Greg Auman leaving the USF beat

[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...

 

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.

 

 

I'm not claiming they shouldn't make money, for the love of Pete...I said that I thought this was a poor strategy to try and make up for the lost revenue.  It just seems to me to be an outdated strategy that won't play out profitably in this day.  Time will tell if there are enough of these people who are doing just fine and will pay to make up for the others who will now not read anything from the Times.

[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.

 

 

I'm not claiming they shouldn't make money, for the love of Pete...I said that I thought this was a poor strategy to try and make up for the lost revenue.  It just seems to me to be an outdated strategy that won't play out profitably in this day.  Time will tell if there are enough of these people who are doing just fine and will pay to make up for the others who will now not read anything from the Times.

 

it's not an outdated strategy. it's actually where all the major newspapers are going. they are either going away or instituting a pay wall. Whether or not our market can support it is another story but there will be no "free" content and online advertising doesn't support it.

 

do you pay for cable tv? didn't we used to get broadcast tv for free? you still have that option if you want to break out the rabbit ears and get just a few channels but it seems that many people enjoy paying for the added content.

[Gismo]

My 2 cents. I don't read the local paper enough that I would pay for a subscription.

I don't even have cable TV at the moment and haven't for over a year now. It's not really that valuable to me at least. And if you sit and write down goals for your life, you may find that watching sports, being the number one fan, reading the local news, is not on that list, nor will they help you reach any of the goals you've set. Honestly fandom, thebullspen, cable TV, etc. are all distractions for most people. Why pay to be distracted?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Gismo

[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...

 

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.

 

 

I'm not claiming they shouldn't make money, for the love of Pete...I said that I thought this was a poor strategy to try and make up for the lost revenue.  It just seems to me to be an outdated strategy that won't play out profitably in this day.  Time will tell if there are enough of these people who are doing just fine and will pay to make up for the others who will now not read anything from the Times.

 

it's not an outdated strategy. it's actually where all the major newspapers are going. they are either going away or instituting a pay wall. Whether or not our market can support it is another story but there will be no "free" content and online advertising doesn't support it.

 

do you pay for cable tv? didn't we used to get broadcast tv for free? you still have that option if you want to break out the rabbit ears and get just a few channels but it seems that many people enjoy paying for the added content.

 

 

Broadcast TV is still free.  I'd have only that myself but I can't get Bulls games that way...Time Warner has me over a barrel and won't give me ESPN3 access without having cable.  I'd get another internet provider, but it turns out the city council gave Time Warner exclusive rights to my area so they're the only deal in town.  So I don't have any money left to pay the TB/SP Times; Time Warner has it all.  I'd say that ESPN3 access will become more open sooner than not, though.

 

I get your point, fine.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree whether this strategy will work or not.  Doesn't seem it will to me, but you see differently and I can't argue with a guy who relentlessly says the same thing over and over again...you just must be right.

[Bull94]

My 2 cents. I don't read the local paper enough that I would pay for a subscription.

I don't even have cable TV at the moment and haven't for over a year now. It's not really that valuable to me at least. And if you sit and write down goals for your life, you may find that watching sports, being the number one fan, reading the local news, is not on that list, nor will they help you reach any of the goals you've set. Honestly fandom, thebullspen, cable TV, etc. are all distractions for most people. Why pay to be distracted?

so you don't go to games? surely that's a distraction to you in meeting your goals. you don't ever visit websites that aren't geared toward you reaching your goals? people pay plenty to be entertained. in fact that's why grown men make millions playing a kids game.

[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.

 

 

I'm not claiming they shouldn't make money, for the love of Pete...I said that I thought this was a poor strategy to try and make up for the lost revenue.  It just seems to me to be an outdated strategy that won't play out profitably in this day.  Time will tell if there are enough of these people who are doing just fine and will pay to make up for the others who will now not read anything from the Times.

 

it's not an outdated strategy. it's actually where all the major newspapers are going. they are either going away or instituting a pay wall. Whether or not our market can support it is another story but there will be no "free" content and online advertising doesn't support it.

 

do you pay for cable tv? didn't we used to get broadcast tv for free? you still have that option if you want to break out the rabbit ears and get just a few channels but it seems that many people enjoy paying for the added content.

 

 

Broadcast TV is still free.  I'd have only that myself but I can't get Bulls games that way...Time Warner has me over a barrel and won't give me ESPN3 access without having cable.  I'd get another internet provider, but it turns out the city council gave Time Warner exclusive rights to my area so they're the only deal in town.  So I don't have any money left to pay the TB/SP Times; Time Warner has it all.  I'd say that ESPN3 access will become more open sooner than not, though.

 

I get your point, fine.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree whether this strategy will work or not.  Doesn't seem it will to me, but you see differently and I can't argue with a guy who relentlessly says the same thing over and over again...you just must be right.

 

so you're willing to pay for content if you value it. espn 3 will never be free. espn is so successful because they charge nearly $5 per household for their content. they collect hundreds of millions in cable tv subscriber money every month.you're able to get espn 3 as an added value to the money you pay them through cable subscriber fees.

 

I agree I don't know whether or not it will work but they have been losing a ton of money doing it the "free' way. sure a baker could have lines out the door if he just gave the donuts away for free but you don't stay in business long doing that.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Bull94

[Who'sYourData?]

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.

 

If you can get the EXACT same thing elsewhere for free, why do you care if they are charging?

[NCBull]

It sure is strange how many companies have made billions by being free.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Skype, YouTube, etc.  How do you explain that they not only stayed in business, but turned your donuts into billions of dollars?

[Brad]

By the way, if you believe Google, the monopoly holder in online advertising, ad revenue is declining.

Secondly, Twitter just anounced they are going public. Will be interesting if it becomes a pay to play.

Thirdly, effective immediately TheBullsPen.com will be charging members $0.15 per post. This will start out with our "Legend" level (smazza). :wink

[Southshore26]

Thirdly, effective immediately TheBullsPen.com will be charging members $0.15 per post. This will start out with our "Legend" level (smazza). :wink

 

Best idea in years....