Media News Trying To Make Its Website Both More And Less Valuable At The Same Time
from the good-luck-with-that dept
Romenesko is running an interesting memo from newspaper publisher Media News on its plans to adapt to the internet era (a bit late for that, right?). There are some interesting suggestions in there, but what struck me is how Media News is trying to make its online property both more valuable on the one hand, and less valuable on the other. It talks about taking away content from the online site and forcing people to buy newspapers:We will begin to move away from putting all of our newspaper content online for free. Instead, we will explore a variety of premium offerings that apply real value to our print content. We are not trying to invent new premium products, but instead tell our existing print readers that what they are buying has real value, and to our online audience (who don’t buy the print edition), that if you want access to all online content, you are going to have to register, and/or pay.Note the problem? It's in that third sentence, where Media News claims it's going to tell users that print newspapers have value. Commerce doesn't work that way. You don't tell your customers what has value, they tell you. All you can do is focus on providing more value. So, this first step seems to be a mistake. It's taking away value from the online property in an effort to try to convince people that the paper has more value, rather than actually increasing the value of the product.
Separately, however, the organization is looking to provide more tools and value online -- recognizing that their online site is not just "the newspaper on the web," but that it allows totally new things to occur -- including more detailed local information and community-enabling tools. That's good... but considering the talk of locking up other content, it makes you wonder how far Media News will actually go. It sounds like they're trying to do two contradicting things at once -- which seems likely to make sure the more important one (providing more value) fails.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, newspapers
Companies: media news
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desperate measures
You are right, newspapers need to listen to consumers, understand what they are willing to pay for, and to provide it better than anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy Dinky
As for his "local.com". Has he not heard of Westword or Yelp or Twitter or Facebook or Colorado Pols? YourHub.com has been an utter failure, who can believe that MediaNews can create a local presence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy Dinky
Tell me about it.
When we "redesigned" our website, we had to pick from a handful of Media News's templates. Nearly everything on our front page is done through rss feeds because their database is useless. The result is an ugly page that we have very little control over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i usually don't agree with mike
the [successful] news industry is two tiered. the top tier sells news with access to a community. the bottom tier sells just the news. there are a whole lot more of the bottom tier than the top, and these guys are in the bottom. unless every single news outlet erected the paywall simultaneously, there's no way they can win because people just go elsewhere. and if they do all erect a paywall simultaneously, you're looking at a sherman act violation. even then, it's like when professors in school said they'd do a fixed curve no matter how the students did. just by the shear number of people in the room, there's no way everyone would purposely do poorly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]