Syracuse.com is a pay site now?

[OttoMets]

I havent decided which way I will go with the whole subscription thing, but ^^this^^ is a very true statement. Its kind of scary what could happen to society without a free and local press.

Yeah, you're exactly right. And I don't mean to be dickish or hyper-critical toward the P-S. It makes me sad, but I just can't rationalize spending for writing that I constantly criticize. I understand their constraints (though these shouldn't fully excuse the product), but in the end they just don't put out good work and it'd be crazy to expect it to get anything other than worse.

 

[MSOrange]

Yeah, you're exactly right. And I don't mean to be dickish or hyper-critical toward the P-S. It makes me sad, but I just can't rationalize spending for writing that I constantly criticize. I understand their constraints (though these shouldn't fully excuse the product), but in the end they just don't put out good work and it'd be crazy to expect it to get anything other than worse.

Even on the basketball side you don't think Mike and Donna are good?

 

[Newhouser]

I get more news and definitely better sports news from this site than I ever have from the dot com site. I would pay $20 for this site a month but not any others that I can think of.

 

[Orijinal]

I get more news and definitely better sports news from this site than I ever have from the dot com site. I would pay $20 for this site a month but not any others that I can think of.

Woah. Slow down buddy. Don't give these guys any ideas!

Nothing to see here, people! Keep moving along

 

[OttoMets]

Even on the basketball side you don't think Mike and Donna are good?

I think they work hard and they're dialed in.

 

[cuse10]

The Post-Standard is how I get all of my Syracuse related news from stuff that's happening in the community, to the University and the sports. If it is PPV, I'd be extremely disappointed as that's the only resource I have to keep tabs on what's going in Syracuse.

 

[Scooch]

Successful sites figured out long ago how to monetize ads and provide content free. Like TV (which isnt dying) and radio (despite it being an older medium, 100% solvent). Somehow those reporters continue to thrive despite not having their content paid for. Yet newspapers still, 20+ years later, DO NOT GET IT.

Sorry but that’s not true. No one, and I mean that literally, is making enough to survive via digital ads, other than Facebook and Google.

Years ago Newspapers miscalculated in giving away their content and thinking ad revenue would be enough. It’s not.

 

[Brooky03]

Sorry but that’s not true. No one, and I mean that literally, is making enough to survive via digital ads, other than Facebook and Google.

Years ago Newspapers miscalculated in giving away their content and thinking ad revenue would be enough. It’s not.

This is a bit of hyperbole. Content creators that reach large audiences make most of their money from advertisers and operate in the black. Examples are podcasters, youtube creators, bloggers, etc.

In the context of local news sites, you are probably correct that ads aren't paying all of the bills because they might not reach a large enough audience. But 'free' content that reaches a significant audience online is thriving due to ad revenue. Put that content behind a pay wall and you're shooting yourself in the foot, unless you have a superior product.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

Sorry but that’s not true. No one, and I mean that literally, is making enough to survive via digital ads, other than Facebook and Google.

Years ago Newspapers miscalculated in giving away their content and thinking ad revenue would be enough. It’s not.

Scooch, all I know is that newspapers charging for content on the web are not performing particularly well either. I'm not sure what the answer is, but i dont think its that. For every site that decides to monetize content, 2 more resources pop up that are free or solicit donations only (the Patreon economy)

Maybe they should charge money for the syracuse.com forums?

Im kidding.

 

[shandeezy7]

The price point here seems way out of whack. As others have mentioned, you can get a NYT digital subscription for less. The Buffalo News has had a digital subscription for some years now. First year $6/month and then it's $11/month after that - and I'd argue that the content that the Buffalo News produces (even after recent layoffs) is far superior to what the PS offers, which seems to be a cross between a news aggregator (many times with content that is days old) and a click bait site, with some local articles and sports coverage sprinkled in there. I'd spring for $5-$10/month, but $20/month is out of the question for me, based on the quality of the content.

 

[cpatrocks]

Print subscriptions are $32.40/month (for Tues-Thurs-Sun delivery), so $20/month for just digital isn't too bad by comparison.

when you compare it to Free, it certainly is.

 

[Scooch]

This is a bit of hyperbole. Content creators that reach large audiences make most of their money from advertisers and operate in the black. Examples are podcasters, youtube creators, bloggers, etc.

In the context of local news sites, you are probably correct that ads aren't paying all of the bills because they might not reach a large enough audience. But 'free' content that reaches a significant audience online is thriving due to ad revenue. Put that content behind a pay wall and you're shooting yourself in the foot, unless you have a superior product.

I hear ya, it's just that very very few "content creators" are making money purely from ads. Most need other revenue streams (influencer payments, sponsorships, lifestyle brand sales, etc). And the reality is that most "free" content thrives because it is underwritten by investors. For the most part it's series A, B and C funding that pays the bills, not ads.

Specific to journalism, there is a really good analysis circulating about "news deserts", places where little to no local coverage of anything exists (politics, government, etc). It's a real problem.

People should spend their money however they want. There are consequences though. A newspaper that covers SU sports isn't exactly a code red, but it is a part of a broader issue that isn't great for society.

 

[reedny]

I think they are in a transition period.

I hope they "transition" away from $19.99/mo.

 

[reedny]

Sorry but that’s not true. No one, and I mean that literally, is making enough to survive via digital ads, other than Facebook and Google.

Years ago Newspapers miscalculated in giving away their content and thinking ad revenue would be enough. It’s not.

And Facebook and Google aren't making bank on digital either. The lion's share of their pelf comes from hawking people's "private" information to data harvesters and other insects.

 

[Scooch]

And Facebook and Google aren't making bank on digital either. The lion's share of their pelf comes from hawking people's "private" information to data harvesters and other insects.

Well Facebook made $3 billion last quarter on display ads. Obviously data is how that happens, but they do make a gargantuan amount of money from ads.

 

[reedny]

Well Facebook made $3 billion last quarter on display ads. Obviously data is how that happens, but they do make a gargantuan amount of money from ads.

They machine-read people's emails too (it's in their "user" [get used] agreement). That I can tolerate because I don't have a choice and it's only email. Social media on the other hand ... wow. People think they're anonymous if they don't list their full name or birthdate. They have no idea how powerful the tracking algorithms are - like 8-10 coupled equations. FB knows you better than your spouse after (on avg.) SIX WEEKS of usage.

 

[shandeezy7]

Frankly, for local interest stories, even the Syracuse New Times does a far better job that Syracuse.com these days.

 

[CusefanATL]

Seems like they've instituted a pay per view. I read nothing about it.

$20 per month is outrageous.

 

[reedny]

$20 per month is outrageous.

They're pricing it like a physical paper instead of pricing it for the internet market (cost structure?). But I have to say, most of my gripes have been with the editors. I think the staff does a good job overall. I think Waters is a good SU beat reporter. I like Donna's human interest stories. And Chris Carlson does an excellent job. But they have to be realistic about price.

 

[CuseLegacy]

You are doing something wrong because I just accessed the site through my phone and received no pop up.

It's like a lot of other papers on line...you get so many freebies before they ask you to subscribe.

 

[upperdeck]

what does it say that people creating dumb content can make money but people reporting news go broke? of course the overhead for most of the click streams is almost zero.

 

[SBU72]

I use to get the Rochester paper the D&C owned by USA Today. (Use to deliver the afternoon paper when I was a kid) When the subscription got to be around $36 month, I cut back to Fir/Sat/Sun for like $24. Subscriptions included digital content. Around the beginning of the year it went up again and I canceled it as useless. The amount of ad space exceeded the news but the main reason was they printed the paper around 9 PM which meant that anything after that wasn't in it. Forget baseball scores/stories. SU games, nope. Election result HA! They keep calling/emailing me to come back for $4.30 for 6 months then back to 18, but with such useless content ain't going to do. I talked to one sales guy and said why should I buy a paper that can't even send a reporter to cover the Wings or Americans when they were home. They used stories from the wire! Last Sunday I was given the paper and the Sports page was talking about FRIDAY nights world series game! The point is that $19.99 for Syracuse paper does seem excessive, but just the sports page did seem superior to Rochester, at least more relevant. I would say that the NYT cost might be lower because of circulation.

 

[reedny]

I use to get the Rochester paper the D&C owned by USA Today. (Use to deliver the afternoon paper when I was a kid) When the subscription got to be around $36 month, I cut back to Fir/Sat/Sun for like $24. Subscriptions included digital content. Around the beginning of the year it went up again and I canceled it as useless. The amount of ad space exceeded the news but the main reason was they printed the paper around 9 PM which meant that anything after that wasn't in it. Forget baseball scores/stories. SU games, nope. Election result HA! They keep calling/emailing me to come back for $4.30 for 6 months then back to 18, but with such useless content ain't going to do. I talked to one sales guy and said why should I buy a paper that can't even send a reporter to cover the Wings or Americans when they were home. They used stories from the wire! Last Sunday I was given the paper and the Sports page was talking about FRIDAY nights world series game! The point is that $19.99 for Syracuse paper does seem excessive, but just the sports page did seem superior to Rochester, at least more relevant. I would say that the NYT cost might be lower because of circulation.

PS Sports coverage is vastly superior to the DC's - which is no longer a local paper. It's basically the USA Today dressed up with a local section. Their sports staff consists of a couple of dinosaurs that worship the Bills (as though we care) and haven't figured out that SU's the only P5 program in the State with 10k alums and 100,000 plus fans.

If it's that versus paying, I'm ponying up.

 

[upperdeck]

the only value to most of these papers is local news and they have been bought by companies that dont care so local news is not covered or covered as you say way late..

 

[bevosu]

the only value to most of these papers is local news and they have been bought by companies that dont care so local news is not covered or covered as you say way late..

Same thing happened with local radio. Most of it went syndicated, bought up by mega national media corporations. Trying to get local news on a local radio station became practically useless.