Paywall goes up at LJS

[bilsker]

I really don't like both Sipple and Shatel. But I feel the LJS reporters are better than the OWS. I don't mind stories that are critical of the program, but some of the stuff that the OWH prints just comes across the wrong way to me. Lee's tone just comes across as bitter. We could go out and win a MNC and he would find something negative to write about the next day. Dirk I think could be a good writer if he would lose some of the arrogance that comes across in his writing. I like Sam and he knows how to write stories that praise when needed and also be critical when warranted.

The negative stuff won't kill you. It might actually make you think.

And other than his vote for Michigan back in the 90s...what had Lee ever writen that was wrong. I've been on the wrong side of the opinion deal with Barfneck (it's why I intentionally spell his name wrong!) but take it for what it's worth...an opinion. Sometimes it will make you think differently.

[HuskerMark]

Not sure what the big deal is, the LJS is going to charge, why complain about it on a board that you pay to post on.

[ChipfromWash]

Not sure what the big deal is, just right click on any link that has an asterisk behind it on HuskerMax and select open link in incognito window. At least that's how it works with Google Chrome. I'm sure there are similar options with the other web browsers.

[Nishioka]

IMO, thats rediculous!

What's ridiculous? The LJS not giving their content that they paid people to develop away for free?

[Red Crawdad]

I'm definitely not going to pay to access two sites that give pretty much the same info, with different opinion piece writers.

Maybe the newspaper companies should start thinking differently about their competitors. How about the LJS or OWH offering a package deal, say $10 a month to get access to both newspapers? I think more people would be likely to pay for that rather than purchase individual subscriptions to both...

[bilsker]

What's ridiculous? The LJS not giving their content that they paid people to develop away for free?

Similar to the outrage people expressed when they found out that they couldn't download music for free.

[CombatTargeteer]

This one will hurt. I don't miss the OWH so much but I did enjoy the LJS. Oh well as you get older you get used to doing with less.

[Big10dude]

The LA times has started the same thing this year. To defeat it, I simply google the article instead of going to LA times.com and there ya go, read LA times all day without getting blocked.

[The Impaler]

Similar to the outrage people expressed when they found out that they couldn't download music for free.

Similarly I wonder if a better model might be an iTunes-esque model. Give you a preview of said article and you can purchase individual articles at a cheap (maybe $.10 - $.25/article) type thing.

[bilsker]

Similarly I wonder if a better model might be an iTunes-esque model. Give you a preview of said article and you can purchase individual articles at a cheap (maybe $.10 - $.25/article) type thing.

Good idea. I wonder if individual columnists/reporters would like this style of "voting". I'm guessing NOT.

[The Impaler]

Good idea. I wonder if individual columnists/reporters would like this style of "voting". I'm guessing NOT.

This is true, never thought of that! Might be a good way for newspapers to gauge job performance.

[bilsker]

This is true, never thought of that! Might be a good way for newspapers to gauge job performance.

Or it might cause otherwise free thinking columnists to get "in line" and write the puff pieces that most fans prefer to read rather than the sometime necessary opposite.

[The Impaler]

This is true, never thought of that! Might be a good way for newspapers to gauge job performance.

Or it might cause otherwise free thinking columnists to get "in line" and write the puff pieces that most fans prefer to read rather than the sometime necessary opposite.

A possibility as well. I'm sure they know who's popular and who isn't anyway.

[BubbaGene]

Or it might cause otherwise free thinking columnists to get "in line" and write the puff pieces that most fans prefer to read rather than the sometime necessary opposite.

Oh bilsker, we simply MUST have the puff. It makes us feel so good.

You read that ************, Shatel's column today? He called out our beloved Bo....and the lowered expectations of the fanbase!!! How dare he?

I am glad I read that for free because I sure as heck wouldn't have paid for it. ;-)


addendum: apparently "a$$hat" doesn't get by the censors....

[AzHusker]

[Blue Howl]

LOL, that's oh so true! Very good point, Mark.

Not sure what the big deal is, the LJS is going to charge, why complain about it on a board that you pay to post on.

[CornfieldCounty]

The are not giving away the product for free.. they charge for spot placement and banner advertising for all web pages, I know, I have been presented the rate cards.

[SWVAHusker]

I've been on both sides of the fence on this. I've worked for the LJS, OWH, Philadelphia Inquirer and Denver Post.

They've got to generate revenue just like any other business to pay the bills and write all those paychecks. Print advertising, historically the bell cow, is in the tank. Giving away your product doesn't seem like the long-term answer.

Part of me wants to see the paid-subscription model succeed, because I want newspapers to survive. But the other part of me has a strong hunch that it won't work, because there are way too many free alternatives out there.

This won't work for papers like the OWH and LJS. The only papers it's ever worked for are the NYT (somewhat), the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. For it to work you have to have a dedicated reader base that wants specific content they can't get elsewhere. Basic news on the Huskers can be found at hundreds of different outlets. Columnists for the LJS and OWH aren't good enough for those who don't subscribe to the dead tree version of the newspaper to pay for it online.

This is just an attempt to put the horse back in the barn when it's been out since the mid-90s.

[SWVAHusker]

The are not giving away the product for free.. they charge for spot placement and banner advertising for all web pages, I know, I have been presented the rate cards.

Online advertising isn't making 1/10th of what print advertising used to make before the advent of the Web and content providers decisions to make all of their content free. There are so many problems with web advertising but one of the major ones is that advertisers don't necessarily know whether or not an advertisement is seen because so many people have advertising blockers as add-ons to their web browsers. Unlike advertising in the dead tree edition of the newspaper where people might see your ad simply by mistake and like what they see, with web advertising people don't ever need to see ads unless the specifically want to, and a large number of people just don't want to see any ads at all.

[CornfieldCounty]

Online advertising isn't making 1/10th of what print advertising used to make before the advent of the Web and content providers decisions to make all of their content free. There are so many problems with web advertising but one of the major ones is that advertisers don't necessarily know whether or not an advertisement is seen because so many people have advertising blockers as add-ons to their web browsers. Unlike advertising in the dead tree edition of the newspaper where people might see your ad simply by mistake and like what they see, with web advertising people don't ever need to see ads unless the specifically want to, and a large number of people just don't want to see any ads at all.

Oh, I understand it all, but they are not "giving away the content for free". In fact, some of the rates I have been presented rival that of the print.