3 ms·

I still don't get this. There have only been a handful of newspapers that seem to have tried anything different than the same model that they used in the 80's a

I still don't get this. There have only been a handful of newspapers that seem to have tried anything different than the same model that they used in the 80's and they have done ok, but most of the newspapers I feel like I take a peek at are barely worth more than the paper they are printed on even if they have a solid Sunday edition, and their websites end up being trashy from ads, bad design, slow page loads, or any of the other reasons. Most of the articles in web or print end up being roughly equal quality to an equivalent mediocre to random web article as they rushing to be first. In my opinion most newspapers haven't showed me something I want to buy/spend money on/visit to collect a few token ad dollars. Did Google really steal your money because I chose New York Times over some random newspaper with lackluster articles/reporting? I feel like even radio and local/regional TV still does a good job of giving me a reason to choose them over someone else.

staticautomatic 7y ago
Or their websites actively scare you off, like the San Francisco Chronicle, which hits me with 3 modal pop-ups in a row every time I try to read one of their articles. If I was ever inclined to pay them I most certainly am not now.
- bsamuels 7y ago
  Jesus, I thought you were exaggerating when you said three modals, but it's actually three modals. - one for a "champion sale" that pops up before i even started reading the article - one once you hit the bottom of the page asking you to subscribe (again) - one for the monthly article limit (that limit is 1)
- ravenstine 7y ago
  GA says our visitors are clicking an average of 3 times after we added more modals. That's engagement, bro!
closetohome 7y ago
I feel like the technical quality of the writing has degraded over time as well. With all the staff cuts, copy editors were apparently some of the first to go, and you can really tell.
runeks 7y ago
> I still don't get this. Lobbyism can be quite profitable. Why invest money in improving your website when you can invest it in lobbying for a law that gets you a better return on investment?
Shivetya 7y ago
Nothing can fix the fact they lost their captive audience. The same could be said for "nationwide" papers and even the the big broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Foxnews. The internet checks them all and then tops it with letting you choose as many of the big players or none. If anything it has shown to many just how bias news sources can be which means customers who previously had no real choice are not held back anymore. They need to up their game, be damn sure to publish journalistic pieces and not editorials under the guise of them. If they lost the trust of their core audience they will need to actively focus on rebuilding it and that takes time and may not even be possible for some. * as others have mentioned some sites are just atrocious either with ad spam or just bad formatting. I do know when my father sends me links from AJC that I cannot view them on my phone as it cuts off half the page but they work fine on the iPad. Its like the link specified the view port size.

staticautomatic 7y ago

Or their websites actively scare you off, like the San Francisco Chronicle, which hits me with 3 modal pop-ups in a row every time I try to read one of their articles. If I was ever inclined to pay them I most certainly am not now.

bsamuels 7y ago
Jesus, I thought you were exaggerating when you said three modals, but it's actually three modals. - one for a "champion sale" that pops up before i even started reading the article - one once you hit the bottom of the page asking you to subscribe (again) - one for the monthly article limit (that limit is 1)
ravenstine 7y ago
GA says our visitors are clicking an average of 3 times after we added more modals. That's engagement, bro!

closetohome 7y ago

I feel like the technical quality of the writing has degraded over time as well. With all the staff cuts, copy editors were apparently some of the first to go, and you can really tell.

runeks 7y ago

> I still don't get this. Lobbyism can be quite profitable. Why invest money in improving your website when you can invest it in lobbying for a law that gets you a better return on investment?

Shivetya 7y ago

Nothing can fix the fact they lost their captive audience. The same could be said for "nationwide" papers and even the the big broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Foxnews. The internet checks them all and then tops it with letting you choose as many of the big players or none. If anything it has shown to many just how bias news sources can be which means customers who previously had no real choice are not held back anymore. They need to up their game, be damn sure to publish journalistic pieces and not editorials under the guise of them. If they lost the trust of their core audience they will need to actively focus on rebuilding it and that takes time and may not even be possible for some. * as others have mentioned some sites are just atrocious either with ad spam or just bad formatting. I do know when my father sends me links from AJC that I cannot view them on my phone as it cuts off half the page but they work fine on the iPad. Its like the link specified the view port size.