Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 28 2012

18:12

From Salinas to Burlington: Can an army of paywalls big and small bouy Gannett?

Brick wall with window

Gannett is mounting the biggest campaign yet to make readers pay for journalism online. And the newspaper company’s size means its success or failure could ripple throughout the marketplace.

By the end of the year Gannett plans to launch digital subscriptions for almost all of its newspapers, a kind of unified paywall that would operate on the web, mobile and tablets and cover 80 of the company’s news sites, with the exception of national flagship USA Today.

For newspapers it may signal a turning point, since readers are now looking around the marketplace and finding fewer free papers. That doesn’t mean a change in the amount of free news (aggregation and sharing remain rampant), but it could have an effect on people’s perception, or even willingness, to pay for news. It’s like looking around for cheap gas in your neighborhood: If all the stations list unleaded at $3.85, you’re more likely to believe $3.85 is the going rate for fuel.

Until now there has been no paywall rollout of this scale for U.S. newspapers, with most digital subscription plans emerging piecemeal at places like The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, and The Boston Globe. The Gannett plan reaches readers across 30 states (and Guam!). In other words, the number of paywalls in the United States will jump dramatically, as well as the number of people exposed to them.

Gannett is pushing a total digital transformation, not just a paid content strategy.

Like all paywalls, the success of Gannett’s plan largely hinges on people’s willingness to pay for news online. (That, and how easy it is to pay. More on that in a bit.) The company is betting readers will pony up, projecting at least $100 million from the new subscription program by next year.

The paywall should be easily scalable, since Gannett likes to take advantage of consolidating resources within the newspaper group. The paywall mechanics and back end will be the same for all 80 papers, but details about pricing and metered access get decided on the local level. Gannett’s papers run the gamut of small to big, and no two communities are alike when accounting for factors like Internet use and penetration of mobile devices. That’s likely why the company began testing digital subscriptions at select papers in St. Cloud, Minn., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and Lafayette, Ind., among others.

If Gannett has any data about its paywall experiments, it’s keeping it quiet. (The company has, however, been preparing employees to answer questions about the change.) Since the paywall test sites were announced in 2010, no numbers have been released on subscribers or circulation revenues. So what have they learned? Here’s what a Gannett spokesperson told me via email:

On the previous pilots, we learned a lot about consumer engagement and willingness to pay for unique local content from our experiments in Greenville, Tallahassee and St. George. This new model builds on that, responding to consumer demand to have the news and information they value available on whatever platform they choose. Obviously, we feel those early tests were successful or we wouldn’t be building a new subscription model around those learnings. However, we are not going to discuss confidential business data at this time.

Gannett is pushing a total digital transformation, not just a paid content strategy. There will be dozens of tablet and phone apps, which, aside from color schemes and branding, will likely look and work similar across the 80 properties. Again, Gannett’s size is a boon for small and mid-sized papers, as the company can bring them to market faster than the individual papers could have alone. As tablet usage continues to grow, apps or other digital access can incentivize digital subscriptions.

There is some evidence that paywalls for small and mid-sized newspapers can succeed, or at least shore up circulation and not be a drag on revenues. At the same time, in some cities a paywall has boosted circulation of the Sunday paper in particular (the “Frank Rich Discount”). Newspapers in Memphis and Minneapolis have seen bumps in the Sunday circulation, but for others that increase has has yet to fully materialize.

For each community it comes down to how a digital subscription plan is executed, said Ken Doctor, a media analyst and the Lab’s resident expert in Newsonomics. Specifically, he said, it’s a question of how to charge readers, existing versus new, or whether to offer a print discount versus an additional charge for web access.

“What Gannett is saying is, ‘We think we can bump revenues by 10 percent from essentially being flat.’”

For other publishers the decision is simple: Increase subscription prices across the board and promote the value of bundled access to mobile, tablet and desktop. Taking all of that into consideration, and Gannett’s $100 million calculation, doesn’t seem impossible. “What Gannett is saying is, ‘We think we can bump revenues by 10 percent from essentially being flat’,” Doctor said.

Hitting that target is easy when you factor in the conversion of existing print subscribers to digital subscribers. The challenge for most local and regional papers with paywalls is bringing in new readers, who are getting their news elsewhere. And most people signing up for digital subscriptions are older readers, he said. “I haven’t heard of any regional paper that produces substantial digital only customer numbers and revenue numbers,” Doctor said. These are problems that point to whether paywalls can have long term success for locally focused journalism.

Since each site has the ability to determine the pricing for its subscription plan, there will undoubtedly be tension between what individual markets will bare and what the mothership needs to improve its bottom line. For Gannett, one paper’s success with digital subscriptions can be another paper’s failure. The fate of Gannett’s plan rests in whether the Sioux Falls Argus Leaders of the world offset the likes of The Indianapolis Star or Cincinnati Enquirer.

Image by Darwin Bell used under a Creative Commons license

May 02 2011

17:30

Coming soon to a theater near you: The New York Times

The New York Times just announced a new initiative: The paper is teaming up with the theater network Emerging Pictures to produce “Times in Cinema,” a branded preshow tailored for independent theatrical venues. Times in Cinema — a ten- to twelve-minute-long affair that will run prior to the trailers at movie showings — will screen original, high-definition videos produced by the Times. (The paper, overall, currently creates more than 100 original videos per month.)

The show will also, yep, be used as a platform for selling advertising.

It’s a smart move: captive audience + art house audience + audience sick of being served up trivia questions about George Clooney as it waits for movie trailers to start = an audience that may be more receptive to brand messaging than a print or digital audience alone. When it comes to news consumption on traditional news platforms — the print product, the web, even the smartphone and iPad — we users have gotten pretty good at ignoring commercial content. When the screen you’re looking at is several hundred times the size of a PC, though, ads become several hundred times harder to ignore. Engagement is almost implicit.

And art houses house precisely the kind of audiences the Times wants to serve ads to. As Yasmin Namini, the Times’ senior VP for marketing and circulation, put it in a press release: “The New York Times attracts an educated, discerning audience that overlaps strongly with the art house audience. Times in Cinema allows us to leverage The Times’s incredible wealth of high-quality videos and create a unique, engaging brand experience to reach theatergoers in a relevant environment.”

Theatergoers, importantly, who might not also be Times readers. As consumers, they’ve opted in to a cultural experience; the news experience — and the branded Times experience — is layered on top of that, separate but also integrated. Though Pathé News 2.0 this is not — Times in Cinema’s videos will focus primarily on entertainment, travel, and lifestyles stories — the move has a definite back-to-the-future sensibility to it, reminiscent of those pre-movie newsreels so popular in the ’30s and ’40s. And, most importantly, it could be yet another ad platform — and, thus, revenue stream — for the Times, one that looks beyond traditional methods of distribution to deliver branded content — even to people who haven’t actually sought that content. In a world (er, IN A WORLD…) where news organizations need to think creatively about new ways to surprise and intrigue and otherwise engage us, the cinema screen could be just the ticket.

Image by David Gallagher used under a Creative Commons license.

February 15 2011

18:00

1,900 copies: How a top-selling Kindle Single is generating new audiences for ProPublica

Listing the eight big trends journalism will see over the next year, Josh highlighted the increasing role that the singles model will play in the news. He was talking about the disaggregation of the author and the publisher — “a way for an individual writer to kind of go around getting the approval of a glossy magazine editor or getting a newspaper editor’s approval to get something to an audience.” But the idea has another intriguing twist, as well: individual news organizations using the singles model to circumvent traditional constraints on publishing.

One outlet that’s making a go of that approach is ProPublica, which, at the launch of Amazon’s Kindle Singles platform late last month, published a story as a Kindle Single: staff writer Sebastian Rotella’s nearly 13,000-word-long exposé, “Pakistan and the Mumbai Attacks: The Untold Story.”

The piece, also available for free on the web, is a work of long-form investigative journalism, telling the story of the complex stew of relationships and circumstances that led to the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai. It’s long for a web piece, short for a book — right in the sweet spot Kindle Singles are trying to hit.

Selling it through Amazon for 99 cents was an experiment, Richard Tofel, ProPublica’s general manager, told me. From the looks of things, though, it’s been a successful one: The story’s been a regular in the top 10 of Kindle Singles bestsellers (it’s been as high as #2, as far as I’ve seen; it’s #6 at this writing). It’s also currently #1 in books about both terrorism and international security — and #1, for that matter, across all books (e- and otherwise) in Amazon’s International Security category. That, with almost no marketing effort (besides the placement of the story on Amazon’s site itself) on the part of ProPublica.

And if you’re wondering what being a top-10 Kindle Single gets you in terms of actual sales: In the first two weeks of its availability in the Singles Store, the piece sold more more than 1,900 copies, Tofel says.

The 1,900 sales number is certainly not a lot compared to other metrics (pageviews and the like). And given the story’s 99-cent pricing (the minimum amount for a Single) and the 35 percent royalty rate, the direct financial gain isn’t much, either. “The money will be nice, but even if you multiply the eventual sales of this by ten — and multiply that by 20 — it still doesn’t turn into enough money to float our boat,” Tofel notes.

Then again, pageviews — while they’re good at measuring a story’s popularity and decent at measuring its impact — don’t accrue to much direct financial gain, either, even on a site that accepts advertising. The Singles model, instead, allows ProPublica to take a new twist on the old “diversify your assets” maxim: It’s one more revenue stream for the outfit. And, given the broad brand exposure that being listed on Amazon’s site allows, the Singles model could allow separate (and sometimes contradictory) goals to be achieved on the same publishing platform: editorial impact and financial gain.

Besides, the value proposition here lies more in the cultural proposition that the Kindle Single and its counterparts represent: the editorial normalization of long-form. The web isn’t bringing about the long-predicted “death of long-form”; on the contrary, it seems, the digital world is heralding a renaissance in long-form reportage. “The economics of book and magazine publishing for the last 100 years have had the effect of saying that you cannot write narrative nonfiction at longer than 10,000 words,” Tofel says — and, for that matter, shorter than book length.

Sheri Fink’s story on the chaos at a hospital devastated by Hurricane Katrina — the New York Times Magazine piece that won ProPublica its Pulitzer — was about the same length as Rotella’s story, around 13,000 words. And “that’s pretty much the outer edge of the range for a magazine piece,” Tofel notes. On the other side of the equation, you have books, where short of a certain length, Tofel notes, “it’s hard to charge enough for a book to make money.” Essentially, magazines have had a maximum length for stories, while books have had a minimum. The end result: “There’s this void,” Tofel notes. “And the void is dictated not by narrative, but by economics.” Despite the web’s ability to remove the physical constraints from the editorial process, until now, there hasn’t been a platform that’s been well suited to the length. Journalism hasn’t had its equivalent of the novella.

“One of the things that people were saying a few years ago is that long-form is dead,” Tofel notes. In reality, though, “long-form was never alive as a mass medium.”

Selling 1,900 copies at 99 cents doesn’t make for a mass medium either, exactly, but the hope is that the Singles model might allow for a kind of renaissance of pamphlet, with benefits accruing to reported pieces. The platform allows users to get used (re-used) to the idea of journalism as a long-form, immersive proposition. And for an outfit whose specialty is deep-dive, attention-requiring narrative, that’s valuable. “Anything that promotes ways for people to effectively consume long-form journalism in the modern world is good for us,” Tofel notes. If the big question is whether there’s an audience for longform, he says, “this, to us, looks like an interesting way to find an audience.”

September 13 2010

09:49

OJR: News publishers should look to the e-book model

As online publishers seek new ways of making money from digital news, Robert Niles suggests that news outlets could benefit from using the e-book rental model.

Writing on the Online Journalism Review website, Niles suggests they should capitalise on a model which he says has grown by 71 per cent in the last seven years in the US, especially when it comes to publishing in-depth journalism.

Every year, some top newspaper enterprise reporting projects end up as books. What if some newsrooms flipped the development cycle, and initiated some of their more extensive enterprise reporting projects as e-books, available for sale or for rent?

(…) That makes sense to me. Even as my consumption of news online has sated my appetite for the commodity news I can find in a printed newspaper, I still keep buying books and magazines for longer, more detailed narratives. I happily pay for that content in print because I can’t find an alternative that’s better or cheaper (or both) online.

See his full post here…Similar Posts:



August 10 2010

10:19

Belfast Telegraph: Bloggers and mainstream journalists can be happy bedfellows

The blogging community and mainstream journalists – it will not be a case of either or, according to a post on the Belfast Telegraph opinion blog this week.

Many will undoubtedly respond to this to say that in fact, it never has been, but there are still some journalists who worry that the plethora of bloggers doing journalistic work for free will sound the death knell for the paid-for industry in the near future.

But according to a post by the Belfast Telegraph, two differences between their two worlds will mean they continue to “feed off each other”, rather than consume one another entirely.

There remain some vital differences between a journalist and a blogger. The journalist has to deliver on time. There are deadlines. The blogger can go to the pub and upload the recordings later, maybe even the next day. The journalist has backing. When harassed by abusive calls and threats of libel, the newspaper or broadcaster should take the heat. The blogger alone will more readily succumb to pressure.

(…) And the problem for a blogger is that the publishing model is vulnerable. An article online can be removed in a way that a broadcast item or a newspaper article cannot. Once they are out, the damage is done. The blogger may have to defend a piece every day, or remove it. And there is unlikely to be support from the host server, which has no editorial principles to defend.

The result, the writer adds, is a future with room for both journalism entities to exist. Any finger of blame for the problems facing traditional media should be firmly pointed in the direction of finances, not competition, the poster says.

But if newspapers and broadcast outlets collapse, it is still more likely they ran out of money than because bloggers provided a viable alternative. There should still be room for both.

See the full blog post at this link…Similar Posts:



July 28 2010

11:07

New study catalogues most promising online news start-ups

Finding a model for making money with an online news start-up has been at the centre of many a recent debate within the media industry.

It has also sparked a study by Nieman and Reynolds Journalism Fellow Michele McLellan into those leading the way, in order to understand what it will take to support these organisations.

Working with research partner Adam Maksl, McLellan reviewed more than 1,000 sites before compiling a top 100 list of the most “promising sites”, which all fulfil the criteria of producing original news in a fair and transparent way and “demonstrate effort” in finding a sustainable revenue model.

There is no telling which sprouts will flourish and which will die. But it’s probably far too pessimistic to say flatly that none of today’s sprouts will ever replace any of our trees.

Some of their early findings include the growing working relationship between journalists and community members to create news sites and that most are struggling with sustainability. Revenue sources remain focused on advertising, memberships, syndication, grants and donations, while charging for access is “rarely seen as an option”.

See the full post here…Similar Posts:



May 05 2010

12:00

Media Consortium offers members cash for collaboration

The Media Consortium, a network of about 45 progressive-leaning independent media organizations wants to get its members to do some real-world testing of the future-of-news ideas we all talk about. The best way to get their members on board: Pony up some cash.

The consortium is taking applications to sign on to three separate collaborative projects that cover exploring new revenue streams (members are both non- and for-profit), moving into mobile, and community engagement. Outlets will work in cross-organizational teams to come up with testable projects, which the consortium will then support with at least $5,000-$12,000 in seed money to get projects off the ground. The consortium will also provide some administrative and logistical support as needed. When all is said and done, the wrapup findings will be made public.

I asked Tracy Van Slyke, the project director at the consortium, which outlets are on board so far. She laughed and said the deadline to apply is May 12, and she is expecting the bulk of applications to land that day. The consortium has been in one-on-one talks with members, who Van Slyke said seem interested — which is not surprising as the the three research areas came out of discussions at their annual meeting, and a consortium report, The Big Thaw, which looked at trends in independent media, including its member organizations. Van Slyke also noted that they’re only inviting member organizations to apply, but perhaps they’d be open to the right partner signing on. (That is: If you’re interested, it can’t hurt to contact her).

Most consortium members are relatively small operations. For example, my last two employers, the nonprofit Washington Independent, with a staff of about ten people, and Talking Points Memo, now up to 20 or so, both belong. All news organizations are struggling to innovate, but smaller shops face an even higher hurdle. When a swamped staff is busy with day-to-day operations, and the technical development team is one person — or nonexistent — collaboration offers huge potential.

“The point is that usually, these organizations wouldn’t necessarily have the money or the staff time, or the resources in terms of brainstorming to do it on their own,” Van Slyke told me. “So we want to do it collectively and be able to put the money in to actually experiment. It’s not enough to talk about it. You have to actually experiment.”

The mission of the consortium is wrapped up in the project. Van Slyke wants to see organizations thinking strategically about revenue, mobile, and audience engagement to amplify their work as media organizations. “How is it going to help them, a, build their audiences, b, identify new revenue generating opportunities, and, c, ultimately build out their impact.”

April 20 2010

14:00

“Revenue promiscuity”: The many ways in-depth and investigative reporting will be funded (hopefully)

John Thornton, the chairman of the nonprofit Texas Tribune, has a term he uses to describe how his investigative news venture will stay afloat: revenue promiscuity. “You have to get it everywhere and often,” Thornton told a crowd of journalists this weekend at the Reva and David Logan Investigative Reporting Symposium.

Thorton’s crass imagery was a hit with the crowd and his fellow panelists, who agreed that funding high-quality investigative journalism can’t rely on just one or two sources of cash. The days of advertising and circulation revenue alone is over. We’re looking at a new era of mixed streams of revenue.

A spirited discussion — among The Washington Post’s Len Downie, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s Robert Rosenthal, Bay Citizen CEO Lisa Frazier, Newsosaur Alan Mutter, and Thornton — sketched a picture of a diverse (if uncertain) future for paying for the hardest of hard news. Here are three of the themes that emerged:

Beyond big money: tapping the grassroots

Just two years ago, whether or not foundations would step in to support investigative reporting was a point of discussion at this same seminar. This year, the question shifted to for how long — or for how many dollars — foundations will continue to do so.

Thornton, a venture capitalist who doubts investigative journalism works as a for-profit endeavor, said it’s not enough to think about foundation support. He described the Trib’s a public-radio-style model of tapping into reader donations to cover operating costs. Before The Texas Tribune launched, a splash page enticed 1,600 locals to give money to the site. (Thornton noted that all funding momentum stopped once the site actually launched: “Content is the enemy of conversion.”) Thornton hopes to pull in 10,000 supporters at an average of $100 each across the state over the next year. In three years, he hopes to pull in $3 million from readers, one third of the site’s operating costs. In addition, the Tribune plans to raise money by selling premium content and hosting live events.

For-profit plus

Alan Mutter, the panel’s most vocal proponent of a for-profit approach, argued that a strategy based on multiple revenue streams doesn’t have to exist in a nonprofit environment to work. Mutter proposed a multi-pronged approach, adding diversified revenue streams (from things like helping advertisers with their online presence, along with events and paid content) to more traditional ones — even if profit margins still wouldn’t be what they were in the glory days. Mutter’s pitch was received with some grumbling; Thornton said there’s no way news organizations can staff that kind of operation and still make money, the payoff of each wouldn’t make it profitable.

The future as experimentation

Frazier, of Bay Citizen, made clear that her yet-to-launch organization doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but that testing new ideas will be critical; she repeatedly referred to her operation as “an experiment.” She talked about using technology to make journalism more efficient (a.k.a. cheaper) to produce, but also said she’d be testing money-making models.

Rosenthal shared Frazier’s experimentation mentality, and offered some hope for anyone wondering about increased competition among nonprofits for foundation support. Two years ago Center for Investigative Reporting had a staff of about seven. Today it’s 26. “We’ve been remarkable in raising money.”

Photo by Thomas Hawk used under a Creative Commons license.

February 04 2010

15:00

Should the government be spending tax dollars printing tiny type in newspapers? The arguments in favor

Public notices, those tiny-type blurbs announcing zoning issues, licensing applications and public meetings, seem anachronistic in our database-driven world. Does anyone use them? Can anyone use them, with that crammed-in text? They’re a long-term accepted oddity that persists today. When Geoff Cowan and David Westphal came out with their report last week on government’s historic subsidies of the press, the printing of public notices as newspaper advertising was one of the awkward stars. As Cowan and Westphal put it:

Historically, these fine-print notices have been a lucrative business for newspaper publishers, and have touched off heated bidding wars for government contracts…But the era of big money in public notices will almost certainly fade away. Proposals have been introduced in 40 states to allow local and state agencies to shift publication to the Web, in some cases to the government’s own Web sites.

And when those proposals are made, newspaper companies are quick to defend their lucrative turf — vociferously. Legislatures in Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio, among others, have considered moving public notices to government-run websites as a cost-cutting maneuver. These efforts are often for naught after strong newspaper opposition. (Virginia’s the latest, last week.)

Since the case against public notices seems so obvious — why should a local government buy ad space in a newspaper when it can publish the same material itself, in a more searchable and useful form? — I wanted to hear the arguments on the other side. Tonda Rush, a registered lobbyist for the newspaper industry and head of the Public Notice Resource Center, outlined for me the common arguments surrounding public notices. They fall into three domains.

It isn’t too much money: Pro-digital folks say public notices belong on the web, where publishing is cheap and search is easy. But bruised newspaper companies have no interest in watching yet another revenue stream get sucked away by the Internet. The only industry-wide public notice revenue data I was able to dig up is 10 years old. In 2000, the National Newspaper Association said public notices account for five to 10 percent of newspaper revenue.

Rush doesn’t have updated figures, but she noted repeatedly that the total amount government bodies spend on public notice fees is low. “We have yet to find a discussion going on at county or municipal level where the actual cost of these notices gets beyond one to two percent of the budget,” she said. “It’s not that much money.”  

Rush also pointed out that moving public notices to government-run websites incurs its own costs. There’s startup and design fees, and some amount has to be allocated to ongoing maintenance and updates. If the question is purely financial, Rush said, then the decision needs to balance costs on both sides of the equation. It could be that the actual savings of going web-based don’t amount to much. 

Of course, “one to two percent of the budget” sounds very different when it’s translated into a specific position or project. How many teachers would that pay for? Could it fund a social program?

Print sticks around: In researching this post, I ran across a number of pro-newspaper viewpoints that teetered on absurdity. The most egregious focused on the claimed archival problems of electronic public notices. A pamphlet published by the Arizona Newspapers Association contains this jaw dropper:

…in newspapers, Public Notices are a permanent archive that won’t go away if the electricity is turned off. You can research yesterday’s Public Notices or a notice published a decade ago.

Rush thankfully addressed archival issues from a far more measured and informed perspective. For starters, she said public notices have practical application. They’re official records, which means they can apply to all sorts of claims. 

Now, it’s certainly possible for an industrious scammer to fabricate a print-based public notice and pass it off as an official record. Layout skills and a copy of InDesign are all that’s needed. But if we elevate this a bit, the fundamental differences between print and web begin to play a role here as well. 

Print is a push technology (I’m taking license with the formal definition). A centralized news organization assembles a master file and then pushes thousands of copies out to the community. The web, on the other hand, is a pull technology. Readers access information — pull it — from an online news source. If someone wants to fabricate a document, it’s (theoretically) easier to do that in a web-based environment because changes can be made at the source. Print subterfuge is trickier because it can be refuted by a hard copy edition of the same newspaper. It’s not fail proof. Just tougher.

Whether anyone would bother to hack a public notice is a separate question (I tend to think not). The bigger issue here is which environment appears more secure. If you’re involved in litigation, you want the most iron-clad documentation you can find. And as Rush noted, the current print-based model does an adequate job creating fixed official records. Backups and vetting might address concerns about web-only public notices, but then we loop back cost savings. If you have to invest in layers of technology to achieve “official” status, are you still saving money? 

One archival counterpoint: Online public notice databases exist, but they’re little more than print blurbs shoveled wholesale onto the web. It seems like there’s an opportunity here for a newspaper — or a startup! — to liberate public notices from their poor formatting and turn that data into an accessible tool — an Everyblock of tax liens, sheriff’s sales, and license applications. And if this theoretical service also included a revenue stream — perhaps advertising, perhaps a Twitter-like data feed — that money could offset the investment needed to create official, verified web-based public notices. 

You can’t trust The Man: Some in the pro-print contingent like to play to an ingrained distrust of government. This line from the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association is a colorful representation of the argument:

Putting public notices on a government-run website is like trusting the fox to build and watch the henhouse.

Rush avoided henhouse quips when we discussed issues of independence and availability. She said public notices should be available through government websites as long as they also appear on newspaper sites and print editions.

“The question is where’s that official record,” Rush said. “Are you going to trust the government body publishing and maintaining it themselves and calling it an official record? That’s where the question gets much more pointed and much more critical.” 

That initially sounds conspiratorial. Are shady government organizations distributing propaganda-laced public notices? Probably not. It’s not as if newspapers are fact-checking public notices before starting the presses. But then again, there’s a reason the press evolved into its watchdog role. Governments meddle. And there’s the slippery slope argument, too: give an inch on something small like public notices and it makes bigger targets easier to bring down. 

What’s your take? Do print-based public notices still have value, or are they an awkward leftover from history, best done away with? Please weigh in through the comments.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl