a move last week by Marriott International, the global hotel and resort chain, suggested that, in an increasingly carbon-conscious world, newspapers have another sort of sustainability to worry about.
The hotelier announced that it would no longer deliver newspapers automatically to the doors of its guests . . . .Based on preliminary data, the company projects that newspaper distribution will be reduced by about 50,000 papers daily or 13 million papers annually, thereby avoiding 10,350 tons of carbon emissions.
Is this going on elsewhere?
The Daily Oklahoman, only daily newspaper in OKC, with state wide distribution has in recent months downsized to near tabloid size, smaller font, dropped comics, more concise articles (not a bad idea IMO) and quietly reduced staff.
This paper is owned by the Gaylord family, probably the richest family you never heard of, who also own maximun number of TV and radio stations allowed by law, Opryland in Nashville, Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Gaylordia CC in OKC and control the OKC Thunder NBA team. The paper editorally reports that is is profitable, possibly because it has taken such measures.
A possibly related indication of reduced advertising revenue is that the AMC 24 screen theatre, located in a modern upscale mall, has recently stopped advertising in the paper. It is kind of a nuisance to have to look up movies and show times on the internet.
gm wrote:Forget the comics? FORGET THE COMICS??? What are you, some kind of neanderthal? There's no other reason to buy the paper any more. And it's also why I never bother with the NYT. If you ain't got comics, you ain't worth bothering with!
Faced with an ad market that no longer supplies enough revenue to meet costs, many newspapers are now considering putting up pay walls on their Web sites, long an anathema in Internet culture. Consumers used to roaming freely across the Web in search of news and opinion may soon find themselves being asked to register at news sites and, in some cases, to fork over a credit card number.
Well, today Gannett rolled out their online subscription structure for all their newspapers - except USA Today - which included my local Cincinnati Enquirer. In short, non-subscribers get 20 article views a month before they're shut out.
Of course, I had my plan - use a VPN that issues a new IP addy every time you log in. Except that didn't work. I couldn't figure out why, until it hit me. No, it couldn't be so simple as a cookie, could it? A cookie that, when dumped, would reset the counter?
It's laughable really. I use Chrome for my browser, and all I have to do is browse the Enquirer website in Incognito mode, and when I close the window it automatically dumps all cookies I've picked up for that session. Voila! Next visit to the newspapers website my counter is back at zero page views. Did they not think people would figure out it was a cookie?
guru wrote:In short, non-subscribers get 20 article views a month before they're shut out.
That specific business model is bound to fail. Either they count it in a way that's easy to get around, as it seems to be the case here; or they make it more difficult to get around, in which case it raises more privacy concerns.
Instead, they could easily separate content between subcriber and non-subscriber; or they could generally show non-subscribers the first couple paragraphs, and subscribers the whole article.
guru wrote:Well, today Gannett rolled out their online subscription structure for all their newspapers - except USA Today
I only have the on-line USA Today subscription. I'm dumping my print SI and Time subs for the iPad the school just gave us all. T&FN MUST stay as print or how else can I prove my über-geekdom, by showing off my yards and yards of T&F-related bookshelf material?
Last edited by Marlow on Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
I live in Sweden. I have a very advantageous, efficient airmail subscription to the American Time magazine. I am really satisfied, yet .... sometimes I feel like cancelling the whole thing. And why? Because Time sometimes use small typefaces in hard to read colours, often small, pastel colours, even light grey, which is impossible to read. One day I will be so irritated I will cancel for sure. If the industry is in crisis, why do they persist with these easily addressable mistakes at the risk of losing faithful customers?
My aging eyes have the same problem with Time and a number of other magazines..Artsy, teensy, light colored font on dark background (or dark opn dark)is especially difficult to read.. I either have to find my magnifying glass or give up..
lonewolf wrote:My aging eyes have the same problem with Time and a number of other magazines..Artsy, teensy, light colored font on dark background (or dark opn dark)is especially difficult to read.. I either have to find my magnifying glass or give up..