Hey, there! Log in / Register

Globe to go behind online paywall

Announces two tiers of online access: Stuff produced by Globe reporters at bostonglobe.com, which you'll have to pay to see, and something at the current boston.com that sounds like G online with a bit of breaking daily news that happened too late to get into the paper. Plus more exciting pop-up ads:

BostonGlobe.com, with the goal of creating a "lean-back experience" for readers, will have a simpler, newspaper-like design with less intrusive ads, he said.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I hope this includes upgrading the commenting software. Comments on articles there are so horrendous. Would be nice to be able to mod up/down, have nested replies, or the holy grail: the ability to block/ignore people.

That being said, they won't get a dime from me.

up
Voting closed 0

So you're demanding features in a product you won't buy?

up
Voting closed 0

No, I'm complaining that their commenting system sucks and should be improved, which is a completely separate issue from whether I have to pay or not.

I don't participate in the commentary there currently. The lack of cohesion from one reply to the next makes it a futile effort.

up
Voting closed 0

That being said, they won't get a dime from me.

I think you already figured out how the quality of comments will improve.

Which is the mean way of saying I doubt any of the current commenters will pay.

up
Voting closed 0

for now I'd say I get what I pay for at Boston.com. The exceptions might be about one article and one editorial a week that I'd truly pay for.

If they go back to real journalists - not just a collection of AP reports for World and National news (still available at CNN.com for free) and reprints of Dot Joyce's talking points for local news I might be more interested.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree, Stevil, the Globe's problem is that it lost its focus. There was a time when we all used the Globe for world and national news because it was one of the few trustworthy sources available locally. That time is gone, the Globe should not try to replicate what is already done by other news entities. What I want in the Globe is good information about Boston neighborhoods, Boston sports, Boston business, etc. At this point, the Herald does a better job on local coverage, but it's not too late for the Globe to get that back. If they do, I'd pay for it, but I won't pay for what is currently available at Boston.com.

up
Voting closed 0

Thinking about my comment above - the model that seems to work is a news site that is supported by broadcast (CNN/ESPN etc.)- I could definitely see a station like WBZ essentially taking over from the Globe - Jon Keller is already one of the better political analysts around and if WBZ picked up a few good journalists/columnists and a good editor I could definitely see myself turning there more for even local news. The site is a loss leader/breakeven operation but you make money on the TV.

The news of print's eventual death may be premature - but probably not greatly exaggerated.

up
Voting closed 0

The WBZ idea may be viable, but it isn't the only model. The Wall Street Journal has charged subscription fees for years for much of the on-line content. They get away with it because they are known (rightly so) as the very best source for national economic and business news. It is worth paying for the content they deliver because you can't get it from the Boston Globe or Los Angeles Times. The Globe can't have the kind of reach enjoyed by the Journal, but it can position itself as the very best source for Boston focused news. But you're right, they need to get that reputation and quickly, before somebody else takes it.

up
Voting closed 0

Plus most of the folks who get the WSJ pay it from the company's money. If folks had to pay for it themselves, it wouldn't do nearly so well.

up
Voting closed 0

...if as you say WBZ or the Phoenix or even the Herald put more resources into their online presence, widening the scope of local coverage available on their sites, not limiting it behind a paywall as the Globe intends. Depends on how it's executed (my first thought was Ch. 5's thebostonchannel.com; their site looks lousy but there's potential there, given they attempt to be more of a portal for local news/activities etc. and not just a site for Ch. 5).
Also, Globe is very smart not to announce the pricing yet -- they surely have an idea, but will probably gauge the reaction now and set the price accordingly. Can't say I would be highly motivated to pay for Globe content; WSJ and NYT yes. I don't mind the Globe trying to make more money online, but their pricing will be key. Didn't the Times of London go behind a paywall and lose like 90% of its online readers (I can't remember exactly, but it was fairly pronounced.)
And this will be a very interesting experiment in the Globe's news judgment -- in other words, watching what Globe stories they put up online that they think all of their readers want and need, versus what they think only paid subscribers should have access to. As others have mentioned, it will show just how good/bad the Globe's focus really is.

up
Voting closed 0

WBUR has a decent-sized newsroom and they get how to do news online.

up
Voting closed 0

And notes, because I can't remember what I posted yesterday, the oh-yeah-that-makes-sense-now departure of boston.com's editor, announced just yesterday.

up
Voting closed 0

Does that mean I'll find a leaner selection of content, and then won't want to come back?

up
Voting closed 0

It means that the new online version of the Globe doesn't make your butt look fat.

up
Voting closed 0

My God, the Globe is going to try to pitch online haggadahs for Passover!

up
Voting closed 0

How will I link to Globe stories?

Will the Globe's most important reporting be paywall-only? "Want to know about the Archdiocese running a whorehouse for pedophiles? Here's a teaser on Boston.com. If you want to know the full story, you can either subscribe to Bostonglobe.com, or (more likely) get an inaccurate summary from news bloggers who subscribe to the Bostonglobe.com."

I hope that this works out, both for restoring and sustaining the quality of the Globe, and for continuing the Globe's impact.

up
Voting closed 0

This is only part of the problem Yes we need a better Boston.com, but if the Globe wants to really survive in the 21st century take the newpaper layout and create great apps for the iPhone/iPad and the new announced Blackberry Playbook. Imagine being able to read a newspaper on your iPad and click on a picture associated with the article and have it start playing video. Have the paper be able to be updated over wifi throughout the day so as a news story is developing we will have it in real time. the WSJ, NYT and USA Today are already doing this, why not the Globe, hell its owned by the NYT they should already have the template and groundwork laid out!

up
Voting closed 0

Of course, I can't remember his name, but they did bring somebody in to come up with all sorts of new wireless/mobile products.

up
Voting closed 0

For the time being you still have some people who are wedded to the tactile sense of the paper. My dad likes the paper and doesn't like the computer, but he will use it in a limited way. I could see him getting used to an iPad or Kindle type device under certain conditions. Say the Globe had an app, it should automatically download a "daily" edition (more Kindle like than website like) for people who want to get their dose of news once a day and not chase news stories. There could still be a "breaking news" feature of course. It should be laid out similar to a traditional paper and intuitive in the UI (e.g. double tap to zoom photo or play video).

The Boston.com site is awful (and I don't mean that in a Victorian sense of the word). Nothing like sitting back and watching my pop-up blocker battle their site every time you click to a story you're barely interested in. If they make a decent application for the new pad type devices, offer plenty of quality original content (hire more good columnists, reporters and editors) and charge a nominal monthly fee (say $10 or less) there may be a glimmer of hope for the traditional newspaper companies to retain their status. If not they will wither away to irrelevance as new media adapts.

up
Voting closed 0

I was wondering when they'd finally go to a pay-to-read site, it was bound to happen. I'd be willing to pay, but how much. The article mentioned that the Worcester paper charges $14.95/month, and I'm sure they'll base their price around that.

I get the Sunday Globe delivered. Daily subscribers will get the online version for no additional cost. I wonder how their price would figure into the Sunday-only subscribers.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd pay a few cents per article that I wanted to read ($0.10/article), but I wouldn't pay a few bucks for a limited timed use ($14/mo).

up
Voting closed 0

There is no one path for profits online (other than selling t-shirts). You have to offer your product via several methods. A paywall fails for a few reasons.

1) You are still making someone who pays view ads.

2) You are taking out a a valuable path to adding readers by hiding your product.

3) You are forgetting that your product will be out there for free whether you want it to be or not.

4) How much reporting is actually done by the Globe today? Not much, definitely not enough to offer enough exclusive content to justify any fee.

The right way to do things is to offer tiers of payments depending upon how people want it. A paywall needs to be ad free for those that pay. That, and not exclusivity is the best way to get people to pay for something. Taking comments behind the paywall is also a great idea (which the Globe is doing), because it gives you a ton of control, and some people just can't shut up, they will pay. But you have to allow people to link to your site and have other people click those links and read the articles. Blocking traffic defeats the purpose of having a website. I haven't read an article on the NYT website for years, and they only want me to register, not pay. I have too many screen-names and passwords as it is. I don;t want another. Pop up ads are far less annoying than another password to remember.

I wonder how many papers will need to completely die before one of them gets it.

I also wonder on which side of the paywall The Big Picture will be.

up
Voting closed 0

I'll disagree on this one. The Globe doesn't have the same newsroom it once did, to be sure, but it still turns out a lot of original stuff (along with Dan Shaughnessy columns, but whadaya gonna do?). I think they've been doing a great job on the Mattapan murder story, for example (ditto for the Herald).

Excellent question on the Big Picture.

up
Voting closed 0

I thought I heard that the Sports section would be on the free side of the paywall. Did I read Bruce's (BSMW) comments wrong on that one?

up
Voting closed 0