Apparently Gannett thinks people will pay for online content for its newspapers that long-time subscribers have opted against paying. WRTV reports that the Indianapolis Star and other Gannett newspapers will
begin charging for access to online content by the end of this year.
The Indianapolis Star and other community newspapers owned by Gannett will begin charging for online content by the end of the year.
Gannett told investors Wednesday that it will limit access to its content for those who don't subscribe and that it expects the move to paid content will generate an additional $100 million in earnings beginning in 2013.
The company plans to charge for all of its digital content. USA Today, Gannett's nationally distributed newspaper, is not part of the pay-to-view plan.
The WRTV story says Star reporters began tweeting about the change soon after the new policy was announced, including this tweet by Bob Kravitz:
"My guess is there will be initial reticence about paying for online content, but over time, readers will see what they're missing," tweeted sports columnist Bob Kravitz.
Don't hold your breath counting on that to happen, Bob. We're talking about the Star, not the NY Times.
7 comments:
The problem is the content is so poor now. There is an occasional top-notch article in the paper, but they are few and far between. It's mostly just AP articles in the front section. There is very little in the way of local news. And the columnnists won't touch anything remotely controversial. Why is anyone going to pay for that content. I can see paying for the IBJ, but for the Star? Not until they bring the quality of their reporting up to the IBJ.
Ironically Kravitz is probably the best columnist in the newspaper.
I sent this to Bob Kravitz.
At least in my case your are wrong about this reader coming around to pay for the Indy Star online. While I will miss columns, like yours, I can do without reading the Indy Star. There will be so many other free places to read news about Indy that the already irrelevant Indy Star home delivered newspaper will become more irrelevant if it charges for online content.
I received this back from Bob Kravitz.
Thanks for the note. Well find out
Apparently the Star thinks it is the Wall Street Journal and people will pony up their dollars to read the Star online. Why should I pay for their online news? I subscribe to their paper now, mainly for the comics, and frankly don't see much difference between their online stories and the print stories. Besides with all of the local tv stations online how much news does I need?
Boy are they in for a surmise.
If they charge what it's worth, I'm in for 2 cents.
If they put out a paper of the quality and detail it was, say back in 1970 when someone knowledgable actually edited the reporters' copy, and if they delivered in a Kindle or iPad style format where it was a conventional newspaper layout style and I could also keep all my back issues to re-read and search, I would pay for that.
To pay for the jumbled, slow, archaic, hodgepodge of a website they have now? Nuh-uh.
I read the sports and do the crossword puzzle. The rest of the paper I skim though unless something catches my eye. So far haven't had any eye strain. And speaking of the t v news online..When I do have a news broadcast, evidently the weather persons are the stars..weather previews and the forecasts...5 times in a hour! It's no wonder the news anchors always say 'for more on this story log onto (TV web site)and click on....' Not happening here! Sorry but I'm not getting up and get the laptop.
Post a Comment