Greg Auman leaving the USF beat

[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.

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.

 

If I feel I'm missing out, I'll gladly pay. I have no problem paying for a service that has value to me. Bulls coverage does, to an extent. But the news as a whole? No thank you.

[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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Look, if you've got money to burn, then no big deal.  But a lot of people don't, and the economy's not really getting better.  If we "get what we pay for", then what have we been getting from Greg's great coverage for years?  It's been free, so it's sucked?  (I know that's not what you meant, I'm just making a point)  Save the platitudes; the industry has changed and the news is free now.  Just like mail (email), phone calls (Skype), and porn.

 

I wonder what they'll do with Joey Knight's Twitter usage?  Greg was a prolific Twitter user, and there's not really any way for the Times to make that pay-to-play.  Greg actually posted more in-depth tweets than blogs or articles (although plenty of those too, of course).  Maybe Joey won't tweet as much, so the Times encourages people to pay a subscription?  That's one way I'll still get Bulls coverage, although I suppose I might be accused of gaming the system by doing that...

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Look, if you've got money to burn, then no big deal.  But a lot of people don't, and the economy's not really getting better.  If we "get what we pay for", then what have we been getting from Greg's great coverage for years?  It's been free, so it's sucked?  (I know that's not what you meant, I'm just making a point)  Save the platitudes; the industry has changed and the news is free now.  Just like mail (email), phone calls (Skype), and porn.

 

I wonder what they'll do with Joey Knight's Twitter usage?  Greg was a prolific Twitter user, and there's not really any way for the Times to make that pay-to-play.  Greg actually posted more in-depth tweets than blogs or articles (although plenty of those too, of course).  Maybe Joey won't tweet as much, so the Times encourages people to pay a subscription?  That's one way I'll still get Bulls coverage, although I suppose I might be accused of gaming the system by doing that...

 

it's been free because they have been bleeding red ink while they come up with a model that will allow them to make money.

 

enough of the economy excuse. plenty of people do just fine and wouldn't mind paying the few dollars a month it would cost for in-depth Bulls coverage.

 

reporting news isn't free. Greg didn't run that blog for amusement. He ran it because he was paid. No one is going to pay him if they can't make money.

 

 

I imagine they will use twitter to direct you to pay for view articles.

[hightechbull]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You do know that the $0.25 to $0.50 you pay for a print paper is barely a dent in their revenue stream?  The bulk of the print revenue comes from ads.  The subscriptions and same day sales are used as a mechanism to determine the number of readers, thus determining the amount charged for advertisement.

 

Internet revenue is different, especially with the advent of ad blocking software.

[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.

 

If I feel I'm missing out, I'll gladly pay. I have no problem paying for a service that has value to me. Bulls coverage does, to an extent. But the news as a whole? No thank you.

 

that's why they will charge you for exactly what you want. you only pay if you click on an article of interest. I couldn't care less about what happens in largo but if there is an article about something happening near me then yes I might click through. I'll pay to read a couple of articles a day on the Bulls. No problem. If it doesn't meet my needs then I won't but if the coverage is as good as Greg's then i see no problem paying the few bucks a month.

[hightechbull]

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.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora.  They are not going to record and perform for free.

 

Would you like to work for free?

[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.

 

 

You do know that the $0.25 to $0.50 you pay for a print paper is barely a dent in their revenue stream?  The bulk of the print revenue comes from ads.  The subscriptions and same day sales are used as a mechanism to determine the number of readers, thus determining the amount charged for advertisement.

 

Internet revenue is different, especially with the advent of ad blocking software.

 

yes I do realize that. I also realize that classifieds, home listings and car ads made up the bulk of advertising revenue for newspapers. all of those are gone thanks to crag's list,etc. subscription dollars will have to cover more of the costs of content online.

[Southshore26]

Gents.... The times has already played with the idea of going all digital once.... so has the Trib.... I'm guessing within 5 years that either one or both are not printing a hard version anymore. 

[StateRoad42]

One key problem you are overlooking is that the WSJ and NY Times have a better readership base and tend to lead coverage versus following.  The times, to me, is worthless.  The only thing I liked about it was GA's coverage.  It was 90% of what I wanted to read when I was on the site.  The Journal and Times can get away with charging because they are relevant.  SPT/TBT is not.

[Bull94]

One key problem you are overlooking is that the WSJ and NY Times have a better readership base and tend to lead coverage versus following.  The times, to me, is worthless.  The only thing I liked about it was GA's coverage.  It was 90% of what I wanted to read when I was on the site.  The Journal and Times can get away with charging because they are relevant.  SPT/TBT is not.

it is relevant locally. if it's not your thing, I get it but if you want local news then you won't find it in new york times or wall street journal. it's like comparing local tv news to national tv news. of course national news has a bigger draw. that goes for anything including sports. they will get away with it as they are only charging for content that people demand. whether or not our market demand is enough to sustain it is another story.