Miami Herald asks online readers for donations

[JK98]

Are newspapers becoming charities? This seems so weird. Their web pages have ads, however I guess online ad revenue isn't enough.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...W6VcwD9CK2DLO1

[CrowdAds]

[WalkGood]

I read that yesterday, could be because they write trash, stretch the truth and try to impose their agenda that most have stopped reading their crap; let them die a slow painful death!

[Muka]

It seams that loads of local newspapers are in trouble, and can't make ends meet. Not only in the US but here in Britain as well. The problem appears to be declining ad revenue, with the ever increasing costs of actually having to print a physical newspaper, along with decreasing sales of those newspapers. It will only get worse as more and more people move over to getting their local news online for free.

My local paper the Bath Chronicle now only prints a paper edition once a week, until last year this was a daily paper. Most of it's content is now online with the website been solely ad supported. http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/

There have been rumblings of some news sites wanting to charge a subscription for reading their content. Because the declining ad revenue doesn't cover the costs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385342.stm

[JK98]

In the US some newspapers tried charging for their online news, however those attempts have not been successful. The New York Times has raised the price of their printed newspapers substantially as readership has declined. The New York Times now charges $2 for their daily edition and $5 for the Sunday paper. I can't see paying $2 for the daily edition of the paper. The Sunday edition was $2 not so long ago. Many people are getting their news now from Google news or cable TV. Printed newspapers seem totally outdated, and imo should be discontinued. Why can't newspapers successfully and profitably transition to free online service with advertisements?

[Muka]

Originally Posted by JK98

In the US some newspapers tried charging for their online news, however those attempts have not been successful. The New York Times has raised the price of their printed newspapers substantially as readership has declined. The New York Times now charges $2 for their daily edition and $5 for the Sunday paper. They have had 3 quarters in a row of losses. I can't see paying $2 for the daily edition of the paper. The Sunday edition was $2 not so long ago. Many people are getting their news now from Google news or cable TV. Printed newspapers seem totally outdated, and imo should be discontinued. Why can't newspapers successfully and profitably transition to free online service with advertisements?

I think the problem with news websites is that they're not getting enough revenue from ads on the sites. Many people choose to block ads as well, with numerous ad-blocking plug-ins for the browsers.

Many people do get their news from Google. But all Google is doing is just aggregating existing news content into one place. This is what Rupert Murdock of News Corp was getting all upset about. Google aggregating the news from his own companies sites and not paying him for it.

I get most of my news from the BBC and ITN websites. BBC is funded by the TV license and ITN by ads.

It's currently a very difficult situation for companies trying to do local news and still be profitable. They don't make enough from ads, and if they start charging, people tend to be very reluctant to pay for it.

There are individuals going out and finding their own local news and running their own sites. http://www.bristol247.com/ This local Bristol news site is actually only been run by one person, with very minimal overheads Yet it appears very professional, and has great local news and sports coverage. This could be the future, instead of large corporations trying to do local news.

[Jack4L]

They probably also need to keep their owners and editors in high salaries.

I think the free newspapers in Finland are causing the slow and painful death of the "big ones". I mean who needs to buy a huge ass paper like the Helsinki News, when you can just pick up a Metro that has all the biggest stories in less words and prettier pictures? they both have Sudoku and word puzzles, the smaller free mag is just easier to pocket.

[Muka]

Originally Posted by Jack4L

They probably also need to keep their owners and editors in high salaries.

I think the free newspapers in Finland are causing the slow and painful death of the "big ones". I mean who needs to buy a huge ass paper like the Helsinki News, when you can just pick up a Metro that has all the biggest stories in less words and prettier pictures? they both have Sudoku and word puzzles, the smaller free mag is just easier to pocket.

We've got the Metro here as well in the UK. One can pick it up free more or less anywhere. It's very popular on public transport for people looking for something to read, and do the sudokus and crosswords while they're travelling.

Paid for news content could possibly be successful on e-reader devices like the Amazon Kindle. If these types of devices where more ubiquitous, cheaper and had colour, which may well happen. Quite a few are already paying extra to access news content via their mobile phones.

I do think that social news websites are a great idea, like Digg and Reddit. These pickup what people vote as the best stories in various categories. They give the headline, first paragraph and a write-up as to why the story was there.

If one wants to read the full story, one clicks the link and is taken to the original site where the story can be read in full, and the sites owners hopefully get ad revenue from it.

[Dreamnine]

My quality newspaper - The Glasgow Herald- costs 80p to buy. Why would I pay that when I can just read it online for nothing?

Newspapers are dead.

[WalkGood]

Some papers are already negotiating with msn, google and others for exclusive content, but they want to get paid for it. Which means, if this becomes a future model, you’ll have to search more than one engine to get all the information you want.

[Marvin the Martian]

I almost never read/watch local news. National/international, sure......there I look for political, entertainment, tech, sports news, etc....but almost never local.

[JK98]

"Many people do get their news from Google. But all Google is doing is just aggregating existing news content into one place."

Yes, but this reduces the value and importance of each individual online newspaper.
it provides easy access to many options.

"BBC is funded by the TV license "

Isn't the BBC heavily subsidized by the British government?

[Dreamnine]

No, it's funded by the TV license - something I disagree with given the BBC's shoddy content and political agenda.

[electron]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

I read that yesterday, could be because they write trash, stretch the truth and try to impose their agenda that most have stopped reading their crap; let them die a slow painful death!

I say the same about a lot of newspapers.

[Muka]

Originally Posted by JK98

"
"BBC is funded by the TV license "

Isn't the BBC heavily subsidized by the British government?

It's totally funded by the TV license in the UK. Although when one views the BBC website from overseas, it has adverts.

[copeys]

Huh. I never get my local news online, nor national/international.

The way I look at it - costs me $1.50 for the local paper, and $1 for the Sydney paper - now to go online I am searching for the news, whereas going through the paper at my leisure is much more convenient and nicer to do.

I don't know of anyone that uses the internet as their major source of news. To be honest, although it is quicker, cheaper, cleaner and more environmentally friendly, I would never ever trade the paper for it