Another sign of the apocalypse

On 2013.06.02 14:17 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:28:06 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
:
: What I *would* happily pay for is a newspass that gives me access to
: many newspapers.

That's an interesting idea that I've never heard proposed before.


I've seen it mentioned a few times but doesn't seem to have caught on
with the newspapers.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013-06-02 11:18:53 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.02 13:30 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Newspaper subscriptions pay for the paper and delivery. Content is paid
by advertising.

Do you have anything to back this up? It seems quite a broad statement.
Might hold for some newspapers, but not for other newspapers.

It is a generalization to be sure. But when you get down to it, the
delivered price of print newspapers is very low. IMO would only
account for physical production and transport.

Advertising pays. But in this era of many, many webpages offering an
advertising opportunity, newspapers earn less per advert on their own
web pages.

Because of that, perhaps, quality news deserves a consumer revenue
stream. But it should discount the fact that the consumer is already
paying for delivery (internet access) and presentation
(computer/display).

I just looked and the NYT electronic most basic subscription is now $15
per month ($20 for tablet access). (I assumed it was $35 but that
covers other things such as archive access which is more than I would
need).

At $15 it's bordering on acceptable. I wouldn't question $10.

But again I would rather pay a single fee to a subscription aggregator
and have access to many papers. For that (and quality large markets)
I'd happily pay about $50 / month for a good selection of papers
(Canadian, US, Brit, French).

I find that this is an area my iPad comes into its own with aggregator
apps such as Flipboard, News Republic, Newsy, and Pulse.

So far few of the News vendors have tablet optimized apps, NYT, USA
Today, & HuffPost have a pretty good presentation. The NYT paywall is
solid with their app, but much of their content is available on
Flipboard.

The SFGate, and Washington Post apps are smart phone apps which look OK
on an iPhone, but leave much to be desired on an iPad, so those are
best viewed on a browser.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:23:41 -0400, Michael
wrote:

On 2013-05-31 11:28:14 +0000, Bowser said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05...ff-photo-staff

Short sighted, and stupid.

You don't have to be a reader of Dilbert to recognize the systemic and
generalized incompetence of management in so many industries and
businesses. Those who can, do. Those who cannot do, manage. And those
who cannot manage, are the CEOs.

Yes, and to make matters worse, they've now decided to instruct their
reporters on the "art" of iPhone photography. Quality just got set
back 40 years, or more.

On 6/1/2013 11:48 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm looking forward to seeing how their new video emphasis plays out in
print. Will it be of those arrangements where you riffle the edges of a
stack of pages, and the pictures thereon appear to move?

print is on its way out. people get their news online now for free,
including both stills and video.

it's also very difficult to monetize online news, although some do try
with varying success.

i PAY for my digital online subscriptions, at least the ones I read
regularly. So do most of my friends. We have an old fashioned philosophy
that if you use something, you ought to pay for it.

do you send money to every single web site you visit?

didn't think so.

You gave me a lot of time time to answer.

i knew the answer. you don't pay for every site you visit, because it's
not possible to pay for every site you visit.

However, your "question" is
not on point.

it was exactly on point to your (irrelevant) comment.

let's see;
You said "...people get their news online now for free,
including both stills and video"

they do. there is absolutely nothing incorrect about that.

and that was in response to a silly comment that videos can't be
printed unless they're in a flipbook format. people watch the videos
online, because that's where the industry is going.

I responded to that point and you tried to worm out of it by raising an
irrelevant question.

i'm not worming anything. you're the one who tried to spin it into
something it wasn't because you like to argue, that being that you're
doing the right thing by paying for any content you consume online,
suggesting that anyone who consumes content for free is somehow ripping
off the provider of the info. that's just bull****.

Straw man. I never said any such thing. There are hundreds of thousands
of people who pay for online content.

there are many
legitimate sources of free content, both online and not. you have once
again been proven wrong.



Again, instead of discussing a point ,you turn to personal attack.




and the fact remains that newspapers are hurting because it's very
difficult to monetize online content. people expect websites to be
free. that's just how it is.


And there is an rt to turning "free" websites into money. Some websites
should have free access, but somewhere along the line, someone pays.


--
PeterN

On 6/2/2013 9:28 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.06.01 21:27 , PeterN wrote:
On 6/1/2013 7:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05...es-lays-off-ph...

:
: Short sighted, and stupid.
:
: buying "pro" equipment in the hope of looking like one? Indeed...

Is that what they're telling their "freelancers" to do? I looked for
it in the
DPR article, but didn't find it.

I'm looking forward to seeing how their new video emphasis plays out
in print.
Will it be of those arrangements where you riffle the edges of a
stack of
pages, and the pictures thereon appear to move?

print is on its way out. people get their news online now for free,
including both stills and video.

it's also very difficult to monetize online news, although some do try
with varying success.


i PAY for my digital online subscriptions, at least the ones I read
regularly. So do most of my friends. We have an old fashioned philosophy
that if you use something, you ought to pay for it.

Laudable, old fashioned, naïve.

Newspaper subscriptions pay for the paper and delivery. Content is paid
by advertising.

I'd happily pay for the NYT. However the amount they want per month is
way out of line with what they are providing. So I confess that I break
their paywall after the "first 10 free articles per month" run out. It
is trivial (if annoying) to do - and I suspect they want it that way
or they would set up a true paywall such as that at the WSJ.

They probably will one day soon.

And the day that I can't break the NYT paywall is the day I stop reading
it.

What I *would* happily pay for is a newspass that gives me access to
many newspapers.


Everybody has to decide for themselves what their priorities and
standards are. I am also one of those rare people who "overpay" and use
local small businesses, because I like the service. I believe it
important to help keep them in business, otheriwse cost for goods and
services will increase, and the choice and quality will decrease.
Just a small example:
I use shaving soap, which is unavailable in most local stores. A
purchase on the Internet will cost me more for shipping, than for the
soap. My local independent drug store will happily order it for me. at
reasonable prices.



--
PeterN

On 6/2/2013 2:17 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:28:06 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
:
: What I *would* happily pay for is a newspass that gives me access to
: many newspapers.

That's an interesting idea that I've never heard proposed before.

The way the Boston Globe handles it is that their site, which includes an
image of the paper and some other stuff, requires an account with username and
password to get in. But if you're a subscriber to the print version, the
account is free.

Which is the same way the NY Times does it.


--
PeterN

On 2013.06.02 20:02 , PeterN wrote:

Everybody has to decide for themselves what their priorities and
standards are. I am also one of those rare people who "overpay" and use
local small businesses, because I like the service.

You're not that rare. Many people (incl. in this home) use local
services and buy local produce. When we recently bought new dining room
chairs we were careful to get made-in-Canada and were happy to get some
made in a small town not 40 km from here. All ordered from a
traditional, family owned/run 'main-street' store in a local town. We
had to wait 3 months for delivery. (Bought a new range and oven there
too). We buy fruit and vegetables at a local market (8 months of the
year anyway) that is mostly local grown produce. (It's cheaper than the
grocery store for most things, actually - and definitely better quality).

That said, when the economy, esp. in the US, is as bad off as it is, you
can be sure that suburbanites are going to pile over to the big box
stores and Wal*Merde to save money.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013-06-03 14:08:11 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.02 20:02 , PeterN wrote:

Everybody has to decide for themselves what their priorities and
standards are. I am also one of those rare people who "overpay" and use
local small businesses, because I like the service.

You're not that rare. Many people (incl. in this home) use local
services and buy local produce. When we recently bought new dining
room chairs we were careful to get made-in-Canada and were happy to get
some made in a small town not 40 km from here. All ordered from a
traditional, family owned/run 'main-street' store in a local town. We
had to wait 3 months for delivery. (Bought a new range and oven there
too). We buy fruit and vegetables at a local market (8 months of the
year anyway) that is mostly local grown produce. (It's cheaper than
the grocery store for most things, actually - and definitely better
quality).

We have weekly "Farmer's Markets" in Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo.
We also have a few locally owned supermarkets which function outside of
the chain store philosophy.
The same applies to hardware and plumbing supplies. Many a time I have
gone to Lowes, or Home Depot to find a kitchen faucet repair kit, only
to be told they do not carry it, but my local plumbing supply store
does, at a fair price.

That said, when the economy, esp. in the US, is as bad off as it is,
you can be sure that suburbanites are going to pile over to the big box
stores and Wal*Merde to save money.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Does "Paris Match" still exist and can anyone still shoot their
covers?

On 2013-06-03 22:12:25 -0700, Annika1980 said:



Does "Paris Match" still exist and can anyone still shoot their
covers?

From what I can see it is still published weekly, and has a somewhat
tabloid quality to it.
As far as shooting their covers goes, I suspect that anybody with a
working camera phone can contribute, but you had better check with Tony
Polson, or whatever his next "sock" will be, on that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck