When I posted Newspaper charges for reading obits online: double-dipping on death, I invited Ernie Schreiber, editor of the Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era, to respond. His response is below. I responded separately.
Steve,
It’s disappointing to learn that when you left the newsroom, you left behind fairness, the bedrock of credibility in our profession. As you well know, an ethical journalist reaches out to the subject of a story before publication of that story, not afterwards. And an ethical journalist does not engage in silly name calling.
Such cheap-shot reporting is not what I would have expected from a respected former editor who led the Newspaper Next movement.
Nonetheless, you raise valid points about our experiment with paid content in Lancaster, and I am quite willing to respond to them.
First, you label Journalism Online “a profiteer” and LancasterOnline “a sucker,” suggesting that somehow it fooled us into this “fantasy-based” experiment. That’s wrong. We proposed the experiment of a metered paywall for out-of-market non-subscribers. Journalism Online supplied the software for that payment plan.
Second, you and Mark Potts have ridiculed the numbers on which we built our experiment, saying the volume of readers shown in our analytics cannot possibly be there. You most likely are correct; I am skeptical of the numbers as well. That’s why I cut the numbers by 90% — to arrive at levels of revenue that would seem more in line with common sense.
The fact is we don’t know for a certainty how many frequent out-of-market obituary readers exist. We don’t know their ages. We don’t know their reason for reading. That’s what this experiment is all about. We’re trying to learn the real dimensions of this audience.
Third, you accuse us of charging twice for obituaries, double-dipping you call it. It’s no more double-dipping than charging to place a display ad in a newspaper, then charging a reader a subscription to read it.
Subscribers pay for the journalism that our news organization produces. Online readers support us indirectly by seeing and acting on advertisements. But out-of-market nonsubscribers do not contribute either way. We’re asking them to support us as well.
Fourth, you suggest that our plan is squeezing money from grieving people. In fact, the person who comes to our site solely to see the obituary of an old friend or loved one will not be charged. That’s one of the reasons why we set the meter high, at seven obituary views. We hope to avoid the circumstance in which a one-time reader, or a casual browser, is asked for payment.
Fifth, you suggest that people can find obituaries elsewhere. True. If people are willing to search through eight or nine funeral home websites daily, they might find most of the obituaries for their communities, although not those placed by out-of-town funeral homes. What we and every newspaper-based news organization offer is ease of access – a one-stop place to read all a community’s obituaries.
Sixth, you suggest that our experiment will push “older people, the most loyal group of newspaper readers” to find news elsewhere. How do you know that about our out-of-market online readers? How do you know their ages? How do you know they are newspaper readers? How do you know they will be unhappy and go elsewhere? For me, these are all open questions to be tested in this experiment.
For all I know, these are people in their 40s, 50s and older who have been transferred recently to jobs at a distance, or spend time at a vacation home, or moved away decades ago but still stay in touch with their hometown friends. This first test will help us define that audience.
Seventh, you suggest that distant readers will erupt in anger at the notion that we charge them to read the obituaries of aged friends, giving us a black eye in the community.
Your experiences with readers must be different than mine. When I take the time to explain why newsrooms need new sources of revenue, most readers – especially older readers who appreciate the quality of newspaper journalism – respond positively. They may not be giddy about paying, but they understand the reason.
Finally, I ask you to examine the bitterness and anger that infuses your writing about “old” media. It’s unbecoming. While you sarcastically trash efforts to earn new revenue for the print-based newsrooms you left behind, many of us are determined to find new ways to bring in the dollars that support America’s highest-quality journalism.
If this experiment fails, you can gloat and chortle with delight. I’ll move on to the next idea. And the next. And the next.
Thanks to Ernie for sending this. I have responded in a separate post.
Ernie,
On your point 4, you say “We hope to avoid the circumstance in which a one-time reader, or a casual browser, is asked for payment.” However, the way that it is implemented, the first time you click on an obit, you get the box asking if you want to sign up for a Press+ account.
When calculating your numbers, did you account for the ease with which the paywall can be circumvented? e.g. using a different browser, clearing cookies or using privacy mode on your browser all will reset the counter. (Without knowing your audience, it’s unclear to the extent they will do this, but word usually spreads quickly about such things.)
LikeLike
We have designed the first screen, the Welcome screen, to inform readers of our pay policy upfront but also to make clear that there is no obligation to pay at that point. The reader simply clicks on the continue button and proceeds to read.
There may be better ways to communicate with both audiences — the one-time visitor who’s lost a friend and the frequent community-oriented reader. I’d be eager to hear suggestions.
We’re aware of several ways that the meter count can be circumvented. For the time being, we hope that the universe of obituary readers and the universe of tech-savvy users have little intersection.
Those who have worked with metered content at other news organizations say that the number of folks who erase cookies or turn off scripts is relatively small.
We intend to resolve the issue, but it won’t be a high-priority unless we see lots of cheating.
LikeLike
Hoping for “little intersection” between the universe of customers and the universe of tech-savvy users is what got newsrooms in this bind in the first place.
LikeLike
For the one time visitor, there’s no reason to present the message at all. If they’re not going to be interrupted by it, why bother them with a sales pitch while they’re grieving?
Note also that the way things are implemented, it’s 7 page views, not views of 7 obituaries.
If someone were to call up the same obit 8 times in the same month, they would get hit by this. Fortunately I haven’t had to deal with this personally, but I can imagine that a lot of grieving people would want to call up an obit multiple times.
LikeLike
[…] on July 13, 2010 at 12:45 pm | Reply LancasterOnline editor responds about charging to read online obituaries « Pursuing the Comple… […]
LikeLike
“It’s disappointing to learn that when you left the newsroom, you left behind fairness, the bedrock of credibility in our profession. As you well know, an ethical journalist reaches out to the subject of a story before publication of that story, not afterwards. And an ethical journalist does not engage in silly name calling.
Such cheap-shot reporting is not what I would have expected from a respected former editor who led the Newspaper Next movement.”
Bull shit. Steve did all the reporting he needed to do by citing online sources. There is no ethical or moral obligation to go any further, either as a blogger or a journalist. It’s the height of unprofessionalism to accuse somebody of a sin that isn’t a sin.
But we’ve been seeing this line of attack from printies a lot
lately (don’t rely on the professional reporting on others, do your own reporting — it’s the latest silly line in the bloggers vs. “serious journalists” debate).
Now that that silliness is out of the way, I’ll continue reading.
LikeLike
“The fact is we don’t know for a certainty how many frequent out-of-market obituary readers exist. We don’t know their ages. We don’t know their reason for reading. That’s what this experiment is all about. We’re trying to learn the real dimensions of this audience.”
That would be fairly easy information to get, with a reasonable, though not perfect, degree of accuracy, before starting the “experiment.”
“Subscribers pay for the journalism that our news organization produces. ”
No they don’t. They pay for the package the journalism comes in.
“What we and every newspaper-based news organization offer is ease of access – a one-stop place to read all a community’s obituaries.”
But that’s easy to duplicate. Once the obits are behind a pay wall, it would be no big deal for an enterprising blogger to aggregate obits on a free site. See Newzjunky.com
And I share Mr. Buttry’s anger …
“many of us are determined to find new ways to bring in the dollars that suppot America’s highest-quality journalism.”
Where were you for the past 15 years as people like Steve and I struggled to drag newsrooms into a realistic working partnership with the online content world, besides being resistant if not outright hostile to change. Now you play “oh innocent me, I’m just trying to save journalism” all the while retreading failed experiments of years ago.
The anger comes from loving journalism and seeing printies piss it all away. (speaking for myself, not necessarily Steve).
LikeLike
I did not see how there can be a journalism debate when we are talking about paid advertising here (obituaries).
The question of ‘ethics’ I see here is that a family purchases an advertisement that a publisher is now going to charge the consumer to read.
Also, not knowing who the reader/consumer is? Who builds a business (not)model around such unknown? I have had a good bit of business learnin’ in my day and I have NEVER seen such a… oh, never mind.
Let’s see who buys it? Sheeesh! Dead in 6 months with less than $1k in earned revenue.
LikeLike
Paid death notices are different than obituaries.
LikeLike
Not necessarily true. I’ve seen places were death notices are free, obits are paid.
I’ve also seen places where both are paid.
I doubt there’s a NP in the US these days that doesn’t charge for one or the other.
LikeLike
In my experience, death notices are typically free and obituaries are paid advertising.
I am also fairly confident that obituaries at the Lancaster newspaper are paid advertisements.
LikeLike
FYI, @greglinch on Twitter just called this to my attention: How to turn off Lancaster New Era obit paywall: http://bit.ly/9n3ivC
LikeLike
[…] new paywall on its online obituaries for out-of-town viewers. I was reacting to the editor’s response to Steve’s initial post criticizing the move, but I figured I have a little more to say about […]
LikeLike
Well, this started as a comment here but now it’s a post:
Newspapers are getting the obit business fatally wrong
LikeLike
[…] editor of the Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era, to respond. I posted his response as a separate post, because I think it’s fair to give him his say uninterrupted. But he raised points that […]
LikeLike
Thanks for all the responses. I hope you also read my response to Ernie: http://bit.ly/cdVPqd
LikeLike
[…] editor of the Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era, cited my Newspaper Next experience in scolding me for Monday’s post. He clearly had an awareness that N2 was about innovation, but (like many of […]
LikeLike
Wow, when did journalism become a war between “printies” and other journalists? I’ve only been in the biz for 3 years, and I have never seen such hatred! Thank you for setting a great example for the next generation of journalists.
LikeLike
Bethany, I wouldn’t call it a war or hatred, but the friction can sometimes get strong. Many digital journalists, including myself, are former printies who are heartsick about the failure to innovate in the industry to which we devoted so much of our lives. Still, I bet most, if not all, of the people arguing here could find considerable common ground and have a friendly discussion if we met over lunch or beer (I offered in an email to do that with Ernie Schreiber next time he’s in Washington).
I should note that the strongest statements in this exchange, by Howard Owens, are all focused on professional disagreement. I just reread the exchange and didn’t see any personal remarks or anything approaching hatred. We have a strong disagreement. I welcome that here.
LikeLike
But why the name-calling? Again, I never knew there was a difference between most journalists. I mean, magazine journalism is a bit different, depending on your market. (Hard news vs. soft news.)
However, most journalists of the older generation had dabbled into newspapers, and I thought they all respected the newspaper biz (even if it wasn’t for them.)
I am just disheartened that I am a “printie” and quickly labeled. That’s calling a book by it’s cover, and we (journalists, I mean) know better than to do that.
Maybe I am just naive and young, but I’d rather be than bitter.
LikeLike
Mark Potts: Printies
LikeLike
“Printies” is name-calling? o_0
I’m both a “printie” AND a digital journalist, and I have no problem with what’s being said here.
To use a war term for this: This is not two sides fighting each other here. This is more a disagreement between officers during a battle planning session.
LikeLike
[…] LancasterOnline editor responds about charging to read online obituaries (stevebuttry.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
[…] was my seventh most-popular post of 2010 (and related posts about LancasterOnline’s plan to charge frequent out-of-town obituary readers also drew some attention). I noted that Journal Register Co. is succeeding at innovation by […]
LikeLike
Steve: Did you ever do a follow up on this issue? Any idea what most newspapers are doing with obituaries when it comes to metered sites?
LikeLike
My follow ups were on suggestions for a new business model for obituaries. I don’t know of anyone else following the Lancaster approach (and don’t know if they still are). Lots of news sites have paywalls now, and I think the obits are usually behind the paywall, but I haven’t researched how news sites are handling obits.
LikeLike