SpursReport.com

SpursReport.com (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/)
-   Spurs and NBA Fan Feedback (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/spurs-nba-fan-feedback/)
-   -   Spurs Coverage at MySanAntonio.com (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/spurs-nba-fan-feedback/119438-spurs-coverage-mysanantonio-com.html)

MichaelWi101 05-23-13 08:39 AM

Spurs Coverage at MySanAntonio.com
 
Begin Rant ---

OK, I run a couple of news websites and I understand the desire not to go broke running them and I even understand putting up a paywall for premium content.

BUT, IMHO to throw up a paywall that blocks a good portion of Spurs coverage DURING the playoffs is just a really, really, really bad idea. Put it up during the year, let people get used to it.

Oh I know, the thought process is 'if we put it up now when people are most interested in the Spurs they'll pay for out 'exclusive' coverage'..WRONG, I can go to projectspurs.com, mvptexas.com, sports.yahoo.com, cbssports.com, nba.si.com, espn.nba.com and get my stories. Now there's absolutely NO reason for me to visit mysanantonio.com and I'm sure not going to go to the new premium site.

End Rant ----

Spurd_On 05-23-13 09:22 AM

I don't see the business model working either. To me, sports sites are generally 10% worthwhile information and 90% opinion and analysis, if that. I tend to pay when it is the other way around but only when it concerns my financial well being.

tuncaboylu 05-23-13 09:39 AM

Agreed.

exit7 05-23-13 12:20 PM

Yeah, I was a little dissapointed with this as well. I crossed them off my list of sites for sure.

doom32x4 05-23-13 12:43 PM

Considering Mysa's content is from the Express News, which is a newspaper first and foremost, it makes sense to place newspaper content behind a paywall. We pay for newspaper content in physical papers, why not for the same content online? I already have a paper sub so I can access either way, but that content is nowhere near free to produce and ads likely can't support all of it, so stop complaining. I doubt they'll miss the revenue from free content.

Bryhn 05-23-13 01:01 PM

I have no problem buying the paper to read Buck's article, but I won't subscribe

tuncaboylu 05-23-13 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doom32x4 (Post 1297382)
Considering Mysa's content is from the Express News, which is a newspaper first and foremost, it makes sense to place newspaper content behind a paywall. We pay for newspaper content in physical papers, why not for the same content online? I already have a paper sub so I can access either way, but that content is nowhere near free to produce and ads likely can't support all of it, so stop complaining. I doubt they'll miss the revenue from free content.

Physical papers have cost, they're writing on paper, delivery costs etc. You can not compare it with the soft papers.

Moreover, paying 2.5$ per week is not logical. Web advertisments are very profitable and the Express News don't need to charge fee to their readers. Moreover I'm living in a foreign country and I'm pretty sure that there are tones of Spurs fans in my situation. Why should I pay 2.5$ per week to read only Spurs news in a paper? I only want to read only about my Spurs. So why should I pay for tones of news in San Antonio which I don't care none of them?

Orient Express 05-23-13 02:42 PM

Agreed with the rant. Unfortunate.

Just to add: the subscriptions never really sustained newspapers to begin with (it's all the advertising money), but it's just that the newspapers can't afford to wait for the ad rates to catch up (that is, for online rates to approximate hard copy rates). I don't know if it ever will catch up, but it's got some ground to make up, at least. That's just my own approximation/analysis/two cents of the macro view.

MichaelWi101 05-23-13 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doom32x4 (Post 1297382)
Considering Mysa's content is from the Express News, which is a newspaper first and foremost, it makes sense to place newspaper content behind a paywall. We pay for newspaper content in physical papers, why not for the same content online? I already have a paper sub so I can access either way, but that content is nowhere near free to produce and ads likely can't support all of it, so stop complaining. I doubt they'll miss the revenue from free content.

If I lived in San Antonio then I might agree with you, but I don't, I don't care about what's going on in the city other than the Spurs (and that's only from Sept-June) and I doubt if there are too many who live outside the area that are willing to pay 2.50 a week to read Buck Harvey and then after the Spurs season is over, there's NO REASON at all to read the sports section.

Get off your high horse about how you already pay for a subscription, good for you. And as far as complaining, hey it's a free country and if you don't like what's written don't read it. And gee, you think they won't miss the revenue from free content, got news for you, EVERY paper that has gone paywall has seen a dramatic drop in traffic and guess what bubba, advertisers pay for eye balls. So yeah, they're going to miss the traffic. Ask ESPN about what happens when viewership drops, so does advertising revenue.

MichaelWi101 05-23-13 03:41 PM

Oh and by the way monkeywrangler, I bet you're one of those who has the 'my way or the highway philosophy' aren't you? If someone says something you don't like you get all huffy and self-righteous, because you're always right, :blah well tough, get over it, that's a you problem. :slap

And now I step off my soapbox....

katyspursfan 05-23-13 05:07 PM

Yeah, it looks like I've read my last Buck Harvey column. I'll miss that. The rest of the stuff, I can find elsewhere.

edit: So. has anyone else noticed that the Memphis paper is also all pay? I like to read what the opposing newsies are saying, just as another perspective.

joyner 05-23-13 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu (Post 1297393)
Physical papers have cost, they're writing on paper, delivery costs etc. You can not compare it with the soft papers.

Moreover, paying 2.5$ per week is not logical. Web advertisments are very profitable and the Express News don't need to charge fee to their readers. Moreover I'm living in a foreign country and I'm pretty sure that there are tones of Spurs fans in my situation. Why should I pay 2.5$ per week to read only Spurs news in a paper? I only want to read only about my Spurs. So why should I pay for tones of news in San Antonio which I don't care none of them?

First of all, non-physical papers have cost, too. Writers like to actually be paid for what they write, first of all. Then, there's bandwidth costs, site maintenance, site design, and lots of other costs. Is it cheaper than doing a physical paper? Sure. Are the costs negligible? Not even close.

Secondly, web advertisements are not profitable. At all. They're laughably, hilariously unprofitable. Sources:
It's More Likely You Will Survive A Plane Crash Or Win The Lottery Than Click A Banner Ad - Business Insider
10 Horrifying Stats About Display Advertising
Banners Are the Worst Advertising: Invisible | Digiday

So, no, web advertisements are not profitable in the least.

I don't have a stake in this debate -- to me it's just another example of a newspaper fighting to stay relevant and solvent and failing. I just don't like to see falsehoods and faulty reasoning tossed around in any debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWi101 (Post 1297398)
Get off your high horse about how you already pay for a subscription, good for you. And as far as complaining, hey it's a free country and if you don't like what's written don't read it. And gee, you think they won't miss the revenue from free content, got news for you, EVERY paper that has gone paywall has seen a dramatic drop in traffic and guess what bubba, advertisers pay for eye balls. So yeah, they're going to miss the traffic. Ask ESPN about what happens when viewership drops, so does advertising revenue.

My favorite part of this post is how you cited sources showing that traffic drops when paywalls are introduced and that advertisers pay enough to keep newspapers solvent without needing a paywall. It's really nice that you actually backed up your ridiculous claims with proven sources instead of just leaving them as your own flippant conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWi101 (Post 1297398)
Oh and by the way monkeywrangler, I bet you're one of those who has the 'my way or the highway philosophy' aren't you? If someone says something you don't like you get all huffy and self-righteous, because you're always right, well tough, get over it, that's a you problem.

And now I step off my soapbox....

http://i.imgur.com/K7ss7B3.jpg

Kager 05-23-13 08:31 PM

The biggest problem they have is that there is so many free sites that produce good work, like Project Spurs and Pounding the Rock, so there is no incentive for me to pay for another view on a situation. If they could show exclusive material or inside knowledge or interviews that noone else had then they have a product to offer.

The internet was always going to punish newspapers, they are no longer the only or even most relevant sources for news on someones passion so to then price yourself out of the market doesn't seem smart.

Eddy from Austin 05-23-13 08:53 PM

:bs:down

Mombear 05-23-13 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kager (Post 1297417)
The biggest problem they have is that there is so many free sites that produce good work, like Project Spurs and Pounding the Rock, so there is no incentive for me to pay for another view on a situation. If they could show exclusive material or inside knowledge or interviews that noone else had then they have a product to offer.

The internet was always going to punish newspapers, they are no longer the only or even most relevant sources for news on someones passion so to then price yourself out of the market doesn't seem smart.

AND Welcome to the MVPTEXAS.COM ... don't forget about them. :drummer

KAD 05-24-13 07:01 AM

yeah I agree with the rant and would never go there!

tuncaboylu 05-24-13 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joyner (Post 1297411)
First of all, non-physical papers have cost, too. Writers like to actually be paid for what they write, first of all. Then, there's bandwidth costs, site maintenance, site design, and lots of other costs. Is it cheaper than doing a physical paper? Sure. Are the costs negligible? Not even close.

Secondly, web advertisements are not profitable. At all. They're laughably, hilariously unprofitable. Sources:
It's More Likely You Will Survive A Plane Crash Or Win The Lottery Than Click A Banner Ad - Business Insider
10 Horrifying Stats About Display Advertising
Banners Are the Worst Advertising: Invisible | Digiday

So, no, web advertisements are not profitable in the least.

I don't have a stake in this debate -- to me it's just another example of a newspaper fighting to stay relevant and solvent and failing. I just don't like to see falsehoods and faulty reasoning tossed around in any debate.

Hi joyner.

Yes non-physical papers have a cost, you're right. But you should eleminate writer's wage, because they're already paying them for writing in physical paper. Bandwidth costs, storage devices and mainteneance costs something, but i don't think that they're too much in U.S.A. They're even cheap in Turkey, I don't think that the papers are paying too much money to them.

And I think I couldn't explain what I mean in web advertisment. I'm meaning the advertisment which the site wins money independent of visitor clicks. For example they can put a Honda or Mitsubishi banner between the main news pages; I'm pretty sure that the companies pays good money for that kind of advertisments. (They're paying in Turkey)

They had 2 options:

- You can limit the visitor count of your website by charging fee to your readers.
- You can try to increase visitor count enormously and so the companies comes to you to give advertisement. If 300.000 people visits Express news site every day, I can't imagine how many companies would apply for advertisement.

They choosed the first one. It's their choice, but they will not lost money but will lost tones of visitors.

JuanCaca 05-24-13 09:10 AM

so, this is the premium content about Spurs behind paywalls?

Divorce documents point to Duncans - San Antonio Express-News

"Divorce documents point to Duncans

San Antonio Express-News

By Patrick Danner, Staff Writer

May 24, 2013
A divorce case filed here two months ago that bears only the initials of the husband and wife has all the hallmarks of being that of Spurs star Tim Duncan and his wife, Amy.

To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to ExpressNews.com."


I won't ever consider subscribe for this "#$# ;-)

joyner 05-25-13 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu (Post 1297440)
Hi joyner.

Yes non-physical papers have a cost, you're right. But you should eleminate writer's wage, because they're already paying them for writing in physical paper. Bandwidth costs, storage devices and mainteneance costs something, but i don't think that they're too much in U.S.A. They're even cheap in Turkey, I don't think that the papers are paying too much money to them.

And I think I couldn't explain what I mean in web advertisment. I'm meaning the advertisment which the site wins money independent of visitor clicks. For example they can put a Honda or Mitsubishi banner between the main news pages; I'm pretty sure that the companies pays good money for that kind of advertisments. (They're paying in Turkey)

They had 2 options:

- You can limit the visitor count of your website by charging fee to your readers.
- You can try to increase visitor count enormously and so the companies comes to you to give advertisement. If 300.000 people visits Express news site every day, I can't imagine how many companies would apply for advertisement.

They choosed the first one. It's their choice, but they will not lost money but will lost tones of visitors.

Props, first of all, on describing your point thoroughly and intelligently.

I don't think you can eliminate the cost of the writer's wage because while, yes, they're still writing for the print paper, the income from the print paper is diminishing. Newspaper sales are sinking while staff salaries are staying constant, so it's not as simple as solely looking at the extra costs from online news: it's also about looking at the lost revenue from the drop in magazine sales.

I see what you mean with web advertisements, but I can tell you it's still not the case. A buddy of mine runs one of the net's largest video game forums, and they can barely pay bandwidth costs and the salaries for the site's two dedicated employees. Granted, the bandwidth demands for that site are 100x the demands for a site like MySA.com, but MySA.com has on-staff writers and such that can't be discounted for the reasons above. I, personally, worked in web advertising for four years, and while it was profitable at the beginning, it's tanked.

chevydude 05-25-13 11:26 PM

I follow Jeff McDonald on twitter. He provides links to the spurs articles including Bucks. Worth a try. Works for me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0