Greg Auman leaving the USF beat

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

so we're getting a new blogger and now the times is going to start charging to read online after 15 reads

nice..............

http://www.tampabay.com/news/for-some-readers-tampabaycom-starts-charging/2141337?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Weak...

how do you suppose they feed their kids? they can't work for free.

The same way thousands of other "free" sites make money...advertisements. How does reducing your clicks/site visits help sell more ads?

Guess that's why I'm not in the news business...

ask Brad how much revenue ads generate. I'm guessing they don't pay for his servers let alone any other overhead a newspaper may incur such as staff salaries, etc.

Clearly you run a newspaper.

 

clearly I don't but I certainly can read one. try it sometime.

 

newspaper ad revenue has been plummeting for awhile. there have been layoffs and closures. they will have to be supported by online subscriptions as well as ad revenue if they want to survive. that's why the new york times and wall street journal charge them.

 

nobody is forcing you to pay for their services. you can continue to use your "free" sources.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Bull94

[NCBull]

I tried reading a newspaper once.  It hurt my tiny brain so I had to stop.  And that was just the first page of the comics!  Me no likey big words or difficuwt concepts.

 

Or maybe--like the rest of the 21st century world--I read my news online.  They have newspapers online these days, you might have heard back in 1994.  Wisely or not, when the internet became the primary medium for news, the industry set up much of that content as free.  I still get all of my news free, and stay reasonably informed via a free news aggregator.  This handy tool, my old-fashioned chum, allows me to get thousands of FREE news articles from multiple sources on a range of topics that I decide I'm interested in.  These are not lame reprints of yesterday's news (like the dead tree that's delivered to your driveway each morning), but rather news that JUST happened...like 30 minutes ago.  And the sources are Reuters, AP, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, etc.  Sounds like the Times' sources, wouldn't you agree?  I can even customize it to get local news, USF news, comic strips, whatever.  Did I mention this was all fantastically FREE?

 

Perhaps I'm alone in this way of reading news.  Or perhaps I'm like most news readers out there, which is why the Times is trying this (desperate and too-late) tactic.  But where I once would visit their website regularly and follow Bulls coverage from Greg and participate in online chats, comments, etc....now I will not visit their site at all.  I'll rely on my FREE sources, Twitter, GoBulls.com, and (sadly) ESPN/SI/CFN/etc....which, again, are all FREE.  To my simpleton non-newspaper-running business sense, it's the wrong strategy from the Times to take to stay relevant in the 21st century news world.  But I'm just some dumb schmuck who should try and read a newspaper, right pal?

[JTrue]

Edited September 13, 2013 by JTrue

[Southshore26]

I tried reading a newspaper once.  It hurt my tiny brain so I had to stop.  And that was just the first page of the comics!  Me no likey big words or difficuwt concepts.

 

Or maybe--like the rest of the 21st century world--I read my news online.  They have newspapers online these days, you might have heard back in 1994.  Wisely or not, when the internet became the primary medium for news, the industry set up much of that content as free.  I still get all of my news free, and stay reasonably informed via a free news aggregator.  This handy tool, my old-fashioned chum, allows me to get thousands of FREE news articles from multiple sources on a range of topics that I decide I'm interested in.  These are not lame reprints of yesterday's news (like the dead tree that's delivered to your driveway each morning), but rather news that JUST happened...like 30 minutes ago.  And the sources are Reuters, AP, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, etc.  Sounds like the Times' sources, wouldn't you agree?  I can even customize it to get local news, USF news, comic strips, whatever.  Did I mention this was all fantastically FREE?

 

Perhaps I'm alone in this way of reading news.  Or perhaps I'm like most news readers out there, which is why the Times is trying this (desperate and too-late) tactic.  But where I once would visit their website regularly and follow Bulls coverage from Greg and participate in online chats, comments, etc....now I will not visit their site at all.  I'll rely on my FREE sources, Twitter, GoBulls.com, and (sadly) ESPN/SI/CFN/etc....which, again, are all FREE.  To my simpleton non-newspaper-running business sense, it's the wrong strategy from the Times to take to stay relevant in the 21st century news world.  But I'm just some dumb schmuck who should try and read a newspaper, right pal?

 

Um... you do realize that almost every paper in every major market is going to the same format right? Those that haven't already more than likely have it in the works. Yes, your ESPN, FOX and CNN will most likely remain free... but your local papers will be pay per view. The Times isn't the first to go this route and won't be the last.

[Triple B]

 

I tried reading a newspaper once.  It hurt my tiny brain so I had to stop.  And that was just the first page of the comics!  Me no likey big words or difficuwt concepts.

 

Or maybe--like the rest of the 21st century world--I read my news online.  They have newspapers online these days, you might have heard back in 1994.  Wisely or not, when the internet became the primary medium for news, the industry set up much of that content as free.  I still get all of my news free, and stay reasonably informed via a free news aggregator.  This handy tool, my old-fashioned chum, allows me to get thousands of FREE news articles from multiple sources on a range of topics that I decide I'm interested in.  These are not lame reprints of yesterday's news (like the dead tree that's delivered to your driveway each morning), but rather news that JUST happened...like 30 minutes ago.  And the sources are Reuters, AP, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, etc.  Sounds like the Times' sources, wouldn't you agree?  I can even customize it to get local news, USF news, comic strips, whatever.  Did I mention this was all fantastically FREE?

 

Perhaps I'm alone in this way of reading news.  Or perhaps I'm like most news readers out there, which is why the Times is trying this (desperate and too-late) tactic.  But where I once would visit their website regularly and follow Bulls coverage from Greg and participate in online chats, comments, etc....now I will not visit their site at all.  I'll rely on my FREE sources, Twitter, GoBulls.com, and (sadly) ESPN/SI/CFN/etc....which, again, are all FREE.  To my simpleton non-newspaper-running business sense, it's the wrong strategy from the Times to take to stay relevant in the 21st century news world.  But I'm just some dumb schmuck who should try and read a newspaper, right pal?

 

Um... you do realize that almost every paper in every major market is going to the same format right? Those that haven't already more than likely have it in the works. Yes, your ESPN, FOX and CNN will most likely remain free... but your local papers will be pay per view. The Times isn't the first to go this route and won't be the last.

 

 

Save it .... You're talking to one of the entitlement generation.

[2000bull]

 

 

I tried reading a newspaper once.  It hurt my tiny brain so I had to stop.  And that was just the first page of the comics!  Me no likey big words or difficuwt concepts.

 

Or maybe--like the rest of the 21st century world--I read my news online.  They have newspapers online these days, you might have heard back in 1994.  Wisely or not, when the internet became the primary medium for news, the industry set up much of that content as free.  I still get all of my news free, and stay reasonably informed via a free news aggregator.  This handy tool, my old-fashioned chum, allows me to get thousands of FREE news articles from multiple sources on a range of topics that I decide I'm interested in.  These are not lame reprints of yesterday's news (like the dead tree that's delivered to your driveway each morning), but rather news that JUST happened...like 30 minutes ago.  And the sources are Reuters, AP, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, etc.  Sounds like the Times' sources, wouldn't you agree?  I can even customize it to get local news, USF news, comic strips, whatever.  Did I mention this was all fantastically FREE?

 

Perhaps I'm alone in this way of reading news.  Or perhaps I'm like most news readers out there, which is why the Times is trying this (desperate and too-late) tactic.  But where I once would visit their website regularly and follow Bulls coverage from Greg and participate in online chats, comments, etc....now I will not visit their site at all.  I'll rely on my FREE sources, Twitter, GoBulls.com, and (sadly) ESPN/SI/CFN/etc....which, again, are all FREE.  To my simpleton non-newspaper-running business sense, it's the wrong strategy from the Times to take to stay relevant in the 21st century news world.  But I'm just some dumb schmuck who should try and read a newspaper, right pal?

 

Um... you do realize that almost every paper in every major market is going to the same format right? Those that haven't already more than likely have it in the works. Yes, your ESPN, FOX and CNN will most likely remain free... but your local papers will be pay per view. The Times isn't the first to go this route and won't be the last.

 

 

Save it .... You're talking to one of the entitlement generation.

 

I'm just surprised they're requiring people who have a physical copy delivered to pay for an online sub, even if it's half of the online sub.....I know the paper where I'm at went the pay route, but they seem to be using it to get more delivery subs, even if you just get the sunday paper delivered, they throw in the online sub.

[NCBull]

Not entitled...just used to getting what they give me.  If you visit the link above and read the comments...I'm not alone, across many generations...

[JTrue]

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

 

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Edited September 13, 2013 by JTrue

[Bull94]

I tried reading a newspaper once.  It hurt my tiny brain so I had to stop.  And that was just the first page of the comics!  Me no likey big words or difficuwt concepts.

 

Or maybe--like the rest of the 21st century world--I read my news online.  They have newspapers online these days, you might have heard back in 1994.  Wisely or not, when the internet became the primary medium for news, the industry set up much of that content as free.  I still get all of my news free, and stay reasonably informed via a free news aggregator.  This handy tool, my old-fashioned chum, allows me to get thousands of FREE news articles from multiple sources on a range of topics that I decide I'm interested in.  These are not lame reprints of yesterday's news (like the dead tree that's delivered to your driveway each morning), but rather news that JUST happened...like 30 minutes ago.  And the sources are Reuters, AP, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, etc.  Sounds like the Times' sources, wouldn't you agree?  I can even customize it to get local news, USF news, comic strips, whatever.  Did I mention this was all fantastically FREE?

 

Perhaps I'm alone in this way of reading news.  Or perhaps I'm like most news readers out there, which is why the Times is trying this (desperate and too-late) tactic.  But where I once would visit their website regularly and follow Bulls coverage from Greg and participate in online chats, comments, etc....now I will not visit their site at all.  I'll rely on my FREE sources, Twitter, GoBulls.com, and (sadly) ESPN/SI/CFN/etc....which, again, are all FREE.  To my simpleton non-newspaper-running business sense, it's the wrong strategy from the Times to take to stay relevant in the 21st century news world.  But I'm just some dumb schmuck who should try and read a newspaper, right pal?

 

 

they are in business to make money. they can't do it by giving away their content for free.both the new york times and wall street journal have a pay wall. in fact the new york times uses the same exact model . you have to have a digital subscription to read anything after a certain number of articles. of course you know this because you use an aggregator.

 

go ahead and use your free sources. I can't remember the last time I went to espn or SI to get inside info on the Bulls. maybe they have extensive coverage like Greg's Blog and I just haven't seen it yet. I will gladly pay for this if I find it of value. I would also gladly pay for a conference only channel as well as every game on pay per view.unfortunately I'm stuck watching the free stuff on espn(it's really not free) as they regurgitate sec + top 10 stuff ad nasuem. tim tebow this johnny manziel that. doesn't interest me. you see it's free because it attracts enough eyeballs for the advertisers to pay enough to cover it's costs. Bulls coverage does not.

 

You wouldn't be complaining about this if you didn't find any value in the Times coverage of the Bulls to begin with.go ahead and keep using your free sources of info. eventually you'll understand that you get what you pay for.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Bull94

[Bull94]

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

 

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

where will you get extensive, in-depth coverage of the Bulls for free? It won't be anything like what Greg has provided. It won't be anything close to the exact same content for free. Sure you'll get an AP story about the game but nothing close to what greg has provided.