Comments on: Google's Plan to Save Newspapers: Make Them Look Better

By: David Usher

David Usher — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:38:59 +0000

National newspapers and magazines with print distribution will die a slow death. The distribution model must quickly move to online and subscription via traditional website and electronic readers (like Kindle, et al) with and without advertising.

The ‘press’ is dead for all practical purposes except for niche papers because the costs for printing and physical distribution cannot be supported by a national/international newspaper in a digital world.

Retaining news-gathering and analysis talent is the critical component to cultivate and retain.

By: Eubie’s notes » Blog Archive » Carter on Great Depression vs now — reading around Feb. 19 - … so I can remember what I’ve read

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:55:38 +0000

[...] Things Digital: Google’s Plan To Save Newspapers: Make Them Look Better All Things Digital’s conclusion: I think that the best place for newspapers to start is by [...]

By: Vasanth Sridharan

Vasanth Sridharan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:56:37 +0000

I think the first step for newspapers is making sure their Web sites work. On days when the Merc News Web site isn’t working well, it makes you log in before reading each article (even after following the site’s instructions to make sure that doesn’t happen). And half the time the log in page doesn’t load.

It doesn’t matter how good your content is if your readers get too frustrated trying to read it.

By: Corey Ryan

Corey Ryan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:25:10 +0000

I would be more inclined to pay if it offered me the user experience. But this is where a device like the kindle would be useful. sometimes reading from a computer screen can be a strain. and even though my laptop is small, it’s not extremely convenient to read off of on the go, like a print edition.

By: Mark Omega

Mark Omega — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:14:18 +0000

If Google really wants to compete they NEED to come up with an answer to the Kindle. Amazon stole that one right out from underneath their noses. Lock horns, don’t beat around the bush.

By: Mac Beach

Mac Beach — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:46:14 +0000

I particularly agree with Jan Simmonds’ third item.

It astounds me that people who get paid big bucks for creating ads are capable of producing things so uncompeling. But that’s subjective. Maybe what doesn’t appeal to me appeals to thousands of others.

What truly astounds is that many of these ads just plain don’t work. The servers they are on are either down half the time or just so slow you give up and click the “back” button. The ads often try to do things that users have specifically disallowed, like opening up new pop-up or pop-under windows, eating up user resources without their knowledge. When you get past all of that… I’m interested, the ad actually works, the server is up, I’ve watched the video, I click on the “I’M REALLY INTERESTED” link in the ad and it takes me to a non-existent web page if I’m lucky this page is at least on a server owned by the company being advertised.

To the third party ad companies: Your efforts are pathetic. Stop it!

To the companies buying ads: Why do you keep hiring these guys?

To the newspaper publishers: Why are you letting these companies trash your content, and settling for a smaller piece of the action in the process?

Hasn’t anyone learned the lesson that Google is trying to teach? Simple targeted text ads do just great, don’t annoy users and actually produce results.

By: Jim Yates

Jim Yates — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:28:36 +0000

I think this is perhaps the wrong question or, at least, not the right question.
The Internet and the general availability of most of the content of a newspaper has changed the value proposition of a ‘newspaper’ over time just as the advent of TV did. While the newspapers in general have tried to use the new capability they have done it in the within their old cloak. It is a very difficult business transition and not really related just to advertising or just to content. The biggest issue I believe is whether or not ‘newspapers’ will appear (or can afford to appear) in print.
To me, the Internet is the newspaper. Google adwords anybody?

By: Eric Radovan

Eric Radovan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:30:28 +0000

Interesting in light of Google exec Tim Armstrong’s new local news venture (Patch) written up in Valleywag this week. Google’s keeping the news industry at an arm’s length, but can’t seem to keep away.

By: alan miles

alan miles — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:51:58 +0000

I like the idea of making my browsing more efficient in some fashion – and might pay for that kind of feature/functionality. This is very different from paying for content per se.

By: Adam McClean

Adam McClean — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:35:19 +0000

I think that if my experience on a newspaper’s Web site was tailored to my reading/viewing/commenting habits, I’d be more inclined to pay for that continued environment. Perhaps the newspaper could offer this tracking and customization feature on a trial basis. In that scenario, I’d be quite willing to ante up a little dough to continue a tailored experience, especially once I’ve seen how it operates.

By: Jan Simmonds

Jan Simmonds — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:03:22 +0000

Newpapers/ Magazines – How to mend what isn’t really broken! – 1. OWN THE SPACE – Don’t Outsource anything!
2. PRICING – Price on RELEVANCE not VOLUME & ring fence YOUR advertisers
3. STYLE & BRAND – Don’t ruin credibility by allowing third party ad involvement
4. DON’T CHARGE FOR CONTENT – CHARGE FOR MEMBERSHIP – Monthly print glossy mag, right to comment, portable article ‘banks’ (for Kindle etc.), ‘inner circle’ blog posts etc. etc.
5. MAKE SURE YOURS and/ or CLIENT’S ADS ARE SEXY AND RELEVANT – Give YOUR sales people something to work with by creating value slots to sell.

Remember Little Red Riding Hood when talking to Google and the like!