Tulsa World erects paywall

[Ed W]

On Monday, the Tulsa World will begin delivering "metered" content.  That means a subscription is required for viewing anything other than index pages.  Those without a subscription will be limited to 10 pages per month.  The lowest rate for full access is the $12/mo Sunday only paper delivery.  If you want digital access only, that's $15/mo.

That's right.  Dead trees on your doorstep and unlimited access for $12, while a digital subscription that involves far less in delivery costs is priced at $15.  What's wrong with this picture?

The paper tried erecting a paywall once before.  It didn't work.  Does anyone know why?

To make it just that much more interesting, the comments sections are disabled on the subscription announcement pages.  Apparently they really don't care what we have to say.

By the way, the New York Times is doing this too, but they're 'metering' readers to 20 pages per month.  Perhaps the Tulsa World is delivering better content that justifies fewer pages.  Perhaps.

[ZYX]

I see why they are doing this, but those who only read online will simply quit reading it. I don't think very many will actually buy a subscription.

[Gonesouth1234]

I've had a household subscription for years to the Whirld, but each month I keep asking myself why I should prolong the cost, plus the fact that whatever person(s) delivers these annointed vessels of knowledge to my door can't seem to find the doorstep, but often finds the neighbor's driveway.

Which usually leaves me scanning the Whirld website if I am desperate for coverage on a particular item,  because the vessel of knowledge, about 4-6 times a month is residing on a neighbor's coffee table.
Replacement copies are promptly delivered, in their favor, usually by 11 or so, on the day the complaint was made.   But by then, who cares?  

Unless you are interested in an issue that might have some deeper background, such as Dewey's latest pranks, or the latest filings from Dewey's arch enemies, it's news that is over a day old.  

And more and more, a filter is required in the thought process when reading their reporting, IMHO.

Detail and background are the only reasons that make me keep the subscribing to it..

The online Whirld archives are helpful in some of the research that I do; but
I am really trying to decide if the cost is worth the benefit.   It seems like every other month the bill for putting "trees on my doorstep" just inches a little higher.  Never announced, just gone up by 50 cents or so.

The paywall may be the brick that caused the whole stack to fall.

[patric]

The paper tried erecting a paywall once before.  It didn't work.  Does anyone know why?

I dont remember the specifics of why it failed, just that it failed.
I believe that even verified subscribers could only view so much content at a time, and even failed page loads worked against your limit.

Im seeing this as a big nail in the coffin of their print operation.
I wouldnt want to see them fold because they are a good research resource, and offer more substance than the broadcasters.

The biggest problem with broadcasters websites is that they are just cut-and-paste from their teleprompter.  There is usually no more content online than what was aired, despite the fact that the time constraints that limit the broadcast script arent there on the web.  When they push "see us on the web" there's really no reason to if there is no additional content to see.  They simply arent geared to take advantage of the opportunity in front of them, and that's been the World's web advantage -- sofar.

[Ed W]

Newspapers are struggling.  No doubt about it.  But broadcast journalism doesn't have to in-depth content to fill the void, as Patric pointed out.  Getting local stories will be more difficult without the World.

As an experiment, I added the local television news pages to my Morning Coffee list.  It's not very inspiring.  In fact, I can probably get almost as much information from the World's main index page.  I'm trying NewsOK too, but it always makes me want to wash my hands.

I thought the main revenue stream for a newspaper came from advertising, not subscriptions.  The World is no slouch at delivering the ads, but I have to wonder if a downturn in the number of on-line readers will affect their ad rates.  It shouldn't since they don't carry ads on the web edition.  Still, you have to wonder why they'd ignore such a potential source of funds.

I'd consider paying a modest fee for web access, but certainly not more than the dead tree version.  That's just crazy.

 

[Red Arrow]

I'd consider paying a modest fee for web access, but certainly not more than the dead tree version.  That's just crazy.

I have often wondered about the logic of charging as much for either web or even CD/DVD copies of something that would normally be a large printed book.

[Teatownclown]

We will all look back on the past 20 years of free internet sites and recall the wonderful embryonic daze of the start of the internet. Get ready to pay for all outside network data and info that arrive vis a vie broadband.
The writing is on the wall.

The internets are for scoundrels! Why else would we be hanging out on TNF!

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20110309

[cannon_fodder]

It has been tried, and failed, but much greater papers than the Tulsa World.  Unfortunately the net affect appears to be to make that news outlet less relevant.   I subscribe, so it doesn't change my view - other than make it more annoying to view online content and make it less likely it will be linked.

[Townsend]

Think we'll start seeing some of our angrier posters back?

[ZYX]

Think we'll start seeing some of our angrier posters back?

Anybody but Gretchen Wyler...

[Gonesouth1234]

The biggest problem with broadcasters websites is that they are just cut-and-paste from their teleprompter.  There is usually no more content online than what was aired, despite the fact that the time constraints that limit the broadcast script arent there on the web.  When they push "see us on the web" there's really no reason to if there is no additional content to see.  They simply arent geared to take advantage of the opportunity in front of them, and that's been the World's web advantage -- sofar.

I watched "Facchhhhkkkkkkkxxxxzzzzzzzz 23" this morning for about an hour, and realized what a monumental waste of an opportunity their news block is.

Having been there, done that, the news model is based on a 5-12 minute audience turnover, and the rates are based appropriately on the percentage of viewership, that's a given. (The repeat of the weather forecast every 6 minutes tells me that it may be less than that, either that or I should be insulted because some consultant somewhere in his parents' basement doesn't think I'm smart enough to remember what just ran a few minutes back.)

There has been a couple of  attempts on the part of Facchhhhkkkkkkkxxxxzzzzzzzz 23" to do some relevant, investigative journalism, but it usually winds up being something shocking (titillating?), like the number of massage parlors that operate in Tulsa or sitting in a parking lot taping some hooker a block away talking to a potential customer ,and these are run during the fall or spring ratings sweeps.

To set up an investigative unit that actually covered something other than massage parlors would take a major commitment in dollars and other resources, and Griffin Communications has come the closest to that with their unit in our local markets.

But as viewers can see every morning, instead of some real meat being produced and people made uncomfortable by a real exposure of a fact that will make someone, somewhere, in power perhaps squirm over their morning coffee and consider packing for a quick trip, the general format is talking heads, and rescued dog stories.  This being led with, as patric pointed out,  the cut and paste crime and wreck headlines.  But, ". .if it bleeds, it leads".

There will always be a place for the journalist who really digs, and presents deep background, and in that vein, I think the "newspaper' faction of the 4th estate will survive in some form, and this is probably going to be where the Whirld will wind up.  But the print production of the business, as we have already seen, is not going to be so much a factor in the coming future.

[Cats Cats Cats]

There is a hard time to come up with enough original content to even bother charging for it.

[Nik]

I'm with those of you that would be willing to pay, but not more than a paper subscription. I'd be willing to pay around ~$75/year.

[Patrick]

Interesting article-

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-tulsa-world-will-put-up-a-paywall/

The New York Times spent $40 million designing and implementing their paywall, which is easily circumvented by deleting the NYT cookie the website installs on your computer.  This method works for Tulsa World, too.  You can also block tulsaworld.com from installing a cookie on your computer.  This does, however, cause an annoying problem of the page continuing to reload itself, obviously trying to reinstall the cookie that it is not allowed to do.  I'm not smart enough to find a work around, but someone will soon enough.

Edit - Fixed!  Thanks to an anonymous Tulsa Now friend.

[tulsascoot]

This is the end of my reading the Tulsa World. I've never had a subscription, owing that to my coming into adulthood in the (beginning of) internet age. I can get news anywhere without paying for it.

And Gretchen is such a d-bag. She is obviously hardcore right wing, but post such veiled racist and completely unsubstantiated bs. She's a typical regurgitator if talk radio fear. I won't miss that.