Why Are Newspaper Subscribers Angry Over Online-Only Content?
from the don't-get-it dept
In reality, the Post got the equation right. Printing something in the paper is expensive -- and the paper decided it was more economical to put the content online and save on newsprint costs. And since the content was freely available online, who would complain? Apparently paper subscribers -- though I'm not sure what their real complaint is:
"Newspapers are going broke in part because news can be read, free of charge, on the Internet. As a nearly lifelong reader of The Post, I could not read this article in the paper I pay for and subscribe to; instead I came on it accidentally while scrolling online for business reasons."This gets a few things wrong. The newspapers aren't going broke because they're putting news online for free. They're going broke due to dumb management decisions (massive debt) and an inability to recognize that their "captive audience" has gone away because they suddenly face competition. But the bigger point is that this guy isn't missing out on anything. The story is still available to him, as it is to everyone else. There's lots of stuff on the web that isn't included in the physical paper. Does he also complain about the fact that the website has comments that he can't read without going online?
In the end, it sounds like the people who are complaining have simply fallen into the same trap as those who believe that newspapers putting content online was a "mistake," rather than the only thing they could do if they wanted to compete in the market.