Media: GateHouse Media goes online-only
Congrats to GateHouse Media — and to their online guru, Howard Owens — for seeing the Internet as something other than a way to promote content available on paper. I’m rooting for GateHouse here. If they prove it can be done, it will encourage other other online start-up. The details:
The newspaper company has launched a news operation in a town where the local (non-GateHouse) paper had largely ignored the web: Batavia, New York.
TheBatavian.com is an online news site that’s all local and 100% paper-free. By eliminating one of the greatest sources of expense – the printed paper – the startup in Batavia increases the chances of breaking even and – imagine that – making a profit in a business far too many people are writing off as too expensive.
I’ve been saying this for years. It costs just too damn much to deliver news on paper. The Internet is cheaper. A newspaper’s value isn’t the paper itself, but the news that’s printing on it. Instead of making readers subsidize the cost of printing and delivery, just have them pay a small subscription fee to get the news from the Web.
Here’s the problem. There’s no change at all to use The Batavian. There is just one ad. So, they aren’t making any money right now on it. And they have to compete with the newspaper.
So here’s my challenge to GateHouse — although it really isn’t if you think about it. Instead of looking for markets where the newspaper of record isn’t taking the Web seriously, trying going all online in a market where GateHouse owns the newspaper of record. That means closing the print version, and selling ads and subscriptions. The only “challenge” is having the guts to be the first do it. But without any real competition, success is more likely than it is in Batavia.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Wouldn’t this migration happen naturally as prices continue to rise for the printed page? Why the need to force the issue? Many people (a) like getting a physical paper, (b) don’t have/want internet access, (c) don’t enjoy reading news on a computer, etc. Why disenfranchise all of them just to make a point?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Because newspaper companies are bleeding jobs. And as there are fewer reporters, the quality of the news product declines.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I think they should start charging a subscription fee for the web content.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I agree. They’re doing ti backwards now. They charge for old news that’s not interactive and comes with no access to archives, but give away up-to-date news and access to archives. I would pay for premium online content. And they could charge far less for online than they charge for at-home delivery.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I have to respectfully disagree. I don’t think subscription services will work, unless everybody (national and local news site) does it. Why would I pay to read the online Journal Star, when half of it is national news that I can get for free, and the other half is local news that I can also get for free from my local nbc affiliate? Ad revenue supported web sites will work, but not subscriptions.
On top of all that, there is a decent percentage of people that justs don’t like to read extensively on the computer. I work with a bunch of them. If they get an email that is more than a paragraph long, they print it and read it off paper. I find it hysterical, but that’s what they’re comfortable with.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Billy, you say that print newspapers are bleeding reporting jobs, so what happens when they go online-exclusive? The page designers lose their jobs.
Either way, it’s going to mean job cuts.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’d rather lose page designers and press operators and have more reporters.
I don’t think forcing a paper exclusively to the web is a smart move right now though. You still have a bunch of older people that don’t know how to turn a computer on.
Put half of the story on-line for free…just a tease…then charge for full access. Hell, include it in the price of subscription or charge for Internet only access.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I wonder how Ryan would feel about TV stations losing producers, directors and camera ops so they could hire more on air talent?
September 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Here’s a topical Morningstar article with some interesting data on relative ad rates.
http://tinyurl.com/6m4upa
September 10th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Oh yes, innovation. But who pays Howard? Newspapers. The news web product cannot generate the kind of revenue a print product does and it never will. A car dealer is not going to pay thousands of dollars a day for a banner ad. He might pay for a page listing his cars, but why do that? He probably has his own site and doesn’t need it. A website is not a display-ad friendly format–and that is where the money is or was… Unless a way is found to make money without cluttering up a site with ads that overwhelm the editorial, it won’t matter how innovative this idea is. A company needs revenue to survive. Opening a thousand of these little startups is not going to match the revenue of one small thriving hometown newspaper. And there are some left.
Looks like just another arrogant attempt to get a lot from as little as possible. And it ain’t gonna work. Innovative approach? Sure. But who’s going to pay the bills after they’ve killed the newspaper? Who’s going to pay Howard?
Instead of trashing the very print industry of which he is a part, why not go to work preserving and innovating the original product, which is bleeding to death from mismanagement.
There is a lot of panic and fear out there–with good reason. But people still need a way to get local news and that need is not satisfied by a 30 second news segment on a distant tv station who only seem to notice the towns around them if someone gets killed.
It is not satisfied by a bunch of people with nothing better to do than roam the streets and use their cell phones to ‘record breaking news’. One might question the source of anything posted by anyone who is not a qualified journalist. Gossip. Misinformation. Inflammatory hurtful remarks. Sensationalism with little basis in fact–judging by the comments left on most news websites. I think that is what we can expect. But hey! It’s free. Nevermind that it’s mostly the nutcases with axes to grind who will be posting the ‘news’. That, or biased individuals with something to gain from it. Yes. High quality stuff. I can’t wait.
Cut staff, sell presses, downsize to smaller office space. All reasonable cost cuts in these difficult times. But instead of expecting the remaining individuals to do the jobs of twice, and in some cases three times as many, why not take that $ and put it into software that makes it possible for a smaller staff to do that work efficiently? Including web.
Compromising service and quality is not the answer. If no one reads your product then advertisers are not going to support it.
I guess we’ll have to see if Howard is such a hotshot then when he is trying to live on $12k a year…