VTTW Board Index

 :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird:

I second that.  :frown:

Yeah, because this worked out so well the last time they tried it. :frown:

 :dielaughing: :dielaughing: :dielaughing: :dielaughing: :dielaughing:

My reaction.

What'd they do?    :confused:

as of this morning, with no warning I am aware of, went to subscription only for online content

As BDV noted, it worked really well the last time :rolleyes:

I hope they choke on their oatmeal!!! :bird: :bird: :bird: The Tennessean did the same thing and i will never buy another one of their fishwrappers agaun! This sucks.

So let me get this straight... they want us to PAY to read John Adams?

Lol.   :wow:

 :loco:

It's been in the works for quite some time now (they officially announced it yesterday morning and have had it plastered on their websites for the past 24 hours, and they've casually mentioned that it was coming for months). I hated to see it coming, but it was inevitable. This is the future with newspapers. For that matter, it's the future for any site that offers in-depth original content. We made the switch with our weekly newspaper in February, and 3 of the weeklies around us (all of which are also in the KNS's market) have done so as well. Larger papers like the NYT and the WSJ have made the switch and more will follow.

They have to. We're all moving to digital consumption of news and information, but the digital advertising model simply doesn't work. Web advertising generates pennies on the dollar vs. print advertising. Yet newspapers still have the same costs they've always had. Even if they ditched their print publications altogether and eliminated all the bloated overhead that goes with it, there's no way for them to sustain their news-gathering, editing, etc.

No one complains about Rivals' paywall, or Scout.com's paywall, or 247's paywall. What's the difference? Yes, you generally get more in-depth information from those services, but it's all relative...you also pay more, for a much more specific niche, than with newspaper subscriptions. The real difference is that those sites were subscription-based from the beginning. When Al Gore's internet started to become popular in the '90s, newspapers everywhere made the mistake of rushing to develop a web presence. That was smart, because it was inevitable even then that digital delivery of their product would ultimately overwhelm other methods of delivery. What wasn't smart is that they pushed most or all of their content to the 'net for free. Which made absolutely no sense. They never gave away their print edition for free; why give away the same info in digital format? Folks became accustomed to it and now there's a backlash as a result.

But the inevitability of this is clear. If the KNS doesn't start charging online readers for content, the KNS will cease to exist. It wouldn't happen as quickly as it's happening in some other cities because the KNS has long been a very solid newspaper, but it would happen. The same thing goes with every other newspaper. The Chatty TFP will follow suit eventually. The Tennessean will strengthen its paywall. You can bet the Commercial Appeal already has plans in the works. In a perfect world, advertising would pay the bills, the newspapers could deliver digital info and everyone would be happy. But so far no one has developed an advertising model that will cut it (and at this point it's probably safe to say that they never will). And unless this ever-increasing interest in digital vs. print turns out to be a fad (unlikely), finding a way to survive in a digital world is the only option. It isn't just newspapers waging this battle. Online-only news/information sites are fighting it as well, which is why so many online startups that were going to provide an alternative to cities' newspapers have come and gone. The major sites that do continue to exist (Politico.com is one that immediately comes to mind) without paywalls are largely still in the experiment stage and haven't yet turned a profit. They're still in the red, for the most part.

Some will say that they can get the same info elsewhere for free, and they will . . . for a while. But as other newspapers make the same move the KNS made, that info will start drying up. (That's one of the primary reasons the KNS's attempt to move to a paywall failed last time . . . that and the fact that they were only halfway committed to it. The landscape has changed drastically over the past 7 or 8 years.) There are going to be new technologies that make it much more difficult for subscribers to services like VolQuest.com and others to take the information they glean from those sites and post it on messageboards. TV stations will always be able to provide free content because they're on a different model and they're able to supplement their sports staff and web operations with TV advertising, but that info is rarely in-depth because they don't make the same investment to it that newspapers and the paysites make. Right now, a lot of people who say they can get the same info online for free are relying on blogs, but blogs are in large part just regurgitating the info provided by the newspapers. My dad always said he would never buy a newspaper because he can get the same political news from blogs. I asked him how many newspaper websites he visited on a daily basis. He said none. Then we sat down and started counting the links. Of course he was visiting them. He was just going in the back door (via links on blog posts) rather than the front door.

For better or worse, it's the future. The audacity of those journalists...they expect to get a paycheck at the end of the week just like everyone else.

I you were angry about their move to digital subscriptions, then you probably weren't buying the fishwrapper version to begin with.  :laugh:

Creek, I'm sure you're absolutely right about all of this. It was inevitable and they have to make money. I just wonder whether it will actually make much difference in the amount of subscription business they do. I suspect it won't. I don't know what the future of journalism is at this point and it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

BTW, the TFP site is already somewhat restricted . . . if you don't subscribe you can view only a limited number of articles in a certain time period. I ran into that a couple of weeks ago so I've made it a point to only ever read Patrick Brown there . . . else I might get locked out of his articles.

why should I?
And get already late new 2-3 days later?
You can get PRINT subscriptions CHEAPER than the digital subscription!  :rolleyes:

BTW for several years I did subscribe to the print edition by mail (back in the 70's)

While it's no biggie to me as I still subscribe to the weekend hard copy package and therefore I am a subscriber by default and can access everything online, it is a big move for them.  It's interesting that they begin this 5 days before UT's first football game.  Yeah, I am a fossil, but I still like holding a Sunday newspaper in my hand while reading it and drinking my non-Starbucks bought coffee. 

Another interesting note is that even the News-Sentinel employees are having to subscribe and pay for the subscriptions out of their own pockets.  I had a discussion about that with one of the N-S guys who is a good friend.  Not happy days in that building right now, as they are cutting back on many things. 

As Clocky mentioned, just not sure about the future of the News-Sentinel, nor of the entire newspaper industry right now. 

I talked to several editors/publishers of both small community papers and dailies in medium-sized markets before we pulled the trigger on our paywall. Based on what they told me, and what we've experienced with ours, newspapers average an increase of between 5%-10% in the first 12 months that the paywall is up. Obviously that isn't enough to offset the circulation that has been lost since ~2003, unless the rate of subscription purchases holds steady beyond the first 12 months, and it stands to reason that it won't. But for the most part this pay-to-read model is still too early in its infancy to know exactly what the future holds. A big key is going to be more and more newspapers going to that model.

It isn't set in stone. Things will change as the situation evolves. If I were guessing, I would say the future of digital subscriptions will be modeled in one of two directions, or maybe a combination of both: 1.) Newspapers will form partnerships (i.e., maybe all 4 of Tennessee's major metro dailies) and one subscription will allow across-the-board access, 2.) The iTunes method will be adopted, where you pay only for the stories you read instead of a flat subscription fee. The latter is especially promising, but no one has been willing to take the plunge and test it so far. Card transaction fees are a major stumbling block there.

I understand why they are doing it but don't like the amount they are charging.  Wish they had a "weekend" only option for on-line subscriptions.  I hardly ever read the online articles M-Th anyway.

I saw that the monthly online only is what, $12.99? 

We only pay about $11 per month for the weekend delivery (Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday) subscription, so it actually costs a little less to do it that way.  Granted most of the time the Thursday paper gets thrown straight in the recycle bin, but I do read the hard copies on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, plus I read everything online the other days and updates on the weekend. 

Honestly, if you want local news it's still not a bad deal. 

Well that's 15-20 minutes out of my day that I get back.

I'll just wait on you guys to tell me what was in the articles. Paraphrased of course.  :biggrin:

Are there any free sites that offer good Vols stories and coverage?  I dont care what the newspaper industry folks are telling me, times are changing and If the newspaper industry doesnt figure out how to make money with advertising on free digital copy then they are toast!!!  Musicians used to make their money on selling Cds, albums,etc....now you can get anything free, Yet I dont hear about any good musicians going broke.  I dont care what the newspaper industry tells my, I will not pay for information that is on cyberspace.  I will root it out through other sources or figure out a way to read it free....even if I have to cheat to do it!  I hate that I have to now read the Chattanooga paper to get info about things going on in the Mid-state but they are free and are now my number one go-to....for now until they start charging. 

Anyone who wants to send me KNS articles of interest, please feel free to do so.  There was an article in the outdoors section by Bob Hodge on hunting Canada Geese and Sandhill cranes that I would like to read if anyone wants to send it to me or wants to post it.  Thanks.  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm sure some of the premium Vols coverage out there is worth the price.  I can't imagine the KNS sports coverage being worth it.

I wouldn't pay their asking price just for their sports coverage, but I have no problem with that price for the complete package. They do have so many readers who are strictly reading for sports, though, that I think they may be missing the boat by not offering a cheaper subscription that includes GoVolsXtra only.

Hollerboy, what difference does it make whether it's on cyberspace or on a printed page? It's the same information. It's a little cheaper to produce it for the internet as opposed to the printed page, but there isn't much of an end difference for the consumer. Newspapers to music is an apples-oranges comparison. For newspapers, the stories they crank out are their only product. For musicians, albums and singles are just a portion of their product. But they ARE losing a lot of money because of the pirating that goes on, which is why the RIAA is so aggressively pursuing copyright infringements. Sure, there are ways out there to get the info for free. Someone can cut-and-paste the article from the KNS as you're requesting, or they can even share their password with you. Password-sharing happens all the time on sites like Volquest. But we're already in the beginning stages of seeing premium sites beginning to implement technology that detects password-sharing and there will be more advances on down the road that prevent other forms of content-sharing. Subscribers will risk a non-refundable loss of their access. As they should. What you're suggesting is no different than piggy-backing off your neighbor's unsecured wifi signal, or having your neighbor purchase a second satellite box and place it in your house. It might seem innocent enough, but it's still stealing at its very core.

I disagree...musicians actually create the music....reporters dont create the news...they just report it. I know there are differences but i doubt the papers will stop advertising just because people are paying to read it. Cable started out as a way to watch tv without having to watch commercials but now we pay for the programming and still have to watch the commercials. They are double dipping imo. Do one or the other.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe a better way is that advertising is a way to make subscriptions more affordable. Trust me, if most newspapers could get by without having to charge for subscriptions, they wouldn't. We kicked around the idea a couple of years ago of going to a free-disribution format for our print edition. But the math just didn't add up. Most newspapers are not making huge profits. Some are, but they're very few and very far between. Most newspapers are simply a break-even venture, and that predates even Mr. Gore taking the initiative to create the internet. The old standard formula for newspaper gross revenue is 20% circulation/80% advertising. There aren't many businesses in any sector that can afford to cut 20% of their gross revenue, and the reality is that as advertising has declined in the '00s, that formula is shifting towards the circulation side even though circulation numbers have declined.

I don't live in Knoxville so I am only interested in the sports coverage.  Now that they are charging, guess I just need to compare against other paysites for what they offer. 

I can't remember the last time I went directly to the KNS web site for any information, sports or otherwise.  So, I couldn't care less if they will now charge for what I don't use.   :wink: 

Just think- if they had done this a week earlier, we could have avoided that whole Fulmer thread. :wink:

So an Adams/Fulmer hate thread goes 75+ post and I barely make 25 with a full on hate KNS post :dunno:

I'm doing my best to help you out!!  :biggrin:

Me too!!!

I will admit that it was nice to be able to turn on the computer and read an online story about the Vols (even if John Adams wrote it). The articles were good to read and kept me up to date on football. While I understand the business side of it, I can live without it and can wait until Sunday to read or Monday as well.

Hey, John Adams is technically a "good writer"... I'll admit that.  He's good at his job.  But imo if someone is charging for something it better be interesting.  And KNS articles, while informative, are just not interesting.

Write, maybe, performing functions of a human being, most definitely NO! :bird:

I wonder if they'll put Adams' columns behind the paywall? Most newspapers make all op-ed material free-for-all reads, although there is a growing argument amongst some industry analysts that a subscription-based site should be grown around personalities (which are usually columnists or investigative reporters, etc.) rather than content.

I don't know why anyone would pay for a subscription just to read Adams' stuff...or any opinion columnist's stuff, for that matter. I'm on record as being a big Adams fan, even though he can piss me off unlike anyone else, but he doesn't bring anything new to the table. That's just the nature of a columnist's job, in most cases. Whether it's sports or politics, op-ed pieces tell you how to think. I don't want to pay to read stuff that tells me how to think. I want to pay to read stuff that gives me something to base my opinions on.

Based on a sample size of today the answer is yes.

In my personal dealings with Adams he has been nothing other than a flaming jackass.