The only time I can stomach Finebaum is when he has a guest speaker. The bozos that call in are an embarrassment to the South.
Pay for Cecil Hurt online now?
- Thread starter rizolltizide
- Start date
Yeah, this is one of the dumbest moves I've ever seen by a news organization. They've totally marginalized the state's best, probably most widely read sports writer. Cecil was always my first read on Sunday morning. Now I'm stuck with the al.com beat writers (which basically means Gentry Estes). Cecil has to be livid. I really hope he goes somewhere else soon.
I thought about it but probably won't pull the trigger. Figure 2 articles a week during the season and spring ball for a total of maybe 20 articles, throw in about 10 more during basketball and you're at $2/article. I couldn't care less about the other content. I finally decided that just like all the other pay stuff out there, I don't spend the time to justify the cost. I rarely watch any video features or look at photos. I like watching the game once or twice a weekend, read Cecil, Jess, bamasportsreport, and the peanut gallery here and that's pretty much it. The sky won't fall if I decide not to read Cecil, though I really value his insight.
Guys and gals, I've been in the advertising agency business for 22 years, and let me assure you of this because I deal with them on a daily basis.
Media conglomerates are the most greedy, self absorbed, corporate donkey holes in existence.
If they see an opportunity to make a buck, they could care less what we think of them as a company or to the reputation of good people who work for them, like Cecil Hurt.
They're vultures. Cut throat vultures. Corporate America scum of the earth.
I believe that Cecil will eventually end up leaving the Tuscaloosa News because of this.
But, in this economy, right now he probably has no choice but to go along with it.
So let's not blame him. He's the most loyal and most objective Alabama beat writer in history in my opinion. I read his columns every single day when I was at the University in the 70's, and I still do today.
This isn't "Cecil Greed", this is "Corporate Greed".
They know we want to read his columns. They expect us to pay.
I'm also going to give them the opportunity to kiss my pet donkey, but I'm not going to blame Cecil.
Cecil is the Roll Tide real deal.
sip
Media conglomerates are the most greedy, self absorbed, corporate donkey holes in existence.
If they see an opportunity to make a buck, they could care less what we think of them as a company or to the reputation of good people who work for them, like Cecil Hurt.
They're vultures. Cut throat vultures. Corporate America scum of the earth.
I believe that Cecil will eventually end up leaving the Tuscaloosa News because of this.
But, in this economy, right now he probably has no choice but to go along with it.
So let's not blame him. He's the most loyal and most objective Alabama beat writer in history in my opinion. I read his columns every single day when I was at the University in the 70's, and I still do today.
This isn't "Cecil Greed", this is "Corporate Greed".
They know we want to read his columns. They expect us to pay.
I'm also going to give them the opportunity to kiss my pet donkey, but I'm not going to blame Cecil.
Cecil is the Roll Tide real deal.
sip
Agree. He's a marketable commodity on his own, and the paper needs HIM to make it work, not the other way round. He really should do his own thing. I would certainly subscribe to cecilhurt.com or something similar...
That said, out of curiosity, I did do a one month trial at Tnews for $10...so far, it's been better than I expected. Lots of video coverage and well done. Not sold on a $60/year rate yet, but I have enjoyed it so far...
So what exactly is the "extra content"? Is it basicly his articles from the paper or is it something else all together? I assume they just want to make sure people cant read his articles online for free instead of paying for the paper.
I subscribe to the T-news during football season, but I dont see myself paying for any other "bonus content".
I subscribe to the T-news during football season, but I dont see myself paying for any other "bonus content".
You can still get his game summary type aticles, but you don't get the golden egg. His deep introspective articles that are so good at saying what you have been thinking in a non verbal way. He does that beautifully.
I wish they would keep that free but put the videos, maybe better the production of his weekly video show, and other trinkets for pay. But locking up the golden egg is hurting Cecil IMO. The big league players won't stumble across these superb articles anymore, lessening his exposure to people you know are not going to be paying to read Tide Sports.
I would rather the column not even be online if you have to pay for it. Many on here watched TV a third of their lives without paying a nickel after the TV and antenna. Then we got cable, which was supposed to be pay channels in exchange for no commercials, now we pay for all the channels and have commercials on most of them all. The internet started out as free content once you paid for your computer and access, now they want to make it like cable television. They want to have ads and make you pay for the content. I have a piddling Bama web portal that I barely have to update that will bring me about two thousand dollars this year with just a small google ad on it. Tidesports with good ad placement should do what they can with the budget in hand. Before you know it, the web will nickle and dime you to death like everything else that was supposed to be for the people, not the corporations.
Last edited:
Why aren't home subscribers, paying over $200 a year for the Cecil Hurt columns, given online access for free? Pretty lame.
Well as long as all I need to live is air, water and a little food paying for other things is up to me. I dropped CrimsonTide TV because after CB$ took over quality went into a death spiral, and folks that would help you figure out technical issues dropped into the Malysia along with all the oter IT folks. I get the same stuff I was paying CB$ for over on Al.com for free
Count me among those who will miss Cecil's articles terribly, but there is no way I will pay for this extra thing. I feel terrible for Cecil being forced into this becasue he has a very loyal following and many of them will be under the impression he had something to do with this.
Count me in as well for those who love Cecil but will not pay for his articles. I will miss him. I hope his paper comes to their senses soon.:conf2:
It takes a little more work but this is usually the case with a lot of things on the net. I don't pay for stinking content! The best things on the net still come from the non corporate sector and are free. Take Tidefans for instance. To me, I get way more information and fulfillment than paying for some glossed over package of forced content out to make a buck. It's because the content is coming from regular people, and is honest.
al.com is a great place to see all the presser's and player interviews. You can still listen to the games for free on net radio, and get decent recruiting information from rivals without a subscription. You can use youtude to see video highlights of players. You can even watch last weeks game online for free.
You just summed up the biggest problems facing the old guard media moguls and why they are trying all sorts of misguided ways to stomp it out.
The cat is out of the bag, and it will continue to get that way as technology evolves. Much like the music industry and file sharing, the news media got caught with their pants down, especially when social media really took off as it made everyone a content creator and distributor (One simple tweet or status update or blog post is all it takes).
For the record, this started last week. Finebaum heard about it from a caller, confirmed it with Cecil, and actually did a good job of absolutely toasting The News' publisher, editor, whatever (3 different guys, 2 in one interview and the third by himself). I live outside Bama so I do occasionally listen to Finebaum on the 'net, and was actually proud of Finebaum for once that day. Seemed he stuck up a bit for the Bama fans and let loose on the corporate heads. Made 'em look like idiots, which is to say they came off looking like most of Finebaum's callers.
Well, I'm about to step in it in a big way...
What newspapers should have done when the Internet came to prominence was to have started charging then, so people would be accustomed to it. Now everyone expects content for free and are shocked when asked to pay.
I worked in (still work in, I guess, if you count TideFans) journalism for 12 years and in the newspaper industry for 10 years. I understand you guys think $60/year is expensive, but how are you going to pay the salaries for the people who produce the stuff?
A little primer on how newspapers make their money: Advertising. Primarily it's "display" advertising (i.e., the ads you see in the news pages) but it's also classified. Online advertising is only a fraction of the business. The chief expenses of a paper are (1) salaries, and (2) newsprint. Add in postage for those papers with a weekly component that mail out for free (i.e., weeklies that are attached to a daily). It's very hard to make any kind of money in the business right now.
Notice I didn't mention subscriptions or single-copy (out of a rack) sales -- that's because they barely matter. Subscriptions matter mostly because they allow a paper to go to advertisers and say, "we reach x-number of people per week." But if a newspaper is charging 25 cents per copy, they're almost losing money on the deal once you figure in the cost of newsprint and the delivery guy.
Unfortunately, banner ads don't pay the bills. If a newspaper were to lose its ability to print and be forced online, it wouldn't work. At that point, subscriptions become very important and even then, my conservative guess as to how much staff you'd have to cut to make the bottom line fit runs as high as 50-75 percent. It's being tried in either Denver or Seattle right now.
And honestly, shouldn't these people get paid for their work?
I'm actually glad to see the Tuscaloosa News moving this way and I hope more papers start to do it. You guys that complain about the quality of journalism need to understand that the newspaper industry can't afford to pay much for writers these days, and in most cases you get what you pay for. So if you yearn for a "golden age of journalism," get ready to pay more for it, because that's what it's going to take.
Example: First-year writers make below $20k/year in most markets. Problem is, you've got some 25-year veterans not making much more than $30k. So what do you think you're going to get for your money?
Again, this is the future. Either the papers charge now, or they go under as papers and start charging for online content once they're reborn as online-only formats. The difference in the product is that you'll theoretically have college-educated professionals versus what you get on most freebie sites. And all it's going to take to run a lot of these bloggers masquerading as journalists out of business is a couple of libel lawsuits, because they don't have access to press associations like the APA and their affiliated legal services -- some of the stuff I've seen these so-called "journalists" write makes me almost have a heart attack. And as a further note on that, there are way too many guys/girls out there who think blogging makes them a journalist. It does not.
As a postscript: If you like TideFans.com, I would put Brett Young on your Christmas list. The only way we're able to do what we do here for free is because the people who run this place love what they do. Believe me, it's been painful from time to time sticking with our free-only model (I'm speaking only on my own behalf here) knowing how much money there is in a subscription model. And I don't say that to pat myself on the back, I say it to say this: It would not be possible for a major, legitimate newspaper to run their business the way TideFans runs ours. The only free-only news conglomerates that are profitable these days are profitable because they're either still making money off the paper product itself, have found a way to get revenue through other means (like affiliated companies, sites, services, etc.) or both.
What newspapers should have done when the Internet came to prominence was to have started charging then, so people would be accustomed to it. Now everyone expects content for free and are shocked when asked to pay.
I worked in (still work in, I guess, if you count TideFans) journalism for 12 years and in the newspaper industry for 10 years. I understand you guys think $60/year is expensive, but how are you going to pay the salaries for the people who produce the stuff?
A little primer on how newspapers make their money: Advertising. Primarily it's "display" advertising (i.e., the ads you see in the news pages) but it's also classified. Online advertising is only a fraction of the business. The chief expenses of a paper are (1) salaries, and (2) newsprint. Add in postage for those papers with a weekly component that mail out for free (i.e., weeklies that are attached to a daily). It's very hard to make any kind of money in the business right now.
Notice I didn't mention subscriptions or single-copy (out of a rack) sales -- that's because they barely matter. Subscriptions matter mostly because they allow a paper to go to advertisers and say, "we reach x-number of people per week." But if a newspaper is charging 25 cents per copy, they're almost losing money on the deal once you figure in the cost of newsprint and the delivery guy.
Unfortunately, banner ads don't pay the bills. If a newspaper were to lose its ability to print and be forced online, it wouldn't work. At that point, subscriptions become very important and even then, my conservative guess as to how much staff you'd have to cut to make the bottom line fit runs as high as 50-75 percent. It's being tried in either Denver or Seattle right now.
And honestly, shouldn't these people get paid for their work?
I'm actually glad to see the Tuscaloosa News moving this way and I hope more papers start to do it. You guys that complain about the quality of journalism need to understand that the newspaper industry can't afford to pay much for writers these days, and in most cases you get what you pay for. So if you yearn for a "golden age of journalism," get ready to pay more for it, because that's what it's going to take.
Example: First-year writers make below $20k/year in most markets. Problem is, you've got some 25-year veterans not making much more than $30k. So what do you think you're going to get for your money?
Again, this is the future. Either the papers charge now, or they go under as papers and start charging for online content once they're reborn as online-only formats. The difference in the product is that you'll theoretically have college-educated professionals versus what you get on most freebie sites. And all it's going to take to run a lot of these bloggers masquerading as journalists out of business is a couple of libel lawsuits, because they don't have access to press associations like the APA and their affiliated legal services -- some of the stuff I've seen these so-called "journalists" write makes me almost have a heart attack. And as a further note on that, there are way too many guys/girls out there who think blogging makes them a journalist. It does not.
As a postscript: If you like TideFans.com, I would put Brett Young on your Christmas list. The only way we're able to do what we do here for free is because the people who run this place love what they do. Believe me, it's been painful from time to time sticking with our free-only model (I'm speaking only on my own behalf here) knowing how much money there is in a subscription model. And I don't say that to pat myself on the back, I say it to say this: It would not be possible for a major, legitimate newspaper to run their business the way TideFans runs ours. The only free-only news conglomerates that are profitable these days are profitable because they're either still making money off the paper product itself, have found a way to get revenue through other means (like affiliated companies, sites, services, etc.) or both.
Last edited:
So Jess, should we take that as meaning you plan to pay for access to Cecil's articles? Have you already?
I wasn't a regular TideSports visitor before, so I probably wouldn't, but only for that reason and not for cost. Cecil is a friend of mine but I rarely had the time to read his columns when they were free. If my home-market newspaper decided to go with a pay model, however, I would pay for that because that's where I get my local news. For better or worse, however, my home-market newspaper is connected to a company that believes religiously in the free content model.
My comments are directed at those people who have been reading Cecil regularly for years and have been getting the benefit of his insight. If his columns were worth that much -- and if it's so important to have a "UA-friendly writer" in a position of prominence, like Cecil is at the Tuscaloosa News -- then they shouldn't have a problem paying for the service and supporting his/the T-News' efforts.
I guess my overriding question here is why does anyone feel they should get a product for nothing? You pay for food, you pay for gas, you pay to go to the movies or buy other entertainment, but there's something wrong with paying for news content? Makes no sense.
The alternative frankly scares me: Newspapers die out, and we're left with nothing but bloggers who have no training in slander/libel law, the use of sources, having the backing of attorneys when needing to confront corrupt officials, etc., trying to cover our government. I'm not so concerned about the sports end of things, because sports are wholly irrelevant to daily life when you get down to brass tacks. Coverage of the government, though, is as necessary as oxygen. And if you think the media is biased now (and many in the media are), just wait until you have Joe Blogger running things.
Post-edit P.S.: It's fair to ask whether $60 a year is a fair price, and the market will answer that for itself. I suspect it will hinge on the quality of their recruiting coverage in the offseason.
Last edited:
To be honest and respectfully disagree with Jess. I don't understand where the problem lies in making money off a free newspaper site. I have zero knowledge of this field, and everything thing I write here is based on my perception of how it would/could be.
The concept of an online newspaper is no different from a traditional paper, except the way that it is delivered, the profit of charging for it, and that it is available to a much wider audience. It would appear to me that what the newspapers are losing in charging for the paper they are making up for in savings on ink, paper, gas, cars, and paying a delivery boy.
And since the online paper is available to a much larger market, it should in turn make advertising that much easier because you can sell webpage space to even more businesses than before, an the same thing with personal ads such as car selling, job search marketing, etc.
Tuscaloosa news does some of this with classifieds, etc, but it could be much better. But what I notice when I go to the Tidesports page is that is all that is gone and I only see one large ad, and then a very small one up in the corner. The days of flipping through the paper and glancing over ads as you look for your article are coming to an end. And I'm sure not going to notice a small link to tuscaloosa news to click on if I'm not there to read that. What I'm getting at is the design of the website needs to be better so that A. more readers have easy access to their adds B. the Ads are presented in a fashion that readers will acknowledge them C. readers are clicking on them. And without the obvious links to rest of the paper like there are on T-News, they have basically cut their sports section apart from the rest of the paper.
Now I'm not sure if T-News is having financial problems, or if they just think by doing this they can make more money. But if you go to AL.com you'll notice when you read the articles themselves they are laced with ads. Shoot, one is right in the middle and you have to skip past it.
IMO, by making Cecil and other material a pay only section you are limiting your resources. What if I had never read anything by Cecil, why would I pay to go try it out? And obviously with the responses I've seen here and on tidesports, most readers don't think it's worth it as much as they love Cecil.
Time will tell if this works out or not, but from the perception I have received so far, the only thing Tidesports has done has taken their most valuable asset for getting advertisement and hid it in the stock room. Just think about all the web hits that Cecils columns got from fans linking it to other forums and emailing it out, all that is no more.
Just some ideas and things I would do if I was tidesports. I would do like espn does and run commercials before the videos begin to play. On the forum i would have add that was displayed on a pop up after submitting a post (for example Bama Clothing Store would like to thank you for posting on Tidesports, come check out our sales on alabama gear at bamaclothingstore.com). I would also definitely have ads within the articles, cause that's what people link for others to read.
The concept of an online newspaper is no different from a traditional paper, except the way that it is delivered, the profit of charging for it, and that it is available to a much wider audience. It would appear to me that what the newspapers are losing in charging for the paper they are making up for in savings on ink, paper, gas, cars, and paying a delivery boy.
And since the online paper is available to a much larger market, it should in turn make advertising that much easier because you can sell webpage space to even more businesses than before, an the same thing with personal ads such as car selling, job search marketing, etc.
Tuscaloosa news does some of this with classifieds, etc, but it could be much better. But what I notice when I go to the Tidesports page is that is all that is gone and I only see one large ad, and then a very small one up in the corner. The days of flipping through the paper and glancing over ads as you look for your article are coming to an end. And I'm sure not going to notice a small link to tuscaloosa news to click on if I'm not there to read that. What I'm getting at is the design of the website needs to be better so that A. more readers have easy access to their adds B. the Ads are presented in a fashion that readers will acknowledge them C. readers are clicking on them. And without the obvious links to rest of the paper like there are on T-News, they have basically cut their sports section apart from the rest of the paper.
Now I'm not sure if T-News is having financial problems, or if they just think by doing this they can make more money. But if you go to AL.com you'll notice when you read the articles themselves they are laced with ads. Shoot, one is right in the middle and you have to skip past it.
IMO, by making Cecil and other material a pay only section you are limiting your resources. What if I had never read anything by Cecil, why would I pay to go try it out? And obviously with the responses I've seen here and on tidesports, most readers don't think it's worth it as much as they love Cecil.
Time will tell if this works out or not, but from the perception I have received so far, the only thing Tidesports has done has taken their most valuable asset for getting advertisement and hid it in the stock room. Just think about all the web hits that Cecils columns got from fans linking it to other forums and emailing it out, all that is no more.
Just some ideas and things I would do if I was tidesports. I would do like espn does and run commercials before the videos begin to play. On the forum i would have add that was displayed on a pop up after submitting a post (for example Bama Clothing Store would like to thank you for posting on Tidesports, come check out our sales on alabama gear at bamaclothingstore.com). I would also definitely have ads within the articles, cause that's what people link for others to read.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Saigon falls, 50 years ago today 4/30/75- Started by Bamaro
- Replies: 31
-
News Article: Alabama's "Way too Early Depth Chart"- Started by Slowpoke Catracho
- Replies: 45
-
