Why Are Newspaper Subscribers Angry Over Online-Only Content?

from the don't-get-it dept

Tue, Jun 23rd 2009 8:20pm — Mike Masnick

We've definitely seen some newspapers who think that the solution to their troubles is to "withhold" content from their online sites, believing that this will somehow bring people back to paying for the physical paper, rather than have them just ignore the story altogether. However, I have to admit that I was quite surprised to read in the NY Times the reaction of some Washington Post paper subscribers to the news that the Post recently put an investigative report "online only," basically going in the opposite direction.

In reality, the Post got the equation right. Printing something in the paper is expensive -- and the paper decided it was more economical to put the content online and save on newsprint costs. And since the content was freely available online, who would complain? Apparently paper subscribers -- though I'm not sure what their real complaint is:

"Newspapers are going broke in part because news can be read, free of charge, on the Internet. As a nearly lifelong reader of The Post, I could not read this article in the paper I pay for and subscribe to; instead I came on it accidentally while scrolling online for business reasons."

This gets a few things wrong. The newspapers aren't going broke because they're putting news online for free. They're going broke due to dumb management decisions (massive debt) and an inability to recognize that their "captive audience" has gone away because they suddenly face competition. But the bigger point is that this guy isn't missing out on anything. The story is still available to him, as it is to everyone else. There's lots of stuff on the web that isn't included in the physical paper. Does he also complain about the fact that the website has comments that he can't read without going online?

In the end, it sounds like the people who are complaining have simply fallen into the same trap as those who believe that newspapers putting content online was a "mistake," rather than the only thing they could do if they wanted to compete in the market.

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: free, journalism, news, newspapers
Companies: washington post

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Joseph Durnal, 23 Jun 2009 @ 8:37pm

My Local Paper
My local paper recently dropped their Monday edition. Most thought it was no big deal, but I've noticed that the online content for Monday has suffered in quality, and quantity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone, 23 Jun 2009 @ 9:15pm
  
  Re: My Local Paper
  wouldn't surprise me if that was purely due to no longer putting any great effort into it based on the thought that only the printed paper Really mattered, or something along those lines.
  
  that is, still Because of the paper, rather than due to it's lack.
  
  of course, this is based on nothing in particular ^_^
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 8:50pm

yeah, those dumb consumers. Who needs them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
William C Bonner, 23 Jun 2009 @ 9:51pm

Paper is good for storage
The main problem with electronic media delivery is the lack of permanence. If a paper puts something up right now, it may be modified later with no record of the original.

Delayed, in depth, reporting is ideal for print because more time goes into putting together the story, and it should have a longer lasting impact. I'm not saying that the same content shouldn't be available on-line. I think more stuff being on-line is good, as well as the community aspects of feedback. I'm just concerned about the lack of permanence.

Wim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rena Mooney, 23 Jun 2009 @ 10:16pm
  
  Re: Paper is good for storage
  I've said almost the identical thing here. There's a danger in online-only content, which can be modified or deleted at will by any corporate interest, communist or dictatorial-minded government. That said, I am a hypocrite of the highest order, as I no longer subscribe to any print newspapers, but I do believe that printed content is invaluable. There's a security in content that once published cannot be erased.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 24 Jun 2009 @ 3:55am

I think the problem is that many people that subscribe to a newspaper regularly do so because they prefer it over reading articles online. They like the "paper" feel and have a hard time reading long text on a site. So for the article to not show up in the paper, and online only, is irritating to that crowd. They want the same content the online content provides but in the paper.

Granted, I'm not of that mindset. I prefer everything via RSS. For me the USA Today is USA Yesterday. However, the shift for paper subscribers to web is either going to have to happen overnight or the paper just closes up shop. Paper subscribers are loyal to the folded ink. Transitioning them, gently, is going be harder in the long run than moving completely to web. The newspaper company may lose money in the short term from subscribers (and refunds) but the long term benefits will be better...IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surfer, 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:57am

if you did your research, his complaint is that the article was online only, when in fact he pays for the newspaper that did NOT carry said article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ulrike Langer, 24 Jun 2009 @ 7:27am

Re: paper is good for storage
I agree with the "don't get it dept". What exactly is the reader angry about? That anyone can read the article online and not just the paying subscribers of the paper who should get an exclusive privilege? Or that he'll be able to find the article any time later by just typing some keywords into Google instead of rummaging through his pile of old newspapers or regretting that he tossed it into the garbage? ( That sentence is in reference to comments 4 and 5: Online is much better for storage)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimmyJ, 24 Jun 2009 @ 8:42am

It seems clear to me that the reader was upset that he was paying for a delivery mechanism for Washington Post articles and not getting them all that way. If I were paying the Washington Post to email me all of its articles and found out that they were not sending me all of them I would be upset too. When you find yourself paying for the value-added parts of a something that is infinite and free like news or music, you want to get all of what you think that you paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Petréa Mitchell, 24 Jun 2009 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  That's how I read it, too. This is part of the reason I dropped my subscription to Science News-- after their latest redesign, there was this graphic at the top of most of the news pages which essentially said, "This is an abridged version of the actual news story and you can only read the full version on our Web site." As someone who spends all day staring at a computer screen, I was willing to keep paying to be able to read it offline, but only as long as I actually got the whole thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 24 Jun 2009 @ 9:25am

online stories from the NY Times
Finish the story - did the NY Times put a note in the paper that there were stories online but not in the paper? If not, I agree with the complainer, if so, no sympathy.
However, you need to exercise your admittedly good reporting skills more effectively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason Phillips, 24 Jun 2009 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re: online stories from the NY Times
  did the NY Times put a note in the paper that there were stories online but not in the paper?
  Yes, it's in the Masthead of the Paper... it says "www.nytimes.com"
  Also, Who is this person they cite in the story?
  "As a nearly lifelong reader of The Post, I could not read this article in the paper I pay for and subscribe to;:
  This is a wrong-headed statement. He could read it in the "paper" he pays for. just not the one that arrives at his door.
  "instead I came on it accidentally while scrolling online for business reasons."
  And this... it has nothing to do with the story, but when I read this statement I see some 60+ luddite who writes letters to the editor every week to complain about some new-fangled technology or teenage dance fad that's going to destroy the U.S. Those are the people who are trying to legislate away the freedoms of the internet and destroy the viable hybrid economy. Those are the people we shouldn't listen to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 9:30am

I want my paper
I want my paper with all the stories at the breakfast table with my coffee. I might later go on-line to cut-n-paste parts of an article to send to someone, or to bookmark it for future reference, but in the AM I'm cranky - and I want all of the stories in the paper.

Someday a Kindle-like device might replace my morning paper. Someday. But that day isn't here yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 10:15pm
  
  Re: I want my paper
  I happen to like reading books, magazines, etc. that do not require batteries to work. Kinda hard to keep up with news when AC power is lost and batteries die out.
  
  Same goes for cameras. Digitals are nice until you run out of battery power and realize all your spares also also fully discharged.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]