Denver Post to Charge for Online Content

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:54:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Is this the wave of the future for newspapers?

MediaNews Group, who owns the Denver Post and 53 other daily newspapers, plans to stop providing free online access to all its newspaper content on its Web sites. According to the Denver Business Journal, MediaNews CEO William Dean Singleton wrote a memo to employees saying, "We cannot continue to give all our content away for free."

The MediaNews memo said, "We continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free. Not only does this erode our print circulation, it devalues the core of our business -- the great local journalism we (and only we) produce on a daily basis."

Seems very short-sighted to me. Fewer online eyes means fewer clicks for advertisers which will lead to decreased ad revenue. There must be a better answer.

< Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread | Justice Breyer on Art and Food >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Denver Post to Charge for Online Content | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Having just cut off delivery to the Western Slope (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by rdandrea on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:23:03 PM EST

I'd say this seals the fate of the Denver Post.

Now, no longer will people statewide read the print edition, they won't read the online edition either.

Readers will just go elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by MyLeftMind on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:58:58 PM EST

to get the news. Given that paper newspapers are not good for the world, and blogs give a more diverse perspective to the news, they're just going to have to develop new business models if they want to survive.

Bottom line: What's it worth to us? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:44:39 PM EST

Do you offer free legal advice -- a broad base of knowledge that's been accumulated by you through many years of education and professional experience -- to anyone and everyone who asks?

With the obvious exception of your pro bono work, of course not. After all, you have to make a living, same as everyone else.

That admonition doesn't apply exclusively to you, Jeralyn, but rather to all of us here, myself included. My initial reaction to your news that the Denver Post will soon charge for online access was one of resentment toward the paper. But then, I got to thinking -- why do we expect newspapers and journalists to be so foolish when plying their wares and vocations, that we expect them to just give it away in perpetuity?

Is the convenience of reading Denver Post online worth, say, $5.00 / mo. to you? $10.00? I'll tell you one thing that's a dead- certainty -- if local people don't support the paper to the point where it can remain a viable ongoing business concern, then it will follow in the doomed footsteps of the late Rocky Mountain News.

And THAT would be a shame.

Aloha.

What we do know (none / 0) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:20:34 PM EST

is in the "free" world of the internet, people expect everything to be free. If something isn't free, the traffic will diminish greatly.

The only for-pay model that works is advertising. They need to go that route. Trying the paid subscription service route will only cut their traffic, so they'll have to build that traffic back up when their business model ultimately fails and they have to go the heavy duty advertising route.

[ Parent ]

Well, the counterpoint to that (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:23:04 PM EST

is that TV was "free" for a long time. Now your cable bill is probably $50/month. Twice that or more if you have high speed internet.

I don't think that the analogy is wonderful, but it's not terrible either.

[ Parent ]

Basic television (none / 0) (#15)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:06:25 PM EST

is still free -- the first 13 channels -- and even high definition.

You still have to pay for magazines. That's the equivalent of for-pay TV.

The reality however, is for-pay internet doesn't work. That's why Yahoo and Google don't charge.

That's why NY Times gave up on charging.

[ Parent ]

Well, your OTA TV is still free (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:32:59 PM EST

but can you still watch all of your home team sports for free? There's a good chance you need expanded basic cable for that now.

Pay web doesn't seem to work now, but that's not guaranteed forever.

[ Parent ]

: One of the reasons I started paying for cable (none / 0) (#19)
by nycstray on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:55:59 PM EST

again. When Yankees went to Yes, Mets to SNY (or whatever it is), I hightailed it back to cable. A few of my friends have cable for sports on the other coast, which I will be doing when I move. Some things in life are non-negotiable, watching my sports teams is one of them. Plus I get the added benefit of food and green channels ;)

[ Parent ]

But (none / 0) (#18)
by CoralGables on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:33:43 PM EST

what would happen if newspapers and magazines charged yahoo and google to use their news links? Yahoo and google get all their info for free only because the news sites provide it.

[ Parent ]

Interesting, isn't it? (none / 0) (#21)
by Fabian on Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:19:53 AM EST

People will shell out literally hundreds of dollars a month in electronic media subscriptions. Ours is probably $100+/month and all we have is DSL and a land line - no cable, no cell/blackberry/iphone and no satellite anything.

If people don't think a newspaper is valuable enough to support it financially, then it is economically kaput. Certainly people can afford to support a newspaper, the question is whether they choose to.

[ Parent ]

Thing is (none / 0) (#13)
by nycstray on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:32:14 PM EST

online ads will prob become more invasive. They need to work to pay off for the advertiser. I for one don't pay an ounce of attention to online ads. When I used to read the paper, I did notice them more. You can actually click through an ad much faster than you can get off a paper ad. Be interesting (gulp!) to see how online advertising evolves.

[ Parent ]

I'm not convinced that... (none / 0) (#14)
by EL seattle on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:03:23 PM EST

..."advertising" is a magic word that solves all problems. Advertisiong on the internet can often be sucessful, but right now it's being boosted to some degree by hype and panic that could end at any time if advertisers decide that local radio or targeted cable TV buys are more cost effective for them.

I think that everything is an experiment these days.

[ Parent ]

: But (none / 0) (#16)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:09:10 PM EST

for-pay firewalls work even less well.
As long as one next door neighbor is offering the service for free, why would you pay for the service from the other one....and on the internet, everyone is your next door neighbor. That's why for-pay doesn't work.

[ Parent ]

Does a free society need newspapers? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by womanwarrior on Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:35:49 AM EST

I worry that there will no longer be professional journalists to do investigative reporting. Of course, the media moguls like Murdoch have been trying to kill real reporting and give us press releases from the powers that be. The NYT really embarrassed itself during the Bush administration. That may be why newspapers are dying: the powers want them to die.
How can investigative journalists support themselves? I still feel that I get more info from the Philadelphia Inquirer than I get from TV "news."
Blogs are good for points of view, but the old requirements of verifying info don't always apply. You can't always believe what you read on the internet. And how do bloggers support themselves?
I feel a little like a dinosaur, but I like newspapers and I don't want them to die. I like professional journalists. I don't want only what the entertainment news feeds us.

: But there is the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by kdog on Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:03:11 AM EST

of the newspapers doing less and less investigative journalism...to get real-deal investigative journalism you need to read non-fiction books from journalists, the papers don't seem to care much about investigating anything anymore, they are trying to copy the tv news with quick soundbites and press releases only.

[ Parent ]

The NYTimes tried this experiment (none / 0) (#1)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:17:53 PM EST

for several years.... note they have free access again.

I Believe (none / 0) (#7)
by CoralGables on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:30:51 PM EST

the NY Times experiment was limited to content dealing with their opinion writers. The regular news was still available online.

The Washington Post noted the other day that ad revenue from their print edition was still 3-4 times the revenue from the online site. Perhaps Denver is actually headed in a more profitable direction.

[ Parent ]

: You're probably right (none / 0) (#9)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:14:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: I looked it up (none / 0) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:17:44 PM EST

and they charged for columnists AND archives
Regardless, they tried the experiment and it didn't work....I suspect it will work even less well if Denver's whole web site is restricted.

[ Parent ]

Charging doesn't work (none / 0) (#3)
by Exeter on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:36:19 PM EST

I don't know what the answer is for newspapers. TV works. Radio works. Online advertising works.

: NPR/PBS are still chugging along. (none / 0) (#22)
by Fabian on Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:24:57 AM EST

We have public statewide reporting as well.
Our local paper is nicknamed the Columbus Disgrace. The owners are strongly conservative. I read the editorials to see how the Right views current political issues.
NPR & PBS aren't perfect, but they have a better signal to noise ratio than a lot of news media.

[ Parent ]

FWIW, my mother just gifted me (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:41:37 PM EST

a year's subscription to the WSJ. She supposedly got it for a song.

Everyone in the business is struggling, and I actually think what's going to happens is that in most places the physical paper will disappear.

You should try moving your daughter (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:25:02 AM EST

during a physical newpaper shortage. You have nothing to wrap breakables in. I drove all over Northport looking for newspapers, finally gave up and bought a case of papertowels and did my best with it. Doesn't work as well at all.

[ Parent ]

If you have to do it again (none / 0) (#29)
by nycstray on Wed May 13, 2009 at 02:14:52 PM EST

you can buy blank newsprint. I used to buy it to draw on. I love the big over sized sheets. And much cheaper than art tablets of newsprint. We also used to dumpster dive behind printing facilities for heavier paper from print runs and just use the backsides. Nuttin' more fun than being a broke art student, lol!~

[ Parent ]

I thought about that too (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 13, 2009 at 02:41:20 PM EST

But where do you buy newsprint in Northport NY with no notice?

[ Parent ]

: Uhaul etc (none / 0) (#31)
by nycstray on Wed May 13, 2009 at 02:52:58 PM EST

I used to just go to any local moving company.

[ Parent ]

I hope this is the beginning of a trend (none / 0) (#6)
by Radiowalla on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:10:52 PM EST

I'm not all that keen on paying subscrptions, but I'm even less keen on witnessing he demise of our print media.

I subscribe to my local rag, to the NYTimes and to a few online sources. I never feel badly about supporting journalism.

That being said, I recognize that my addiction to media is not shared by very many.

Proposal for newspapers (none / 0) (#23)
by Coral on Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:57:57 AM EST

I agree that newspapers must be paid for content in order to sustain true investigative reporting and beat reporting, which is expensive and not able to be sustained by most blog sites (which also need funding for original content to remain professional).

I haven't seen, but would like to see, something that bundles access to many journalistic sites. What if you could buy internet access to 1. your local paper, plus 2. a regional paper plus 3. access to major national and a choice of international dailies?

Since newspapers save so much on delivery with Internet over paper news, this type of model could be provided for a lower monthly fee.

If you are subscribing to cable, you get a bundle of channels, not just one. So this is a similar model.

I now pay (a HUGE amount) for delivery of NY Times plus local paper. I'd certainly be willing to change to Internet access to both for a lower monthly fee. Especially if that access came with some important sweeteners, like access to archives, extra puzzles, etc.

I too pay that huge amount for home (none / 0) (#24)
by easilydistracted on Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:17:11 AM EST

delivery of the NYT. Home delivery does include unlimited access to all those "sweeteners" you mention. For me, however, its just not the same working the Times crossword online. I've even tried a print version from my laserjet. Still not the same. I guess its something about the feel of newsprint.

[ Parent ]

Pre sudoku (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:21:39 AM EST

I loved some New York Times crossword puzzle.

[ Parent ]

: Yep. Even with my subscription, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by easilydistracted on Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:34:37 AM EST

I will still buy the published compilations of Times puzzles at my local Borders (I know, go figure). I could have them all free, yet I still buy those books. Oh well. Unless I start it within a mere hour or so of taking my Concerta, sudoku is outside my range of focus.

[ Parent ]