they attract readers, subscribers, and advertisers.

not sure why they haven’t gotten the clue that news, journalism, and what amounted to community service through notifications of events is what made them great and not blithering idiots like dan shaughnessy, jeff jacoby, and mike cullen.

for the price of a globe subscription i can get 10 magazine subscriptions offering me a hard copy and online content all of which are better than what the globe turns out month to month.

a hybrid online/hardcopy subscription model makes sense.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:10:29 +0000

no way. however, I would consider paying for the globe

By: Fred West Lynn

Fred West Lynn — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:09:57 +0000

One point Purcell does not address is this: does he plan on charging consumers money for the same hopelessly clutter website at is the current http://www.BostonHerald.com? The one with the electronic equivalent of Penny Saver ads crammed into every page and the actual content type squeezed so small that it’s a headache to read it? Because what he’s putting online now is basically snippets of his stories surrounded by much more advertising than the prin version can attract. That advertising draws income based on the number of hits and clicks (hence the phantom last line trick), but who would pay to be aggravated in such a way?

The “TV” and satellite radio analogies are specious. With the switch to digital, virtual all TV id “pay” tv because you need to have a cable provider (or a pricy workaround) to watch anything. The “free”vs “pay” TV option no longer exists. So, yes, you can show the figures that “pay” tv audiences are grown, but that’s because there are no viable alternatives. Regarding sat. radio, it seems very popular with this Board, but I believe that is a small and skewed sample. XM and Sirius have already realized that they have to merge to survive, and my cursory following of the business indicates it’s either stagnant or losing subscribers, even as they offer a good selection of unique programming.

So, I don’t think we need to do a Harvard Business School study to learn that this is a desperate and terrible idea. The best thing Purcell can do for his business is to hold an open meeting with his braintrust and ask each one what he thinks of this move. That way, he’ll have a clear idea who to fire next spring.

By: james

james — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:07:45 +0000

absolutely no way no how am i paying for stuff i can get for free anywhere on the net obviously newspapers are getting desperate as their best talent is flying the coop for greener pastures kick rocks herald nice readin ya

By: ObjectiveBruce

ObjectiveBruce — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:52:15 +0000

It might be an interesting exercise if the Pride of Epping were to take a look at the genesis of sports stories as part of this media watch. How much originates with the dailies? To what extent to other ‘new media’ outlets break stories that become major stories?

To what extent do The Globe and the Herald drive the sports discussion. Is it more or less than it was, say five years ago. How much of weei.com, or ESPN.com based on original material and how much of it is based on running with the agenda set by the dailies? How much of the Web sites is reflections on what has happened and how much is original reporting?

I don’t know. Maybe it would make a good senior thesis for someone at BU SPC or Emerson. It would require some sort of standards for defining what is news, what is breaking news, what is reaction to news and what is pure bloviating, but this may be an area in which serious study of the impact, or lack of impact, of the Web on public discourse is in order. The passion with which we view sports put sports on the cutting edge of the use of new media; a serious study of its impact based on quantifiable variables might provide an insight into the future of new media vs. what is derided as the old media (but which, I suggest, is still the best, most efficient and most reliable way of disseminating news that has ever been invented. Prove me wrong if you can)