WCPO's site going through a paywall.

[CircleSeven 1955]

TVNewsCheck state that WCPO will have a subscription feature that will include premium content on its website, beginning in January. Weather, Traffic, Breaking News stories and video & live streaming of the station's newscast will remain free for all users.

 

Scripps Media calls this new subscription feature, “the first-ever premium subscription service for a TV station’s digital content.”

 

Could this happen to other media websites. We know that newspapers have done so with their websites recently. They have even allow free users to read a series of news stories (like as much as 10), and then afterwards, you have to subscribe to that website to continue reading these stories. I don't think a TV station's website should follow the newspaper route, because they are not newspapers. But we'll see how this goes.

[ColumbusNewsFan 217]

This is just so mind numbingly stupid as a corporate move. Don't you bastards already get enough money from retransmission fees. I hope this freaking fails miserably and WLWT, WKRC, and WXIX websites shove this in their face every single time they mention their site!

 

Sorry to sound angry but it just sounds so damn stupid!

[MidwestTV 1232]

Speaking of WCPO's website, none of the other Scripps stations ever got that format that they're currently using. Also, it's NOT very mobile friendly. It actually crashes the web app on one wireless device and I get an error message from another when trying to load it, essentially refusing to display the page. Good thing. I don't live in Cincinatti.

 

Anywho though, but why the hell? So they have over thirty SEPARATE employees running/providing content for their website? There couldn't surely be THAT much important or interesting news happening in the area to dictate that. What are they trying to be, a national news-type website for their local area?

[TheRob 938]

When the Kansas City Star adopted an online subscription fee, KMBC hinted at it in their promos, declaring their online content free and always available.

 

Out of curiosity, what unique content would WCPO generate to warrant a subscription?

[MidwestTV 1232]

 

This is just so mind numbingly stupid as a corporate move. Don't you bastards already get enough money from retransmission fees. I hope this freaking fails miserably and WLWT, WKRC, and WXIX websites shove this in their face every single time they mention their site!

 

Sorry to sound angry but it just sounds so damn stupid!

 

And oh yes, they probably will! There would be countless mentions about how viewers wouldn't have to pay to get access to local news. I know that for Scripps' Storm Shield weather app, the other stations in my market LOVE to advertise how you don't have to pay $4.99 for their own specialized weather app. Seeing the promos advertising Storm Shield are so weird to me.

[ToriElectra 292]

Oy. This is the stupidest thing I've heard so far from Scripps (cable channels not withstanding, since those networks all suck).

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

When the Kansas City Star adopted an online subscription fee, KMBC hinted at it in their promos, declaring their online content free and always available.

 

Out of curiosity, what unique content would WCPO generate to warrant a subscription?

 

Yeah but I understand newspapers like the Kansas City Star doing it because normally I would have to buy the newspaper to read the same content I'd read on their website.

 

However it doesn't make sense for WCPO and other TV stations because why would I want to pay money to read their website when I can watch it for free OTA.

 

I don't see the other stations in the market migrating to something similar to this so I think WCPO is going to lose in the long-run with this strategy.

[effseesee 101]

I don't have a problem with a station implementing a paywall, but the implementation of this one by WCPO doesn't make any sense. If the station is still going to make breaking news, the weather and archived and live video of their newscasts available for free, what exactly would people be paying for? Some feature story on Cincinnati's history? Doubt it. Indepth interviews with Bengal players and coaches? Probably not. Either everything or nothing has to be behind a paywall.

 

What would be more interesting is if they made a limited amount of information available for free (headlines, that day's weather forecast) and put the rest of the stuff behind the paywall (video clips of stories, streaming newscasts, etc.). I still wouldn't pay for it, but it may be a better way to monetize the website.

[TheRob 938]

 

Yeah but I understand newspapers like the Kansas City Star doing it because normally I would have to buy the newspaper to read the same content I'd read on their website.

 

However it doesn't make sense for WCPO and other TV stations because why would I want to pay money to read their website when I can watch it for free OTA.

 

I don't see the other stations in the market migrating to something similar to this so I think WCPO is going to lose in the long-run with this strategy.

 

I should clarify. I meant to say KMBC subtlely criticized the Star in its promos after the Star adopted the paywall. I didn't mean to say KMBC was hinting at doing the same thing.

 

If I'm WKRC (market leader, yes?), WLWT and WXIX, I have those promos against WCPO on tonight.

[nickp 337]

WCPO will the digital content have additional elements that won't be on a basic website or on air?

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

I should calrify. I meant to say KMBC subtlely criticized the Star in its promos after the Star adopted the paywall. I didn't mean to say KMBC was hinting at doing the same thing.

 

If I'm WKRC (market leader, yes?), WLWT and WXIX, I have those promos against WCPO on tonight.

 

No problem, I knew what you meant. KCTV did that with their new weather app today (Gary Amble made sure to mention that it was free) which I figured was a subtle jab at KSHB's Stormshield which you have to pay about $5 for.

[sanewsguy 511]

As long as it has the same workaround most paywall sites do (accessing the article through a search engine), then I don't mind...

[tyrannical bastard 3955]

Indeed, another asinine move by Scripps.

 

What next, charging people to view back episodes of "The List" and "Let's Ask America?"

[A3N 1002]

From the article it seems like in-depth reports/articles will be behind the paywall. It seems like they want WCPO.com in a way to be an online newspaper, basically. It's not going to be successful because there is an oversaturation of news websites that offer their content for free. Did they not learn their lesson with their news and weather apps? Scripps wanted(wants) users to pay to download their weather and news apps. In KGTV's case they decided to make the iphone app free while cutting the price for the app for the ipad because hardly anybody was paying to download it (why would they when KNSD was offering their app for free and it was and still is a far more superior app).

[sanewsguy 511]

From WCPO's website:

An important message from WCPO:

 

Over the course of the past year, you may have noticed several changes to WCPO.com. Simply put, we were eager to explore new possibilities that would better meet the needs of our community. Our first major step came when we grew our team and introduced new digital reporters. Next, we unveiled our redesigned website and news apps for your smartphone and tablet.

 

We continually strive to exceed expectations as your local news and information source and we are ready to embark on a new journey.

 

In early 2014, WCPO will give you the option to subscribe to access original stories.

 

The WCPO news team is fully committed to providing our community with news and information of the utmost importance – particularly around subjects that matter most to you. At its core, these changes are designed to give you additional insight and in-depth coverage when and where you want it.

 

Starting now, you’ll notice a “9” icon next to certain headlines on our website and in our news apps. In January, you’ll have the opportunity to subscribe if you want to continue reading these stories.

 

Subscribers will enjoy:

• The exclusive ability to comment on WCPO.com
  
• Full, unlimited access to all news and information produced by WCPO
  
• Superior local business coverage by Dan Monk
  
• Investigations into local government and politics by Kevin Osborne
  
• Stories from some of Cincinnati’s best reporters that take a deeper look into topics of local importance such as Arts and Entertainment, Education, Life, and Crime and Justice
  
• Special offers
  

What stays the same?

All WCPO.com and app users will continue to have access to:

• Breaking news, urgent news and information that pertains to the community or public safety
  
• Weather
  
• Traffic
  
• Don’t Waste Your Money
  
• Investigations by the 9 On Your Side I-Team
  
• All video from our newscasts
  
• Photo galleries
  
• Access to all of our news apps
  
• Headlines where you don’t see the “9” icon
  

Take advantage of this preview period to explore the website and you will get a sense of what’s to come.

 

We will announce more details in the coming weeks. If you’d like to be among the first to learn more, please enter your email address in the form below.

 

Thank you for your being a part of WCPO, in all its forms.

 

Sincerely,

Dave Peterson, WCPO-Digital General Manager

This is stupid. Their website sucks too. I am using a laptop and it takes forever to load, the font loads as Arial then changes to something else (so dumb, there's nothing wrong with Arial). This is one of the reasons WCPO is not number one.

[TVIntheDesert 183]

Poor Cincinnati. They have to put up with poor CMS (WKRC/Sinclair) or paywalls (WCPO, the Cincinnati Enquirer) for their media websites.

[TVNewsListener 1]

No one is going to pay for something you can get for free. And making people pay for things they used to get for free will only anger them.

The people who care about the news will receive it when it airs and everyone else will get their weather from weather.com and their traffic from Google Maps.

[sanewsguy 511]

 

No one is going to pay for something you can get for free. And making people pay for things they used to get for free will only anger them.

The people who care about the news will receive it when it airs and everyone else will get their weather from weather.com and their traffic from Google Maps.

 

... or they will go to other sources (their competitors WKRC, WLWT, Fox 19).

[Rusty Muck 4378]

WEWS' "director of new media" tweeted that there are no like plans for a paywall at NewsNet5.com.

 

So apparently, this only applies to WCPO... for now.

[Thundershock MN 169]

NetNewsCheck has a pretty good write up on WCPO's new paywall. They seem to be using WCPO as a test bed.

 

Oy. This is the stupidest thing I've heard so far from Scripps (cable channels not withstanding, since those networks all suck).

Just an FYI - Scripps Networks Interactive (the Cable Nets) and E.W. Scripps Co. (the OTA stations & Newspapers) are two separate companies.

 

From the article it seems like in-depth reports/articles will be behind the paywall. It seems like they want WCPO.com in a way to be an online newspaper, basically. It's not going to be successful because there is an oversaturation of news websites that offer their content for free. Did they not learn their lesson with their news and weather apps? Scripps wanted(wants) users to pay to download their weather and news apps. In KGTV's case they decided to make the iphone app free while cutting the price for the app for the ipad because hardly anybody was paying to download it (why would they when KNSD was offering their app for free and it was and still is a far more superior app).

This appears to be exactly what they are attempting. It's kind of the reverse of what the U-T San Diego newspaper did last year creating a online/cable TV station.

 

I get paywalls are unpopular but, I'm surprised by the negativity here. First, WCPO hired added an additional 30 staffers to their newsroom. That point seems to get glossed over do to the outrage of the paywall. Scripps should be applauded for making such a significant (and potentially risky) investment in journalism. Of course doing so also requires a significant increase in dollars spent on salaries. There by at least partially driving the use of a paywall to help offset the additional expense. Second, the digital world is blurring the lines of broadcasters, print and any other media entity. TV stations and newspapers, like most media companies, are in the same business. The digital world is driving them closer together. For example, If a newspaper sends their reporter out with a video camera to shoot video for the stories they report are they really any different then a "backpack journalist" who one man bands it's at a TV station, and vice versa? So, if your really doing the same thing why not grow and broaden out a little.

 

I applaud U-T San Diego & WCPO for taking a risk and challenging the status quo. The worst thing that happens is people reject the idea of WCPO.com being a "digital newspaper" and don't sign up for a subscription. I sure most of the journalists hired would be back where they were a year or two ago, looking for a job. Best case scenario people embrace the idea. The people hired will have found stable employment in a unstable industry. Cincinnati has another beefed up outlet for quality journalism. And, maybe some of the long-form reporting will leak over to the TV side. If this doesn't work and the marketplace rejects the idea it's really no harm no foul. However, If it does works I can only see this as a win-win for viewers(/readers) and Scripps. It's worth a shot.

[Rusty Muck 4378]

Speaking of WCPO's website, none of the other Scripps stations ever got that format that they're currently using. Also, it's NOT very mobile friendly. It actually crashes the web app on one wireless device and I get an error message from another when trying to load it, essentially refusing to display the page. Good thing. I don't live in Cincinatti.

 

Anywho though, but why the hell? So they have over thirty SEPARATE employees running/providing content for their website? There couldn't surely be THAT much important or interesting news happening in the area to dictate that. What are they trying to be, a national news-type website for their local area?

Actually, there might be a reason for this.

 

Scripps until the early 2000s owned the Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post alongside WCPO, both papers having survived for decades thanks to a JOA with Gannett's Cincinnati Enquirer. Scripps eventually shut down both papers, but kept kypost.com alive as a de facto extension of WCPO.

 

What WCPO seems to be doing, at least as I can tell, is trying to breathe new life into kypost.com, and also build up WCPO.com into being more of a digital newspaper, the pay content allowing for bills to be paid and for checks to clear.

 

Scripps kinda isn't concerned much with WLWT, WXIX or the utter disaster that is WKRC. Scripps is really taking direct aim at the Enquirer. And call me crazy, but they actually might have a shot.

[channel2 979]

 

From WCPO's website:

This is stupid. Their website sucks too. I am using a laptop and it takes forever to load, the font loads as Arial then changes to something else (so dumb, there's nothing wrong with Arial). This is one of the reasons WCPO is not number one.

 

Arial looks cheap, Museo Sans (the name of that "something else") doesn't. I can't fault them for wanting their website to look a little more "designed," especially if it's got content they want people to pay for. But yes, it is slow, I wonder if they're running something that bloats it.

 

A paywall works for the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal because they are well-respected organizations with distinctive content. The paywall preview articles that I've read are very well-written (and I searched for pieces of the subject matter on a couple of them; nothing like those articles seemed to be anywhere else), but I'm not sure how likely this is to work.

[sanewsguy 511]

 

Arial looks cheap, Museo Sans (the name of that "something else") doesn't. I can't fault them for wanting their website to look a little more "designed," especially if it's got content they want people to pay for. But yes, it is slow, I wonder if they're running something that bloats it.

 

A paywall works for the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal because they are well-respected organizations with distinctive content. The paywall preview articles that I've read are very well-written (and I searched for pieces of the subject matter on a couple of them; nothing like those articles seemed to be anywhere else), but I'm not sure how likely this is to work.

 

I don't find anything wrong with Arial. Yes it's cheap (free) but if it's just body of an article there's nothing wrong with it. If you're looking at graphics, that's another topic.

 

it also works for those papers because of the workaround I mentioned

[Rusty Muck 4378]

Bumping up this thread.

 

It appears that, over the Christmas holiday, WEWS redesigned their website and went with the WCPO template.

[sanewsguy 511]

 

Bumping up this thread.

 

It appears that, over the Christmas holiday, WEWS redesigned their website and went with the WCPO template.

 

Boo, it sucks. Takes FOREVER to load on my phone. But it is scaled down from the WCPO version. That one crashes both my computer browser and my phone's. At least the old design didn't crash.