4 ms·

Back when I was growing up, we got the newspaper. It was kinda something you just expected to be available. Then my parents one day just told the paper boy to s

Back when I was growing up, we got the newspaper. It was kinda something you just expected to be available. Then my parents one day just told the paper boy to stop delivering. My dad was just getting into Yahoo news and getting his wall street fix online. There was no longer a need for a paper. The product was not the paper but just this entire morning experience - coffee and newspaper. And the idea that different family members would grab different sections. It was totally incredible. Would I ever get a newspaper subscription? Nah, but I think there's a lot missing from the good ole days of it.

Cerium 8y ago
I'm under 30 and have been a newspaper subscriber for about 6 years. I plan to be a subscriber as long as they will keep delivering it. My parents subscribe to two papers: the San Francisco Chronicle, and what is now called the East Bay Times. Like you, I've long viewed the paper as an important family experience, where you sit around and trade sections over breakfast. When I moved out, I didn't expect to become a subscriber, but I got a free trial at some point and decided that I enjoyed the paper and wished to support the establishment.
acranox 8y ago
Same here. You could always try it though. I got a subscription last year. It was good, but ultimately decided to just keep the online subscription, as it meshed with my reading patterns better.
flukus 8y ago
> The product was not the paper but just this entire morning experience - coffee and newspaper. And the idea that different family members would grab different sections. It was totally incredible. I don't think it's even the experience that mattered. What newspapers never realized was that they're in the distribution business, people were paying them to print out their content and deliver, they were never really paying for the content itself. The internet made the distribution business obsolete and now they have nothing to offer. We saw the same with the music business, it wasn't the songs we were paying for, it was for them to distribute the music in a format that's convenient. Now we're seeing the same with online video, everyone keeps trying to make proprietary content to get subscribers but people just want a dumb pipe to deliver everything.
- gaius 8y ago
  What newspapers never realized was that they're in the distribution business, people were paying them to print out their content and deliver, they were never really paying for the content itself Traditionally in newspapers advertisers paid for the paper, ink etc and the act of buying the paper paid for the journalism and original content.
techsupporter 8y ago
> Would I ever get a newspaper subscription? Nah, but I think there's a lot missing from the good ole days of it. I (someone under 40) thought this but then the Seattle Times did a Groupon for something absurd, like $20 for a year of Sunday in print plus online access and the digital "print replica" for the other six days. I figured it'd be worth trying and, if nothing else, I could put the paper delivery on hold and just use online access until it ran out. Now, over two years later, I've kept the subscription. Part of it is because the Times never went to charging me full price--it's more than the $20 Groupon I bought but it's less than the posted price for Sunday+digital so I dunno how they come up with what they bill me--but another part is that I actually like reading the Sunday paper. I'll plop down with the dog and a huge mug of tea and just lay on the couch and read the mini-magazine, the outdoor section, life/arts, that sort of thing. It's an hour or so where I've nowhere to be, and nothing pressing to do except read the fiddly bits that get passed by during the busy week. The rest of the week, I'll flip through the print replica iPad app on the bus to work or read articles through the web site, but the Sunday paper is "pulp, ink, and chill" time.
aweiland 8y ago
This is half the reason I still get the Sunday Washington Post. You get a piece of it Saturday (comics, somes ads, travel section!) and the bulk on Sunday. I enjoy sitting down with my eggs, coffee, etc and just picking what to read. The print edition also seems to be less sensationalist than the online version. At least from my optic.

Cerium 8y ago

I'm under 30 and have been a newspaper subscriber for about 6 years. I plan to be a subscriber as long as they will keep delivering it. My parents subscribe to two papers: the San Francisco Chronicle, and what is now called the East Bay Times. Like you, I've long viewed the paper as an important family experience, where you sit around and trade sections over breakfast. When I moved out, I didn't expect to become a subscriber, but I got a free trial at some point and decided that I enjoyed the paper and wished to support the establishment.

acranox 8y ago

Same here. You could always try it though. I got a subscription last year. It was good, but ultimately decided to just keep the online subscription, as it meshed with my reading patterns better.

flukus 8y ago

> The product was not the paper but just this entire morning experience - coffee and newspaper. And the idea that different family members would grab different sections. It was totally incredible. I don't think it's even the experience that mattered. What newspapers never realized was that they're in the distribution business, people were paying them to print out their content and deliver, they were never really paying for the content itself. The internet made the distribution business obsolete and now they have nothing to offer. We saw the same with the music business, it wasn't the songs we were paying for, it was for them to distribute the music in a format that's convenient. Now we're seeing the same with online video, everyone keeps trying to make proprietary content to get subscribers but people just want a dumb pipe to deliver everything.

gaius 8y ago
What newspapers never realized was that they're in the distribution business, people were paying them to print out their content and deliver, they were never really paying for the content itself Traditionally in newspapers advertisers paid for the paper, ink etc and the act of buying the paper paid for the journalism and original content.

techsupporter 8y ago

> Would I ever get a newspaper subscription? Nah, but I think there's a lot missing from the good ole days of it. I (someone under 40) thought this but then the Seattle Times did a Groupon for something absurd, like $20 for a year of Sunday in print plus online access and the digital "print replica" for the other six days. I figured it'd be worth trying and, if nothing else, I could put the paper delivery on hold and just use online access until it ran out. Now, over two years later, I've kept the subscription. Part of it is because the Times never went to charging me full price--it's more than the $20 Groupon I bought but it's less than the posted price for Sunday+digital so I dunno how they come up with what they bill me--but another part is that I actually like reading the Sunday paper. I'll plop down with the dog and a huge mug of tea and just lay on the couch and read the mini-magazine, the outdoor section, life/arts, that sort of thing. It's an hour or so where I've nowhere to be, and nothing pressing to do except read the fiddly bits that get passed by during the busy week. The rest of the week, I'll flip through the print replica iPad app on the bus to work or read articles through the web site, but the Sunday paper is "pulp, ink, and chill" time.

aweiland 8y ago

This is half the reason I still get the Sunday Washington Post. You get a piece of it Saturday (comics, somes ads, travel section!) and the bulk on Sunday. I enjoy sitting down with my eggs, coffee, etc and just picking what to read. The print edition also seems to be less sensationalist than the online version. At least from my optic.