Major Dailies to Cede Power, Influence to Joe McQuaid

"Register after ten clicks / month (4.00 / 2)

pay after 30," for the Telegraph - and "breaking news" doesn't count.

The devil is in the details. Does bringing up the main page - the web "front page" - without clicking on an article count? If not, this may be reasonable. If I read more than one full article every day, I should probably be paying somehow.

But will it work? That's a different question.

I just hope we figure out to pay for full-time journalists to do real work.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 19:15:37 PM CDT

I've been thinking about (0.00 / 0)

public radio pledge drives.

Obviously that would never work to run a print newspaper.

But it might work for an online operation.

The problem is the belief that the former operation can convert into the latter without other, newer business moving into sustainable online-only platforms first.  

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 19:22:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Details from the Telegraph on the new policy (4.00 / 2)

were emailed to me today:

10 pages per month before registration required
30 pages per month before subscription required
Print subscribers get full online access.

Breaking news and a few other sections will not count, and section fronts and the home page will not count toward the threshold

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 17:17:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A thought experiment (4.00 / 1)

Let's say that Blue Hampshire wanted to hire a full-time journalist, just one, to write articles for posting on Blue Hampshire, which would also be provided free of charge to every media outlet on the state on the condition that the article must be run as written, no editing permitted. This would not be a purely partisan political position; any New Hampshire news would be considered within this reporter's bailiwick. How much would Blue Hampshire be able to raise to pay for such a position, on at least a two-year salaried basis?

Alternatively, if people are willing to write articles for Blue Hampshire for free, and newspapers have to pay people to write articles for them, and it is a pure unmitigated good to have more articles in the public eye with a progressive viewpoint, would it not make sense to create an opt-in system for Blue Hampshire contributors to allow their articles to be reproduced (as written) in print media? Anyone who wanted to take a stab at citizen journalism could write an article, keep it up to paid-publication standards, post it here, and get printed.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 19:36:30 PM CDT

Interesting ideas. (4.00 / 3)

I've been pondering a more basic level of improvement idea:

if we had a pledge drive twice a year or so, with member benefits of some kind (which would not, of course, limit any content to those who don't pay, ala public radio or tv), could it support one or more than one persons?

I love my day job.  That said, I wonder what this place could become if it was more than just a hobby done when we all collectively have the time.  Not just content (which under that scenario could include, e.g., actual state house reporting, but platform as well.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 20:28:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People won't pay for web content. (0.00 / 0)

I, for one, would stop reading the Telegraph and the Monitor online (I'm not a subscriber) if they had paywalls.  It's a commitment I'm not willing to make.

As Dean points out, it's a good way to sacrifice relevance for not a lot of revenue.  They should learn from Newsday's big paywall fail.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 19:56:44 PM CDT

we are over-fond of newspapers because they and the country grew together (4.00 / 1)

That might be overstating. Anyway, i think the age of newspapers is over, and the age of national TV news is not far behind. The internet, on the other hand, despite having been around for fifteen years now, is in its infancy and will grow in ways still unimaginable.

In some ways, the internet is a return to the days when the country was small, and you could print your own pamphlets (Common Sense) and reach a substantial portion of the population. The analogy is imperfect to say the least, but it won't be too many more years before every partisan and partisanly neutral organization has its own information outlet: Nature Conservancy, Democratic Party, Tea Party, Gun Nuts Inc, Myth-busters, and FAIR. And somehow, I think facts will still be discernible by the discerning reader.

I mourn the passing of the impartial reporter, I grew up on Walter Cronkite myself, and I think it was a brief golden age of news. But I think the ideal will continue to be pursued on the burgeoning internet, in ways we still can't really picture.

Blue Hampshire has 306 facebook fans.  If each of them gave $100, you couldn't hire somebody full-time.  On the other hand, if you want to go after a part-time writer, i might chip in . . .

---

by: kite @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 22:36:06 PM CDT

No good metric exists. (0.00 / 0)

FB has 300+ fans, and we have close to 5000 registered users, and an unknown (and unknowable) number of readers.

According to one site meter (they are not all the same and are poor yardsticks, imo), we get around 1000 unique visitors and 4000 or so page views a day (higher during important issues and high election season, lower during typical political slow periods - though more recently it seems as if there never is a "slow" period anymore).

What I do know is that, despite the end of a massive election cycle (2008), the major growth of different social media platforms (Facebook/Twitter)and in the midst of a terrible recession, the site continues to grow.  Which is amazing to me, less so for BH but for the overall implications of how a community-based state level political blog fills a need.

It's difficult to know who of that group (and especially the unregistered readers, or "lurkers") would respond to a funding request.

I'm always amazed at how, when at a political function of some kind, I will meet someone I have no personal/social connection with but who has been reading for years.  Or alternately, when I'll get a clarifying or expanding email on a post from someone who is basically a long-time lurker, never commenter/diarist.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:37:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I was saying (4.00 / 1)

over here the other day, there are real costs associated with reasonably thorough, responsible journalism that takes the time and effort to do on-location shoeleather reporting, fact-checking, and well-crafted writing. Add to that the increasing need to be thoroughly competent in the realm of creating digital media, and it is clear that the hobby or subsistence approach won't cut it. People need to eat and pay the rent. So far, the model in recent history has been news mostly supported by advertising (political ads included). Paywalls actually work against this formula; if eyes and ears equal revenue, then cutting back on them is illogical.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

---

by: GreyMike @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 22:39:15 PM CDT

The latest pipe-dream seems to be to have everyone (0.00 / 0)

convert over to what Visa calls "digital currency."  That's because there's a perception that people using electronic money transfer systems are easy to tap for profit.  This is consistent with how to make the most money having replaced how to provide a valuable product as the prime objective of American enterprise.  
Maybe it's not a matter of replacement.  Maybe how to relieve people of their assets without them noticing it has always been central to American enterprise--extractive instead of creative.  That is, enterprise is motivated by acquiring wealth, rather than making something worth compensating.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:44:17 AM CDT

For me, it's the required log in that... (4.00 / 1)

The problem for me is the logging in. If I'm taking 10 minutes from my lunch break to check headlines, I don't want to have to log in to every page I visit.  It's a hassle, especially as I'm usually eating so have only one hand to type with.  

Of course, I very rarely click on web ads, so probably no one cares whether they are going to lose my eyeballs.

---

by: Karen @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 10:18:56 AM CDT

For an international take (4.00 / 1)

on all of this paywall vs. free info stuff, check out yesterday's Charlie Rose interview with Dr. Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer (Die Welt, Bild, etc.) and his view of the future of journalism in the digital age (as well as his views on the POTUS, and several other subjects). Basically, he is advocating a mix of ad-supported/free, clickpay, and exclusive content to pay the bills, and says the "death of journalism" meme is nonsense. Interesting ideas from a high-altitude perspective, also discusses impact of iPad and tablet devices.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

---

by: GreyMike @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:32:48 AM CDT

Semi-Related Question (0.00 / 0)

Could anyone suggest good ad platforms for those hosting websites? I have not heard back from Google Adsense for weeks now, I took a look at payperpost.com today, but i'm still looking around.

I'm wondering if a hybrid of the two revenue streams (advertising/donations) may be the solution, perhaps a 80/20 or 90/10 breakdown.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 16:13:20 PM CDT