The Florida Times Union goes Groupon

[kreger]

It would seem that the Times Union isn't doing so well with their new "all access" members only news service, now being offered on Groupon at a 62% discount for a 6 month subscription. I guess rewarding their most loyal customers isn't working out so well. In my opinion online local news is worth $2.00 a month a best.

[tufsu1]

well $2 per month isn't going to cut it...maybe $2 a week

[Elwood]

Maybe they should try charging more for the ads that account for approx. 40% of the daily paper. Feels more like a printed flyer of commercials with just a sprinkle of news thrown in for the shoppers enjoyment.

[KenFSU]

Both deals are actually quite good.

$20 for four months of Saturday and Sunday home paper deliveries + all access digital subscription.

$30 for six months.

Still haven't seen a compelling reason to subscribe to the All Access site (not even close for the asking price), but if you're into getting the local paper on the weekends, it's kind of a no brainer.

[Tacachale]

I'd pay for the members only content if it included searchable archives of their pre-1997 editions. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[thelakelander]

^Now I'd pay for that.

[Mathew1056]

In 2010, PEW Research came out with a study indicating that 82% of Americans would no longer visit there favorite website if it put in place a paywall. At least in my case, the TU is more of a must go to than a favorite. So that's two strikes against it. I don't think TU offers anything that you couldn't get for free somewhere else. I admit that there are a few stories that I would like to view sometimes, but it really just increases my negative attitude towards the organization. I don't want to pay a tax to view an important story. there are ethical implications in charging people to be informed on local issues. Those at the lower rungs of society will fall further behind on relevant knowledge, making it even harder to climb the economic ladder. In the 20th century, news organizations thought of themselves more as a branch of government than a money making entity. The TU has screwed up. It may hold onto the 50+ crowd, but the younger generation already understands the importance of a plurality of sources and opinions.

[KenFSU]

I don't want to pay a tax to view an important story. there are ethical implications in charging people to be informed on local issues. Those at the lower rungs of society will fall further behind on relevant knowledge, making it even harder to climb the economic ladder. In the 20th century, news organizations thought of themselves more as a branch of government than a money making entity. The TU has screwed up. It may hold onto the 50+ crowd, but the younger generation already understands the importance of a plurality of sources and opinions.

Though I agree that attempting to monetize online news is a tough sell, I strongly disagree with your assertion that it's unethical to "tax" readers to view news stories. The Times-Union is providing a service like any other business, and without revenue, there's no Times-Union. I've got no problem at all with them trying to get people to pay their fair share, especially as losses continue to mount throughout the newspaper industry. The plurarity of (free) sources and opinions that you note should be enough to level the playing field without professional news organizations having to run a charity for entitled readers. Let the free market dictate whether or not people are willing to pay the asking price.

To me, the problem was never with the Times-Union instigating a pay model. Instead, the problem lies with the Times-Union attempting to charge online readers at a time when it has arguably never been worse. We're a metro of over a million with several Fortune 500 companies, and our newspaper looks like something produced for a bunch of illiterate retirees in small town Nebraska. Stuff from the last few years like "Dare to Ask," "One of Us," Laura Capitano, etc. borders on embarrassing. Online FTU stories are frequently littered with inaccuracies and grammatical errors. The FTU is free to charge whatever they'd like, but when your newspaper and newsroom is shrinking by the day, you just can't expect to start charging $11.50 a month for digital access to the same stale content fewer and fewer people have been buying in the first place. Good for them for trying to bring in some revenue, but I just don't think they're addressing the problem of why they have actually lost so many readers.