The Boston Globe announced today that starting next year, they will break the content of the Globe and Boston.com into two separate sites. BostonGlobe.com will require a paid subscription to access, while Boston.com will remain free.

Globe to offer two websites: one free, one pay

So soon you’ll need to pay for the privilege of reading Dan Shaughnessy. On the other hand, apparently you’ll get all the Tony Massarotti and Chris Gasper you want for absolutely free!

Update…

The following was posted on Twitter by a Boston.com sports producer:

The good news about all of this two websites business is that all of sports will be free. Sports fans have nothing to worry about.Thu Sep 30 20:13:32 via Seesmic DesktopZuri Berry
addisports

Now I have to say, if true, that is extremely smart on the part of the Globe. Sports articles are among the most visited on the website, (some people only visit the sports articles) and to continue to offer them from free would be a win for many consumers.

I can’t help but think that the amount of competition out there in this market for sports coverage lead to the decision to keep it free. Who would pay just for the Globe’s take on sports when they can choose from dozens of other outlets?

Published by Bruce Allen

Automattician.

14 thoughts on “You’ll Have To Pay To Read Shaughnessy Starting in 2011 (Perhaps Not)”

  2. PAY to read Shank?….That's an OUTRAGE!…..wait a minute, I didn't read him when it was free…..nevermind

    Like

  3. This is a stupid idea even by the high standards of newspaper management. Either put the site behind a pay wall or don't, but never try to middle it. You're now competing with yourself on two fronts, the newspaper with the Web sites and the pay Web site with the free Web site. Guess who wins?
    It's also unmanageable. For instance, what happens if a BIG story breaks? A natural disaster in Boston, the death of a leading citizen, Pats win Super Bowl, etc. Management is naturally going to slam all content on the story on the free site ASAP to draw maximum clicks, rendering the pay site fundamentally inoperative.
    Also, as a former columnist, I find the idea that "people will pay for Dan, but not Tony" to be hilariously wrongheaded. There aren't 10 columnists of any kind, not just sports, that are why people buy the papers they're in. Columnists are the creamed spinach at the newspaper steak house. Tastes great, but it's not why you go.

    Like

  5. I have basically stopped reading the Globe so I don't really care what they do but I don't see how this can be successful. I also can't believe how much I used to look forward to the Sunday sports section and now it isn't even on my radar. This is just one more step in making the Globe a distant memory for me.

    How old is CHB? We are gonna be stuck with him being around for a long time aren't we?

    Like

  7. This idea of making visitors pay for content like reading articles from sports columnist will never work until they ban their writers from showing up all over tv and radio.
    Why would i pay to read about Shaughnessy thoughts on the Patriots when i can just listen to him in even greater detail for 4 hours for free on his radio show?

    If the Globe really wants to make this work then they can't allow their writers such as Shaughnessy give their opinions away for free on radio and ESPN,CSN appearences.
    And Jackie Mac and Bob Ryan doing those stupid shows like ATH,APTI which should be beneath them.

    That is part of the reason why almost no one reads the sports pages anymore because the writers are all over the place.

    Like

  8. It's not so much that they'll have 2 websites, one free and one pay

    it's more than they'll have 2 websites, one seldom read and one never read

    Like

  9. Michael Gee is correct. Sounds like The Globe just invented a competitor (itself).

    Also, didn't the Herald try this and it failed miserably?

    Like

Comments are closed.