U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 20, 2011 11:26 PM UTC
19 Comments
If it’s an affordable price point, it’s possible that people will be willing to subscribe to the online version. Since Singleton is already admitting that they’re not going to make very much money from these subscriptions, this might not chase away as many people as observers anticipated.
On the other hand, if the price is even a little higher than the consumer’s breaking point, then the Prophet could be quickening the pace of its own demise. It’s still got some great reporting in it, but the New York Times it is not.
The wild card in all of this is the iPad, tablet PCs, and eReaders. If the conglomerates can figure out a decent marketing plan for encouraging people to use those methods for reading their content, then the “paper” might die, but the reporting could live on.
unless the conglomerates are willing to pay people reasonably well to do the work. So far, none are.
The big market papers, radio and TVs are negotiable up from there.
That’s big bucks where I come from.
But none of the online-only outlets pay anything close to it.
Back in the day, the Grand Junction Daily Sun paid its stringers 8 cents per column inch.
can average more than $100 a day in 6 hour shifts.
How many people who go to the Post’s website would just leave as soon as they got the pop-up box telling them they needed to pay for a subscription? A sizable percentage would immediately leave and go to 9News.com or somewhere similar. Heck, we’d lose a lot of readers if we just required everyone to sign in for free, because people don’t like to sign up for stuff and because it takes a little extra time to do it.
Content on the Internet succeeds for many reasons, but one of them is speed and ease of use. Is the information online better than information you would find at a library? Not necessarily, but it’s so much easier to find. It’s not just the cost of a pay wall that is the problem — it’s the hassle. It may not be a huge hassle, but it would be enough to turn off a lot of readers. I’ve got to enter my name, my address, pull the credit card out of my wallet…ah, screw it.
Neither content nor price are everything. With similar content available from several sources, you go to the one that makes it easier. The only reason to subscribe to either of the Denver papers was (back in the day of dead tree news) the NYT, CSMonitor or WaPo wouldn’t toss their product on your roof every day.
Today, that said, content of quality and depth can override all other considerations, even immediacy, eg: The Nation, Mother Jones, Foreign Policy, etc, especially when they’re supported by the immediacy, quality and depth of their online supplements.
reporters who cover the Capitol Hill in Denver, and not the one in DC.
A wall around a narrow band of content could work, leaving most of the content free, if you could find the right narrow band content, which has yet to be found in the big newspaper world.
In any case, if you accept that pay walls won’t work, and you’re a newspaper publisher, then you need to stop people from stealing your “free” online content. Hence, the Righthaven lawsuits.
He knows a paywall won’t work, yet he’s still wishing to make a paywall work because it’s the one thing he understands. It’s quite common for people to focus on the solution they want rather than one that has good odds of success.
This is the reason that in times of technological change, many large companies disappear. At least he is in the process of getting out of the way and if they bring in someone who will focus on what works – they may have a shot.
When someone comes to the site, if they’re not registered, pop up a page of ads and tell them they must click on one to proceed to the newspaper.
No registration required. No charge. No personal info. But they do have to visit an advertiser.
Do they “owe you”?
It didn’t work and they eventually dropped it.
Salon.com dropped just about everything else that used to make the site interesting, as well. (Apologies to Glenn Greenwald.)
But, I just went to the site in order to refresh my memory, and a pop-up ad came up that I had to click to get rid of. Now, it wasn’t a redirect, but still…
use those dismissible pop-ups. But maybe David thought of it first! Retroactively!
I agree Salon ain’t what it used to be, but what is? War Room is still a pretty good political blog, and Greenwald keeps doing what he does best
Okay that might be overstating it just a little. But for the most part the AP outlets aren’t reporting much more than right wing talking points. The market for news has grown to include the ability to discuss it and network one’s opinions on it. And the future of news will likely have a kind of interactivity that Dean isn’t ready for. As soon as it’s interesting news we will have it talked about on Twitter and Facebook with people we want to talk to. The point Dean misses is that the market is for ADDED VALUE not autocratic fact distribution.