PDA

View Full Version : First in Print-Cincinnati Enquirer's New Policy



Sea Ray
03-07-2010, 02:29 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this so I settled on here. If the MODs feel differently, then please move it.

The Cincinnati Enquirer today talked about the increasing challenges they have today with the issue of print media vs online content. The issue is the print media is something its customers pay for whereas the online stuff is being given out for free. In an evolving effort to deal with this new reality the paper has decided that they will begin labeling certain articles as "First in Print." Any article with that heading will have a 24 hr delay before it appears in the Online version. This is meant to give the print customers a "perk" over what the online moochers (my word, not theirs) get. One such example of this is a scathing article by John Fay about how Brandon Phillips is a Prima Donna. I mentioned this article in the Old Red Guard.

In the Forum section, the Enquirer editor talks in depth about what to do about this issue as papers are grappling for money. He goes on to talk about an issue that may or may not directly effect this site. The problem is that a paper like his spends big bucks paying its writers as well as their travel costs and other expenses to deliver a story and then other sites take their news story and reprints it. The following quote was in the article:


"online-only 'new-media' operations regurgitate a lot of our work and some news releases but do little original reporting"

And this is where Redszone may or may not be effected:


In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content. In recent weeks, we have sent warnings to several blogs, Web sites and radio stations.

We are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore

This is where I admittedly have more questions than answers and I invite input from MODs and others.

Are there guidelines we need to follow when posting content from Cincinnati.com?

Does the fact that this site now has a system in place where it either charges its readers or sells ads complicate things? In other words can the Enquirer make a case that money is being made by this site if it posts articles from the Enquirer that could in turn generate more traffic to its site?

Have we (as a site) gotten any warnings?

This is a very complicated issue and I for one think we're living in a golden age where we get so much free stuff online. I am amazed that I have over 5 pages of free Apps on my i-pod. I get everything from 14,000 radio stations to sports scores to weather reports to international news and multiple entertainment sources for free. I don't think this will continue and the print media in particular can't continue to give this stuff out for free, but on the other hand we the customer are holding the cards right now. I kinda feel sorry for a guy like CTrent who is trying to make a living putting stuff on a website that can be accessed for free as well as pasted on this site for all of us to read for free. It's great for us but I don't see how it can continue indefinitely.

macro
03-07-2010, 03:14 PM
I post at another site that asks that those posting articles to post only a link followed by the first few lines of the article. It serves as a sort of teaser and allows the reader to decide if they're interested enough to click over to the original article.

I don't know this for a fact, but I would think the newspapers would appreciate such posts because it drives more people to their sites than they would get otherwise.

As for the Enquirer's new strategy of "first in print", I think they'll just spite themselves in the form of driving online news seekers away from their Web site. People will just get into the habit of getting their news somewhere else. They (The Enquirer) are grasping at straws.

BCubb2003
03-07-2010, 03:35 PM
I think the link and a few sentences is the safest way to go, especially if you want to support people like C. Trent.

I also think we're going to see a movement toward specializing in one medium over others. The Enquirer has been straddling two worlds, but it can't let go of print. So it makes its online operation less than it could be. An online operation like C. Trent's, with nothing to lose, can go full-speed online. They're all niche markets now, and somebody might find a way to specialize in the print market, someone else will specialize in Web sites, and someone else will specialize in mobile apps.

flyer85
03-07-2010, 10:19 PM
well that ought to save 'em

Boss-Hog
03-08-2010, 08:31 AM
To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any warnings to date, as this is the first I've heard of this new policy. Moving forward, to be on the safe side at least with stories from the Enquirer, I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.

Unassisted
03-08-2010, 09:30 AM
I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.FWIW, another place I post at has the moderators impose a limit for copyrighted material excerpts of "up to 2 sentences." (See the quote from their TOS below.) Some members there get carried away with the notion of "a snippet" and seem to think it allows excerpts of several paragraphs.


Copyrighted Material - Instead of copying-and-pasting articles, photos, or other material you find on the Internet, you should be posting links to those articles. Posting a snippet from the article and then the link is the appropriate way to post.

Sea Ray
03-08-2010, 11:27 AM
To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any warnings to date, as this is the first I've heard of this new policy. Moving forward, to be on the safe side at least with stories from the Enquirer, I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.


That makes sense. Where this really comes into play is in the Spring Training update section. That thread is full of articles posted in their entirety. I suggest an announcement be made there

klw
03-08-2010, 01:02 PM
How does the new policy apply to tweets from media members? Obviously these are not from a media organization's website and only consist usually of one sentence or two. Just curious. It would be hard not to post the whole tweet if we quote. Can we quote these or should we just link and paraphrase?

Sea Ray
03-08-2010, 01:03 PM
How does the new policy apply to tweets from media members? Obviously these are not from a media organization's website and only consist usually of one sentence or two. Just curious. It would be hard not to post the whole tweet if we quote. Can we quote these or should we just link and paraphrase?

I'd say tweets are fair game. Once it's tweeted it's out there...

Boss-Hog
03-08-2010, 01:07 PM
I'd say tweets are fair game. Once it's tweeted it's out there...
Same here...

OnBaseMachine
03-08-2010, 01:51 PM
That makes sense. Where this really comes into play is in the Spring Training update section. That thread is full of articles posted in their entirety. I suggest an announcement be made there

It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

Caveat Emperor
03-08-2010, 02:03 PM
It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

The issue is, it *isn't* free material.

Websites like Enqurier.com rely on advertisements on the page to bring revenue from their online content (much like RedsZone now does). When you post the full text of an article on here, you're allowing people to read the content without going to Enquirer.com and viewing the advertisements. Even if you don't look at a single ad on the website, you're still reducing the number of "site views" -- which, in most cases, effects how the ads are priced (and therefore the money made by the website).

On the issue of photos -- it's something to look at as well. When you post images directly from other websites (as in, just copy the "image link" and paste it directly onto your post), you're not only content-poaching (which, again, robs the original site of the page views and accompanying ad revenue), but you're also stealing the bandwidth of that website by requiring their servers to load the image every time a RedsZone thread gets viewed.

For now, I think the best thing is for people to be more judicious about what they post. Most content isn't free -- and if you don't know whether you're allowed to post a given article, best to air on the side of caution and provide a snippet with a link.

Sea Ray
03-08-2010, 02:08 PM
It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

I guess from now on they don't want us posting the whole article even if it's free. The sticky in ORG was very specific:



If you wish to open discussion about an article or reference an article in a post, please limit yourself to no more than a 2 sentence "snippet" of an article and include a link to allow readers to seek out the material themselves.

So I take that to mean don't post the whole article, but I'll leave to the MODs to have the final word on this.

TC81190
03-08-2010, 03:10 PM
RIP Enquirer

Boston Red
03-08-2010, 03:19 PM
"First in Print" is probably the worst idea I've ever heard from a newspaper.

Johnny Footstool
03-08-2010, 03:30 PM
It's sad how the publishing industry is desperately clinging to its outmoded business model.

WMR
03-08-2010, 03:32 PM
LOL way to try to turn that clock back to the 1980s, Enquirer. I'm sure this will be a huge success. :lol:

Cyclone792
03-08-2010, 03:39 PM
The only reason I ever read anything on the Enquirer web site is because it was easy. Frankly, the quality of that newspaper isn't anywhere near worth running out and buying a daily copy. Most likely what's going to happen is I'll quickly learn that I won't miss whatever it is the Enquirer is preventing me from reading online.

KronoRed
03-08-2010, 03:41 PM
People who would be bothered by this,ones who want the local stuff now, already subscribe to the paper, otherwise people will just go elsewhere.

GIDP
03-08-2010, 03:44 PM
I wasnt aware anyone really read any of John Fays stuff other than his blog.

westofyou
03-08-2010, 03:47 PM
The only reason I ever read anything on the Enquirer web site is because it was easy. Frankly, the quality of that newspaper isn't anywhere near worth running out and buying a daily copy. Most likely what's going to happen is I'll quickly learn that I won't miss whatever it is the Enquirer is preventing me from reading online.

It could be the worst newspaper in a major city in America.

AtomicDumpling
03-08-2010, 04:11 PM
Since the Enquirer articles are nearly inaccessible on their website within a few hours after they are posted, I don't see any harm in posting them here on Redszone. The new policy of posting only a snippet seems like an overreaction to a minor issue. We are essentially performing the Enquirer a free service by advertising their content on this site. Without links to the Enquirer from Redszone I would probably never go to the Enquirer's website. If they want to restrict access to their content they are only harming themselves.

Johnny Footstool
03-08-2010, 04:36 PM
It could be the worst newspaper in a major city in America.

www.kansascity.com

westofyou
03-08-2010, 04:38 PM
www.kansascity.com

The Oregonian is pretty bad too, but Gannett butchers more news in a day than most.

I still find the Enquirer about a 10 minute read at best

UKFlounder
03-08-2010, 04:41 PM
You're advertising their copyrighted content and then providing motivation for readers not to go there, because their material that Redszoners are interested in is already here. You're basically saying "They have a great article over there. Instead of going there to read it, just stay here and read it." That helps them not a single bit.





Since the Enquirer articles are nearly inaccessible on their website within a few hours after they are posted, I don't see any harm in posting them here on Redszone. The new policy of posting only a snippet seems like an overreaction to a minor issue. We are essentially performing the Enquirer a free service by advertising their content on this site. Without links to the Enquirer from Redszone I would probably never go to the Enquirer's website. If they want to restrict access to their content they are only harming themselves.

frenetic wave
03-08-2010, 04:46 PM
I have to agree with the Boss-Hogg, you guys shouldn't be stealing content. Redszone has ads now because the truth is you have to support the websites you love and if you keep posting the full articles, how does that help? I almost feel like 2 sentences might be too much. Maybe just name the thread "Interesting Enquirer Content" or something and then make the body just a link to Enquirer.com? I dunno. If someone invited you over to their house for dinner, but instead you ate the dinner they cooked at your house, then Boss asked you to not eat the dinner, would you still eat two bites then drive all the way to the house of the guy who cooked the dinner and eat the rest? If I were that guy I would still consider it stealing dinner. But I think Boss said 2 sentences is a good policy so I think that is a great way to go at it. Anyway, I can't wait for the fresh grass smell of opening day. Go get 'em, Red legs.

Redsfaithful
03-08-2010, 04:56 PM
I think there's a good chance this backfires, by explicitly labeling original reporting I think people will start realizing how much AP/other papers/etc. filler is in the paper. There's a lot of space being taken up in most newspapers by wire content that can be found anywhere and that has little value, reminding people of that, even in a roundabout way, seems like a bad idea.

AtomicDumpling
03-08-2010, 08:19 PM
You're advertising their copyrighted content and then providing motivation for readers not to go there, because their material that Redszoners are interested in is already here. You're basically saying "They have a great article over there. Instead of going there to read it, just stay here and read it." That helps them not a single bit.

No, you are exposing their website to people who otherwise would not see it. That is very valuable. Posting a link to an Enquirer article here on Redszone does wonders for their search engine rankings too. Restricting access to their content reduces the amount of money they make from their website.

Webmasters all over the world would pay dearly to receive the kind of exposure the Enquirer receives free of charge from Redszone.

I own multiple websites and make my entire living off the advertising revenue they generate. I know a little something about making money on the Internet -- and reducing your website's exposure is the worst thing you can possibly do.

The Enquirer management are resorting to a failed concept of reducing online content to try and get more newspaper subscribers. This is the 21st century. Paper news is ancient history. They need to accept that and move on to maximizing revenue from their website. Punishing people for using and sharing their online content is a surefire way to marginalize their business into obscurity. They should be thrilled that people here on Redszone care enough about their poorly written articles to bother posting them and linking back to their horrific website.

Having an article with a shelf life of 24 hours used by another site in return for a permanent link is a fantastic deal for the Enquirer. It raises their search engine "authority ranking" tremendously and also sends them a good amount of direct traffic.

Website owners distribute millions of free articles to online directories every day in the hope that another website will pick them up and post them on their sites with a link back to the author's site. Webmasters would pay thousands of dollars a year for the links that the Enquirer receives totally free from Redszone.

If my websites covered topics like baseball or other sports I would pay a lot of money to Redszone for the number and quality of links to my websites that the Enquirer is getting for free.

Mario-Rijo
03-09-2010, 02:56 AM
I just keep thinking this is bad for RZ and anyone else like them. If I have to go to the enquirer to read the content then why bother coming here, if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming). Sure there is still great discussion here but this place gets a lot of traffic because all the info you need to be a Reds fan is right here. It's still here but now you have to go to the sites you have been trying to avoid in the 1st place. I trust this site, I don't trust many others with their pop-ups and what not. I'm sure my whining is not gonna change anything but that is how I feel about it.

Chip R
03-09-2010, 09:31 AM
I just keep thinking this is bad for RZ and anyone else like them. If I have to go to the enquirer to read the content then why bother coming here, if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming). Sure there is still great discussion here but this place gets a lot of traffic because all the info you need to be a Reds fan is right here. It's still here but now you have to go to the sites you have been trying to avoid in the 1st place. I trust this site, I don't trust many others with their pop-ups and what not. I'm sure my whining is not gonna change anything but that is how I feel about it.


Speaking only for myself, I don't think this will have much of an impact. If I choose not to read the Enquirer's stuff, I don't think my information on the Reds is going to be limited.

macro
03-09-2010, 10:24 AM
...if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming)...

No, we can still quote parts of articles, as long as it's limited to two or three sentences or a paragraph or so and a link to the original is provided. It's the posting of entire articles (or even major portions of them) with no link to the original that we want to avoid.

I'll still allow RedsZone posters to filter the media for me and will contribute to the same if and when I can. There still won't be any need to bounce all around the Web sifting through stories about the Reds or whatever topic. If there is an article out there worthy of reading and/or discussion, chances are very good that somebody on this site is going to find it and make us aware of it. When they do, I can read the first paragraph or so here and then 1) decide that I'm not interested in reading further, or 2) make the extra click to go to the original source. The link should direct us straight to article without our having to sift through the rest of what's at that particular site.

The only thing that's changing for the reader is the extra mouse click and the extra open browser tab.

Newport Red
03-09-2010, 10:32 AM
No, you are exposing their website to people who otherwise would not see it. That is very valuable. Posting a link to an Enquirer article here on Redszone does wonders for their search engine rankings too. Restricting access to their content reduces the amount of money they make from their website.

Webmasters all over the world would pay dearly to receive the kind of exposure the Enquirer receives free of charge from Redszone.

I own multiple websites and make my entire living off the advertising revenue they generate. I know a little something about making money on the Internet -- and reducing your website's exposure is the worst thing you can possibly do.

The Enquirer management are resorting to a failed concept of reducing online content to try and get more newspaper subscribers. This is the 21st century. Paper news is ancient history. They need to accept that and move on to maximizing revenue from their website. Punishing people for using and sharing their online content is a surefire way to marginalize their business into obscurity. They should be thrilled that people here on Redszone care enough about their poorly written articles to bother posting them and linking back to their horrific website.

Having an article with a shelf life of 24 hours used by another site in return for a permanent link is a fantastic deal for the Enquirer. It raises their search engine "authority ranking" tremendously and also sends them a good amount of direct traffic.

Website owners distribute millions of free articles to online directories every day in the hope that another website will pick them up and post them on their sites with a link back to the author's site. Webmasters would pay thousands of dollars a year for the links that the Enquirer receives totally free from Redszone.

If my websites covered topics like baseball or other sports I would pay a lot of money to Redszone for the number and quality of links to my websites that the Enquirer is getting for free.

That's interesting. I know next to nothing about internet advertising.

Are the baseball websites that some Redzoners subscribe to making a mistake by not making their articles public on the web? Redzoners give the site and a sentence or two about the subject.

I don't see how the Enquirer's new policy is any different.

Mario-Rijo
03-09-2010, 04:43 PM
Speaking only for myself, I don't think this will have much of an impact. If I choose not to read the Enquirer's stuff, I don't think my information on the Reds is going to be limited.

So is it just the enquirer? Does it not include the Dayton Daily News, USA Today, etc. Does it also include other non print media sources, say BA, BP? I just want to be clear what I can paste and copy and what I can't. Because it almost sounds like I might as well get use to not pasting anything here regardless of where it's from anymore sans 2 sentences and a link?

Mario-Rijo
03-09-2010, 04:47 PM
No, we can still quote parts of articles, as long as it's limited to two or three sentences or a paragraph or so and a link to the original is provided. It's the posting of entire articles (or even major portions of them) with no link to the original that we want to avoid.

I'll still allow RedsZone posters to filter the media for me and will contribute to the same if and when I can. There still won't be any need to bounce all around the Web sifting through stories about the Reds or whatever topic. If there is an article out there worthy of reading and/or discussion, chances are very good that somebody on this site is going to find it and make us aware of it. When they do, I can read the first paragraph or so here and then 1) decide that I'm not interested in reading further, or 2) make the extra click to go to the original source. The link should direct us straight to article without our having to sift through the rest of what's at that particular site.

The only thing that's changing for the reader is the extra mouse click and the extra open browser tab.

I guess what I meant was say you provide the 2 sentences and the link. And then someone comes along and quotes something in the piece they want to touch on and so they quote that part of it (which is a different part of it from you) and it's more than 2 sentences and so on. If we didn't provide the link can we quote other parts of it and to what extent?

Caveat Emperor
03-09-2010, 05:33 PM
So is it just the enquirer? Does it not include the Dayton Daily News, USA Today, etc. Does it also include other non print media sources, say BA, BP? I just want to be clear what I can paste and copy and what I can't. Because it almost sounds like I might as well get use to not pasting anything here regardless of where it's from anymore sans 2 sentences and a link?

Yup. Get used to it.

We're talking about work product that is subject to copyright. What we've grown accustomed to posting around here is the intellectual property of various news organizations. They make money because people either:

1. Buy the paper to read what's been produced
2. Visit the website to read what's been produced

When you take their content and republish it elsewhere, it negates the incentive to actually go over to the media source's website or buy a paper. From their point of view, you've taken their copywritten material and republished it to allow large numbers of people to use it without generating any revenue for the copyright holder.

Two or three sentence quotes likely falls under the "fair use" for the discussion purposes here on the message boards. As long as you limit yourself to quoting the articles in that regard, you shouldn't have a problem. If you feel the need to quote a different part of the article in a later post in a thread, that's fine too. The issue is wholesale republication, which we're no longer allowing.

I know this inconvenient and I know a lot of people think this policy sucks, but it's done to protect the site (and the site's owners, who have attached their names to the domain and registration) from liability for copyright infringement. Even "innocent" infringement can result in damages being assessed. You wouldn't pay those, but Boss & GIK would -- and I'm sure it would be "Adios" to RZ if that happened.

Unassisted
03-12-2010, 01:13 AM
The original item that prompted this move said "In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content." And yet photos aren't included under the new policy?

I just noticed that this thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80359) includes photos from this week from the Enquirer. In addition to appropriating their content, inline photos are consuming their bandwidth. It's kind of like stealing a lamp from a store and leaving it plugged in to the store's outlet so it uses their electricity while it's on your table. Just like following the lamp cord would be an easy way for the store to find the stolen lamp, "scouring the media landscape" wouldn't be a big challenge for the Enquirer to do to find inline photos here.

RosieRed
03-12-2010, 04:11 PM
CE, thanks for so clearly explaining what the problem is with stealing original content from other sites and posting it here in full.

What's hilarious, to me, is how many people are all "I'll pay $30 to support this site!" in regards to RZ, and then are complaining that they should be able to post articles from other sites here, because those articles are "free."

If it costs money to run this site, which it obviously does, how much money do you think it takes to run an entire news organization and its site?

frenetic wave
03-13-2010, 03:51 AM
CE, thanks for so clearly explaining what the problem is with stealing original content from other sites and posting it here in full.

What's hilarious, to me, is how many people are all "I'll pay $30 to support this site!" in regards to RZ, and then are complaining that they should be able to post articles from other sites here, because those articles are "free."

If it costs money to run this site, which it obviously does, how much money do you think it takes to run an entire news organization and its site?

Agreed 100%!

macro
03-13-2010, 11:43 PM
The death of print newspapers would affect many facets of our existence:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/how_will_the_end_of_print

frenetic wave
03-14-2010, 04:55 PM
Are we allowed to post videos? Does it not waste the Onion's bandwidth?

macro
03-14-2010, 10:59 PM
Are we allowed to post videos? Does it not waste the Onion's bandwidth?

Posting a link that requires the viewer/reader to visit the original site that owns the content is okay.

frenetic wave
03-14-2010, 11:43 PM
Ah, I get ya. Just making sure.

edabbs44
10-14-2010, 11:36 AM
Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?

See link:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/10/14/wednesday-links-looking-back-and-ahead/

Unassisted
10-14-2010, 03:33 PM
Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?He works for a company that has deeper pockets and more attorneys than RedsZone. ;)

Boss-Hog
10-14-2010, 04:46 PM
Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?

See link:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/10/14/wednesday-links-looking-back-and-ahead/
Regardless of what the Enquirer is doing, did you by chance see this (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85962) thread?

RBA
01-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Righthaven extends copyright lawsuit campaign to individual Web posters

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87369

Kingspoint
01-16-2011, 04:00 PM
As for the Enquirer's new strategy of "first in print", I think they'll just spite themselves in the form of driving online news seekers away from their Web site. People will just get into the habit of getting their news somewhere else. They (The Enquirer) are grasping at straws.

I agree. I won't even use a website that asks you to "register" in order to read it's content. Not in this day and age. Just like over the last 15 years I have rarely watched shows on networks that have too many commercials. And, now with DVR's and other technologies, there's just too many options available for the consumer than to settle on something that's "inconvenient".

Posting a link with just a "teaser" of the article is a system I respect, though. And, if that site asks for registration, money, etc., I feel that's the best way to respect the copyrights of others. Whether or not the teaser is enough to generate the "next step" is up to the individual reader. I don't think it's fair that the whole article is cut-and-pasted. From now on, that's how I'll do it, too, for any site, anywhere. It's only fair.

Caveat Emperor
10-02-2012, 12:10 PM
The Cincinnati Enquirer went behind a paywall today. You get to look at 30 stories per month before it locks you out and requires you to pay for access.

R.I.P to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

dougdirt
10-02-2012, 12:29 PM
The Cincinnati Enquirer went behind a paywall today. You get to look at 30 stories per month before it locks you out and requires you to pay for access.

R.I.P to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Best thing that has ever happened to me. No longer will I waste time responding to idiots on Fay's blog.

Sea Ray
10-02-2012, 02:12 PM
The Cincinnati Enquirer went behind a paywall today. You get to look at 30 stories per month before it locks you out and requires you to pay for access.

R.I.P to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

All this will do is cut down on traffic to its site thus making it less attractive for folks to advertise there. Why would they want that? I don't get it

Redsfaithful
10-02-2012, 04:15 PM
I can't imagine ever hitting that 30 stories a month limit.

It's trivial to get around also I'm sure. Google incognito works if you hit the New York Times limit.

Just to be objective, what is lost here? Anyone have some examples of good investigative journalism the Enquirer has done in recent years?

Reds Freak
10-02-2012, 04:58 PM
I can't imagine ever hitting that 30 stories a month limit.

It's trivial to get around also I'm sure. Google incognito works if you hit the New York Times limit.

Just to be objective, what is lost here? Anyone have some examples of good investigative journalism the Enquirer has done in recent years?

They had a great in-depth piece about the lack of toilets at the MidPoint Music Festival this weekend.

{sarcasm}

Caveat Emperor
10-02-2012, 06:20 PM
I can't imagine ever hitting that 30 stories a month limit.

It's trivial to get around also I'm sure. Google incognito works if you hit the New York Times limit.

Just to be objective, what is lost here? Anyone have some examples of good investigative journalism the Enquirer has done in recent years?

I casually read a lot of stuff there -- links that pop on twitter, blog posts for various local teams they cover.

I'll hit 30 pretty quickly, I think.

dougdirt
10-02-2012, 09:30 PM
As someone who follows the Bearcats, Reds and generally just got local news from there, I would hit 30 rather quickly. But, I will just check elsewhere for my sports news and only look for local things on there and only read what really seems like it is needed.

Chip R
10-02-2012, 10:34 PM
Must be a Gannett thing since the Des Moines Register has a similar policy. Only I think their's is 20.

WMR
10-03-2012, 11:23 AM
Newspapers are looking for that silver bullet... Unfortunately for them it doesn't exist. Newspapers just don't fit in well in this 21st century paradigm.

Hoosier Red
10-03-2012, 12:10 PM
Newspapers are looking for that silver bullet... Unfortunately for them it doesn't exist. Newspapers just don't fit in well in this 21st century paradigm.

There's also the business case for when you have a dying industry, you simply squeeze whatever profit you can from the late adopting customers by increasing prices and cutting expenses to the bone.

Gannett has made it pretty clear that this is their M.O. They've cut staffs as far as they can and still be credible. THey no longer pay for top talent but rather pay just enough so that veterans aren't as motivated to pick up their boots and head elsewhere.

Now they're acknowledging that they won't be able to grow market share enough to attract advertising, so they're charging a subscription from the last remaining loyal readers they know.

Boss-Hog
10-03-2012, 06:15 PM
Unless I'm missing something, or there's a glitch in the system they've yet to catch, the 30 article limit does not appear to apply to their mobile app.

Larkin Fan
10-03-2012, 07:28 PM
30 articles is much better than the 10 article limit that the Columbus Dispatch went to a few months ago.

Joseph
10-04-2012, 06:01 PM
The Enquirer has what has to be one of the worst editors in the business. Even if it wasn't a dying medium I'm certain she'd find a way to shave out dollars from the profit line somehow.

dougdirt
10-04-2012, 06:17 PM
My count went from 28 to 17 without reading an article. So that was cool.

reds1869
10-15-2012, 03:57 PM
My count went from 28 to 17 without reading an article. So that was cool.

I jumped from 19 to "This is your Last Article." Yes, yes it was. Because now I won't even go there to look at my "free" bad articles.

wolfboy
10-15-2012, 04:30 PM
My count went from 28 to 17 without reading an article. So that was cool.

I had a similar experience. I then decided, if they won't play fair, then I won't either. I started using Google Chrome (although I suspect other browsers work just fine), browse until I get the "you're time's up" message, clear out the entire browsing history, then I'm back at the start line. Two can play at this game Enquirer.

dougdirt
10-15-2012, 09:13 PM
I had a similar experience. I then decided, if they won't play fair, then I won't either. I started using Google Chrome (although I suspect other browsers work just fine), browse until I get the "you're time's up" message, clear out the entire browsing history, then I'm back at the start line. Two can play at this game Enquirer.

Oh they went all out for that one didn't they?

wolfboy
10-16-2012, 10:43 AM
Oh they went all out for that one didn't they?

Correct. Just as its articles are consistently Pulitzer worthy material, the Enquirer's paywall is the pinnacle of digital technology in the 21st century. Did you expect that newspaper to accept mediocrity?

dougdirt
10-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Correct. Just as its articles are consistently Pulitzer worthy material, the Enquirer's paywall is the pinnacle of digital technology in the 21st century. Did you expect that newspaper to accept mediocrity?

No, they would have to pay to much for mediocrity.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 12:50 PM
The Cincinnati Enquirer went behind a paywall today. You get to look at 30 stories per month before it locks you out and requires you to pay for access.

R.I.P to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Even though a new month has started, I am still unable to read articles. It wants me to subscribe. Anyone else having this issue?

Redhook
11-01-2012, 07:58 PM
Even though a new month has started, I am still unable to read articles. It wants me to subscribe. Anyone else having this issue?

Yes. It stinks. And, oddly enough, there are a few articles I'd really like to read. You don't know what you got until it's gone maybe.

This is tough for me. I've been reading the Enquirer for 25 years, give or take a bit. Over the past few years, I've been reading it free online. Now, I'm at a cross roads. I'm not sure the quality of the paper is worth $10/month. At this point, I'm not going to pay, but I may in the future. We'll see.

Redsfan320
11-01-2012, 08:00 PM
Just read behind the little box. Its not that difficult. Its just a box in the middle of the screen, and it darkens the article a bit.

320

Dom Heffner
11-01-2012, 09:16 PM
Yes. It stinks. And, oddly enough, there are a few articles I'd really like to read. You don't know what you got until it's gone maybe.

This is tough for me. I've been reading the Enquirer for 25 years, give or take a bit. Over the past few years, I've been reading it free online. Now, I'm at a cross roads. I'm not sure the quality of the paper is worth $10/month. At this point, I'm not going to pay, but I may in the future. We'll see.

I don't go there anymore.

John Kiesewetter articles about DJs leaving B105 aren't worth my money.

Redhook
11-02-2012, 07:18 AM
Just read behind the little box. Its not that difficult. Its just a box in the middle of the screen, and it darkens the article a bit.

320

I do that, but for a lot of the articles you can only see the first few lines. It's weird.

BurgervilleBuck
11-13-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't go there anymore.

John Kiesewetter articles about DJs leaving B105 aren't worth my money.

Kiesewetter is pretty much the only thing I read on that site. I used to work in TV and am always interested in local TV and radio history (of which Kiese is a treasure trove).

Oh, and I sometimes read Daugherty when I need impetus to punch a kitten.

AtomicDumpling
11-20-2012, 04:54 PM
Yes. It stinks. And, oddly enough, there are a few articles I'd really like to read. You don't know what you got until it's gone maybe.

This is tough for me. I've been reading the Enquirer for 25 years, give or take a bit. Over the past few years, I've been reading it free online. Now, I'm at a cross roads. I'm not sure the quality of the paper is worth $10/month. At this point, I'm not going to pay, but I may in the future. We'll see.

Open the page up in a different browser (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer etc) for a new set of articles to read. You can also clear your browsing history and delete all your cookies to refresh your page limit for their site.

Redhook
11-21-2012, 06:20 AM
Open the page up in a different browser (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer etc) for a new set of articles to read. You can also clear your browsing history and delete all your cookies to refresh your page limit for their site.

Thanks for the tips.

Caveman Techie
11-27-2012, 11:20 AM
Lol, so I went to the comments section then hit the back button to go back to the original story I was reading and my article count went down. Lol, poor implementation if you ask me.

reds1869
12-01-2012, 04:43 PM
Lol, so I went to the comments section then hit the back button to go back to the original story I was reading and my article count went down. Lol, poor implementation if you ask me.

Of course, is it really so shocking that a poorly run newspaper has a poorly run pay wall?

LawFive
09-12-2013, 01:15 PM
So the clearing cookies trick isn't working anymore...I guess they really really mean it now. Oh we'll, I'm not spending a dime on them. Plenty of other sources to get news nowadays.

RedlegJake
09-14-2013, 08:16 AM
Funny that papers don't hire real online media marketers to run their online operations and let them format their news into their web design. They'd make a killing since they have the readers, the content, and the advertisers. They either use in staff designers who don't understand the online marketing business or else they override a real marketer's decisions trying to be an online newspaper that simply mimics a print paper as much as possible. The print news business seems to be run by dinosaurs that can't or won't adapt. Print should be used to generate more readers for the online version today not vice versa. Few of them understand that. My ex father-in-law is an old newspaper man. He says many of them know it but can't get past the ink and paper. It will take a whole new generation that accepts entirely the electronic format and eschews paper as a mere corollary to the "real" thing. But it's coming- a younger generation of manager's sees it but they don't have enough power to override the older bosses yet. This wave of subscription based newspaper models is probably the last gasp. Subscriptions will be for deep archives and research drilling but current news will be free once the current rash of subscriber models fails.