So, Sunday morning here at The Chronicle's satellite office and I thought I'd get my August hockey fix before heading out to Church. Keep in mind, I did say August, so one has to dig a little deeper to get one's fix. I hit the normal spots. Rawhide, Puck Daddy, TSN, and so on and so forth. Desperate for more, I go to ESPNBA.
Now, my expectations were low, relatively speaking. I normally only go there during the season to read Buccigross. To my surprise, they seem to be running some sort of offseason report for each team in the league. Right there on the front page they have written one on my least favorite team of all time, the Stars. What the heck, I think to myself, let's see what they have to say. So I click on it...
You've got to be kidding me. They won't allow you to read the article unless you are an ESPN insider and pay them money!!!!!!! How preposterous do you have to be to think you can pull this off? Now, I realize this is how coverage is more than likely going to be in the future for newspapers and the like. Much has been talked about that right here on this very blog. But ESPN... come on, really? Their hockey coverage SUCKS and they want me to PAY for it! Now, it isn't that much money, but I'm a principles kind of guy. No way, no how.
I haven't heard anyone else mention this so I thought I'd throw it out there. Am I the only one that thinks this is just plain wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Places like ESPN and AP are insane to think that charging for this kind of stuff is going to be the future. This Second Great Depression has pretty much killed the ad revenue business model, but I don't think this is going to be a valid replacement.
They should really just start asking for donations.
They've had that Insider feature since 1996...I've never known anyone to pay for it, except maybe Chris Dimino...
I actually have it for soccer reasons, and its been worth every cent I have had to pay for it... I am not sure about the hockey portion but for overseas information on soccer its been awesome.
That's good to know that they cover soccer so well A2B... but shouldn't they just offer the articles to you for free?
I understand they should, but then should every journalism major in college write for free? I understand we should have access to all articles, and logically you are right. I guess its their way of ensuring they are operating in the future
Yeah. I just don't know why the majority of their articles are free, but then they decided you should pay for some of them.
It also seems weird to pay for soccer articles at ESPN when you can read all about it for free in the European press.
In English, that is.
But you'd be surprised how much more accurate the ESPN reportig is than the European press. The Euro sports press feels like TMZ at times, they report everything the second they get it without making any reference calls.
But to the immediate point, I agree all information should be available to the general public for free. All I can say is this must be the end of the print industry as we know it
Capitalist that I am, I see no problem with a high-traffic website like ESPN charging a fee for some of their articles, or all of them for that matter. As for why they charge for some and not others, it's simple supply and demand and marketing.
You make some or most articles free so that people will come and sample the quality of the information you offer. Whet their appetites if you will. Then you offer even more in depth information at a premium. Not everyone will shell out, but some will.
It's the same principle that we use here at the Chronicle. We offer our insight for free, but if you want to actually meet us in person and bask in the glory that is our presence, we charge $299 per hour (special discount of 175 for the first hour with Big Shooter, this weekend only!).
Everything Razor says above is true (including the $299 for our famous lectures and "companionship"), and while in principle I have no problem with charging a little bit for this and that, from a purely practical standpoint I don't see how ESPN.com could possibly think this is a good business model. But then again, it's possible they know something I don't.
And A2B-
Yeah, a lot of the Euro press is a lot like TMZ when it comes to football. On the other hand, though, and this might be a limit to my own reading, I've found that the TMZ-like papers are the tabloid press. A quality paper like the Guardian or the Times of London, or (if you can speak the Italian or the Spanish, which I can't, really) Corriere della Serra or El Pais publish all kinds of great, serious articles about the Football.
I like TSN for hockey. It's free too. Doesn't ESPN make enough on adverts? I just want to be able to read Bucci in peace, not have to pay for it. I'd be pissed off if TSN, Guardian, and Pitchforkmedia all became sites that you have to pay for. It honestly gives more power to blogs and stuff like that. I wouldn't dish out money for ESPN's hockey coverage, personally speaking that is.
Hey Razor, come on... if anything I'm THE MOST EXPENSIVE of the group. And people will pay... THEY WILL PAY!!!!!!
Post a Comment