Shanghaiist: SCMP.com chief quits because bosses won't let him make site free

guest

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:27:48 +0800

Well there's always The Standard, which not only has a great free website with much of the same stories as the SCMP, but actually started giving the printed newspaper away for free last week. And I'm not talking about a short-lived bulk dumping promotion; it's now a free newspaper. Doesn't stop the old lady at my local newspaper stand charging $7 for it, mind.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:38 +0800

I'm an SCMP.com subscriber, and I must say the website is awful - a complete waste of money given what is available for free. There is a very little on the website; there are no blogs or any ways for readers to interact with the site; the archiving is a joke and many stories just disappear; there is little emphasis placed on SCMP content, and as such, much of what is on there is just wire copy available anywhere for free; the design is very bland; and the list could go on and on and on. Axberg must be responsible for many of these faults, so I don't think he is some martyr for the free news cause. However, just like Daliandotcom, you feel the paper is missing a huge opportunity for generating advertising revenue, and all the while it has some content on there, for example racing/business commentary, that people with a particular interest would be willing to pay for in an ESPN style. Ultimately it all boils down to money - and, sadly, having a very mediocre and cheaply produced subscription site probably brings in enough cash to make the bean counters think they are doing the right thing. It's just so frustrating that what should be the top China/Asia news site is such a mess.

DalianDalianDotCom

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:27:02 +0800

It's funny. SCMP are the 'biggest' traditional newspaper in the East/Southeast Asia region. They could bring in a huge amount of occassional visitors from around the world - great advertising market. And despite a redesign, I still can't find RSS feeds.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:06:29 +0800

Perfect timing! The NY Times just announced today that they are making the entire website free. Apparently they discovered they were making a boatload of money off advertising, and don't need subscriber money anymore. The more you charge, the fewer hits you're going to get. People will find another (free) outlet for information. The article from the NY Times also said: "The Los Angeles Times tried that model in 2005, charging for access to its arts section, but quickly dropped it after experiencing a sharp decline in Web traffic."

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:30:30 +0800

A lot of newspapers get hammered because their business models allow users access to the same free content which is paid for by someone buying a print edition. When the NYT switched to NYT/NYT Select, people had to stop reading free Maureen Dowd rants. Boo fricking hoo. I think the NYT loses a lot of money by offereing so much for free. ESPN.com on the other hand really keeps some good content for the Insiders. I hate them for it, but at least they aren't stupid.