Tweet
...that is the question.
I'm thinking about the following:
Disclaimer: My SDSU undergrad degree is a BS in Journalism and I am biased: I'm absolutely convinced we can't afford to lose good news organizations and reporters like Zimm.
If anyone made it to the bottom of this post, thanks for reading. I'll hang up and listen.
For those interested in the topic, please excuse my long post. I just returned from a local coffee shop (today it was Caribou, yesterday it was Starbucks; Monday it was Scooters) with a $5.00 cold drink -- and I'm thinking about spending less than that (coffee drinks x 20 a month to get a monthly average) to get newspaper content that I probably would enjoy more than today's cold coffee). [The coffee thing may be explained by a caffeine addiction except that I gave up caffeine years ago and only drink decaf -- go figure.)
I note the Argus is further limiting its free online content. There are now articles that are for subscribers only. Those include some articles by Zimm. For example, in this message board's football thread "Zimmers position analysis", I cannot access the article cited because I'm not a subscriber.
Now, I know there are many -- me included -- whose initial reaction to "subscriber's only" is "yeah, well you can go shove that up your nose". But I'm re-thinking that position. The news industry created a real monster by giving away content on the internet. That "business" model has caused great harm to the bottom line and with that, there goes the reporting and editorial staff. More notable is the fact that getting free content on the internet has caused a significant problem with readers: Readers are now conditioned to expect free content. Free? (I'm taking another drink from my $5.00 cold coffee.)
I note the Argus is further limiting its free online content. There are now articles that are for subscribers only. Those include some articles by Zimm. For example, in this message board's football thread "Zimmers position analysis", I cannot access the article cited because I'm not a subscriber.
Now, I know there are many -- me included -- whose initial reaction to "subscriber's only" is "yeah, well you can go shove that up your nose". But I'm re-thinking that position. The news industry created a real monster by giving away content on the internet. That "business" model has caused great harm to the bottom line and with that, there goes the reporting and editorial staff. More notable is the fact that getting free content on the internet has caused a significant problem with readers: Readers are now conditioned to expect free content. Free? (I'm taking another drink from my $5.00 cold coffee.)
I'm thinking about the following:
I'm going to give serious consideration to subscribing. (More below on the qualifier: 'serious consideration") If we did not have the internet, there's no question I would be a subscriber to the print Argus -- I'd do that on the basis of Zimm's coverage accompanied by some good action photos -- I thought the same going back to the early D1 days with Chris Solari and continuing through Terry Vandrovec and Zimmer-- the Argus has overall covered the Jacks well with entertaining and informative stories and features. I think the Argus recognizes they have a lot of readership (although many are freeloaders like me) who are interested in the Jacks and the teams they play.
I'm thinking it's time for an attitude adjustment: I get more enjoyment following the Jacks than I do spending five bucks on a coffee most days. I think its high time to pony-up and make sure the Argus stays in business and Zimm is rewarded for some good work. Perhaps some day we will read about Zimm's technique for maintaining perfect bed-head-hair every day.
I'd be interested in reading the experience of others who frequent this message board and are subscribers to the Argus so they have full online access to content.
I recognize this long, boring post may invite some sharp rebukes. I'm not very interested in reading the "they can go to hell" attitude -- I already have that attitude and I'm thinking about changing it. I'm interested in Zimm's coverage and as football approaches, I really don't want to miss out. That has value to me -- more value than my Starbucks, Caribou and Scooters reward cards provide. Perhaps more important is the fact that my wife, one of the all-time great Jackrabbit fans (she's a convert: got her degree elsewhere and like religion converts, sports converts are impossible to reason with....). Zimm has access to coaches and athletes and he's focused on SDSU coverage. And, he does a very good job putting it all together. I can't get that information and those stories from any other source. What's that worth? I think its worth a subscription. (Starbucks, Caribou and Scooters along with an independent coffee shop or two have nothing to worry about.)
Okay, here's the qualifier on 'serious consideration': The papers in the Gannett chain -- the Argus is one -- have bad websites. The Argus free website is the worst website I visit. I'm not exaggerating. Each morning I read a bunch of news from many sources on an iPad. I am a subscriber on some of the sites. The iPad works flawlessly on every site except the Argus site. So, I conclude I don't have a problem with the iPad. The Argus site is garbage. It has dead links and links that misdirect from the intended story to an ad or an unrelated story. At times it simply stares back at me so I move on. Lately the Argus site is one I do not check every morning because it works so poorly. If I subscribe, will I continue to have problems with access?
So, I'm going to try to determine the experience of those who are online subscribers to the Argus. Anyone care to comment? Does the website work for subscribers? I'm going to investigate the cost of a subscription etc. and I may call the Argus circulation dept and discuss with them. I'm thinking it's time for an attitude adjustment: I get more enjoyment following the Jacks than I do spending five bucks on a coffee most days. I think its high time to pony-up and make sure the Argus stays in business and Zimm is rewarded for some good work. Perhaps some day we will read about Zimm's technique for maintaining perfect bed-head-hair every day.
I'd be interested in reading the experience of others who frequent this message board and are subscribers to the Argus so they have full online access to content.
I recognize this long, boring post may invite some sharp rebukes. I'm not very interested in reading the "they can go to hell" attitude -- I already have that attitude and I'm thinking about changing it. I'm interested in Zimm's coverage and as football approaches, I really don't want to miss out. That has value to me -- more value than my Starbucks, Caribou and Scooters reward cards provide. Perhaps more important is the fact that my wife, one of the all-time great Jackrabbit fans (she's a convert: got her degree elsewhere and like religion converts, sports converts are impossible to reason with....). Zimm has access to coaches and athletes and he's focused on SDSU coverage. And, he does a very good job putting it all together. I can't get that information and those stories from any other source. What's that worth? I think its worth a subscription. (Starbucks, Caribou and Scooters along with an independent coffee shop or two have nothing to worry about.)
Okay, here's the qualifier on 'serious consideration': The papers in the Gannett chain -- the Argus is one -- have bad websites. The Argus free website is the worst website I visit. I'm not exaggerating. Each morning I read a bunch of news from many sources on an iPad. I am a subscriber on some of the sites. The iPad works flawlessly on every site except the Argus site. So, I conclude I don't have a problem with the iPad. The Argus site is garbage. It has dead links and links that misdirect from the intended story to an ad or an unrelated story. At times it simply stares back at me so I move on. Lately the Argus site is one I do not check every morning because it works so poorly. If I subscribe, will I continue to have problems with access?
Disclaimer: My SDSU undergrad degree is a BS in Journalism and I am biased: I'm absolutely convinced we can't afford to lose good news organizations and reporters like Zimm.
If anyone made it to the bottom of this post, thanks for reading. I'll hang up and listen.
Comment