Aaron Nagler

[mraynrand]

I wonder how Bob McGinn is making enough money to justify his web publishing.

Is anybody at Packerrats a member? If not Packerrats, who is Bob McGinn Nation? I love Bob McGinn almost as much as Bretsky. Bretsky better be a member or Bob is done.

Which suggests another problem - pirating. How do guys like McGinn prevent people from illegally distributing his product? I'm guessing 'ol Bob cab't afford someone to somehow encrypt his lengthy diatribes, nor hire Guido to go and beat up every Bretsky who re-posts his thoughtful abusive editorials at incorrect lengths and without proper attribution.

[red]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

[Harlan Huckleby]

twitter, facebook, blogs, google & packerrats all compete directly with any attempt make a profit in sports journalism. (Hope you were sitting down for this shocking insight.) I mean at the content end, not just the advertising issues that pbmax cited. Why should I pay for packer news when I have my man pbmax scouring twitter and providing me with updates, to which I often respond with a kick to his nuts. It's ideal.

To the extent there is an answer, I would say packernews should put up a strict paywall, like the WSJ. I don't know if it would work, but it is a better idea than Bob McGinn thinking he can have a paywall. packernews should hire back McGinn.

Whether packernews is an aggregater or a newspaper really doesn't matter. They can have a mix of employees and contractors. Many sites hire freelance, no fundamental change there.

[mraynrand]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

If you keep writing cynical stuff like this, Mad will boot you off Packerrats.

[mraynrand]

twitter, facebook, blogs, google & packerrats all compete directly with any attempt make a profit in sports journalism. (Hope you were sitting down for this shocking insight.) I mean at the content end, not just the advertising issues that pbmax cited. Why should I pay for packer news when I have my man pbmax scouring twitter and providing me with updates, to which I often respond with a kick to his nuts. It's ideal.

To the extent there is an answer, I would say packernews should put up a strict paywall, like the WSJ. I don't know if it would work, but it is a better idea than Bob McGinn thinking he can have a paywall. packernews should hire back McGinn.

Whether packernews is an aggregater or a newspaper really doesn't matter. They can have a mix of employees and contractors. Many sites hire freelance, no fundamental change there.

Apparently, I have my own 'paywall' here at Packerrats.

[Harlan Huckleby]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

Seems like columns that raise stink get the most attention. But you are talking about beat reporters who have to keep a relationship with packer brass.

ESPN keeps on keeping on by hiring locals. I suppose Wilde is a contractor, not a company man.

[Tony Oday]

I love the athletic and pay for it. Worth every penny since it has Packers and Wild coverage.

[call_me_ishmael]

Really tough problem to solve. Subscription service writing and recurring revenue is all the rage right now but where are the results?

It really sucks for these newspaper writers. Nagler left on his own accord so likely some politics behind the scenes. Ty Dunne was awesome and took a job back home in buffalo so I get it. To make 100k in revenue which isn’t very much for a two person shop you need one heck of a lot of 30$/yr subs. Tough sell for s guy like McGinn where 70% of the same content can presently be had for free.

Really hard problem. No good answer. Software, in this case Twitter, ate another industry.

[pbmax]

Software ate it is true as far as it goes, but no one made writers share everything on Twitter. Some were encouraged by their employers, but most just wanted to be front and center.

Its sold as an enhancement, online engagement, but it becomes a substitute.

The WSJ, the Financial Times, the NYTimes and the WaPo more recently have the correct answer (same as Gannett but with less cachet). A few free articles and then lots of reminders about your subscription options. Problem is that you have to really want access across the spectrum. Packer news all leaks out regardless of paywall.

What does the Athletic cost these days Tony?

[Zool]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

Maybe they get fired when their opinion pieces turn out to be wrong 95% of the time

[mraynrand]

Software ate it is true as far as it goes, but no one made writers share everything on Twitter. Some were encouraged by their employers, but most just wanted to be front and center.

Its sold as an enhancement, online engagement, but it becomes a substitute.

The WSJ, the Financial Times, the NYTimes and the WaPo more recently have the correct answer (same as Gannett but with less cachet). A few free articles and then lots of reminders about your subscription options. Problem is that you have to really want access across the spectrum. Packer news all leaks out regardless of paywall.

What does the Athletic cost these days Tony?

Probably the answer is to monetize twitter - pay a penny to a nickel for every tweet. If you're a journalist or sportswriter maybe you split that revenue with publisher. The more popular and accurate you are, the more you can get away with charging. Capitalism FTW.

[Tony Oday]

Right now $45 Year. If you like more than one team in any sports I think it's worth it.

[pbmax]

Probably the answer is to monetize twitter - pay a penny to a nickel for every tweet. If you're a journalist or sportswriter maybe you split that revenue with publisher. The more popular and accurate you are, the more you can get away with charging. Capitalism FTW.

Paying for it from either end would solve a host of problems. But introduce one huge new one: lower number of subscribers versus current users.

Their current income and valuation are based off their total user base. If someone needs to pay, that will number will shrink in a big way. And I am not sure it would matter which group is paying.

[red]

i don't tweet or read tweets

how does twitter make any money at all? do they advertise or anything? sell peoples info to telemarketers?

how do they function?

[mraynrand]

i don't tweet or read tweets

But you read stuff that people write based on tweets of others, no? Like When PBmax cuts and pastes tweets from reporters or people summaries reporter's tweets here (I've done this). So why not give the tweeters a fraction of a cent or so for every time someone uses their tweet. I think something like this will happen eventually.

It seems a very popular stance on this blog and elsewhere that Packer game broadcast and coverage should be 'free' but someone has to pay for the players' and journalists' salaries. If Ad revenue can't do it, it has to come from somewhere...

Wait until the next NFL TV/media contracts come up. People are in for a rude awakening.