Ditch The Newspaper, Switch To Digital?

[jyl]

Like many of you, I still get old school paper newspapers and magazines. I've maintained these even as everything around has gone digital, because I like the ritual of sitting down at the table and reading the newspaper, of laying on the couch and reading a magazine, of sitting on the toilet and . . .

But I'm wondering if it is time to go over to the digital side. The NYT and Economist both offer subscriptions to full content via PC/Mac or iOS/Android. I could get a tablet to read on. No more bags of newspaper to recycle. But also no more turning physical pages, and everything squeezed down into an 8" screen. And more hours of staring at a screen.

What do you think?. Have you abandoned physical newspapers and magazines, for their digital replacements?

[VINMAN]

Not me. No way, never! ( at least until to point where I'm left with no choice.)

I still prefer the feel of an actual book/ magazine/ newspaper/ catalog, in my hand. I tried the Kindle thing. Within 10 minutes I tossed it....


.

[74-911]

Old school so it is analog for me. I refuse to take a tablet to the head to read the funny papers, Family Handyman, etc., etc..... and I like to spread out the local newspaper on the table so I can peruse the pages and see what looks interesting enough to read while I eat breakfast.

[rusnak]

Print is better for news, because you can find random unexpected things better on a printed page. For example, and unexpected obituary, a restaurant or new business coming to your area, etc etc.

[Deschodt]

Both ?

I get expensive or foreign mags cheaper on Ipad, I get some paper ones for my enjoyment & archiving... For instance, Pano would paper but autoweek definitely Ipad.

[dafischer]

Nope, I like sitting down with a physical paper. I'm in front of a computer screen all day, and don't need any more screen time than I already get. Also, you can call me a Luddite, since I've got no iPhone, Android, or tablet.

[stomachmonkey]

I like a physical paper but cancelled a few years ago.

The rags around here suck.

If you like digital news get Flipboard, iOS and Android versions.

Set your sources and flip away.

It's like having a news / magazine stand in your hand.

[masraum]

I ditched magazines years ago and went to digital.

[dan88911]

I prefer physical newspapers and magazines, for all reasons previously mentioned.

[ckelly78z]

I usually sit down at lunch and read the paper while I eat, I've tried the local paper online and hated that I couldn't scan the pages for something interesting without waiting for a story to come up after clicking on it. I like the size of the newspaper print and that more than one story is on each page. I spent 9 years as a printing press operator on an 8 unit Harris offset press and loved the job, but not the pri vately owned business wages or benefits.

I do have a Kindle and love it for going camping or wasting time, but it is the same content on each page, not multiple stories.

[mjohnson]

Paper forever!

I need the crosswords and sudoko to stay awake in meetings deep in the bowels of the "no electronics" hell that I live in...

[aigel]

What do you need newspapers for if you come here for your news?

I have long ditched newspapers. Too expensive and worst, always a day late. Sure, there is commentary and in depth things to read, but still, half the print newspaper is old news to me.

How is reading on a screen and reading on a piece of paper different, unless you are a poor sleeper and believe the light messes with your circadian rhythm?
If anything, a good screen is much clearer to your eyes because it is back lit and clarity of the print is a function of size and amount of light ...

The only thing I miss is a source of good scrap paper to stuff wet boots, start a fire and clean windows ...

G

[wdfifteen]

As a magazine publisher, this subject has kept me awake many nights. It was touch and go in the mid-2000s and many publishers bailed when they should not have. I benefited by guessing the other way and bought some good properties at bargain prices.
It took a few years for the smoke to clear, but two tiers of publication distribution have emerged. Timely news is best presented digitally. People who seek entertainment still like print. The best illustration I can think of is sports news. A good friend of mine owned the newspapers of the SF 49ers, Cowboys, Browns, another NFL team that I don't recall, and a bunch of baseball teams.( It used to be fun to meet players and do interviews and be an on-field photographer at NFL games for him. But I digress.) For decades these papers rushed to get the stats and stories of Sundays games into the hands of fans by Tuesday. Once digital came along, the Tuesday paper was history. He panicked and sold them all 15 years ago. His panic saved his butt. (Bernie Kosar and his brother bought the Browns paper and it tanked, as did the others.) But Sports Illustrated, which covers the same subject matter but doesn't provide "news" so much as entertainment, is still going strong as print. My magazines (which are all hobby/entertainment oriented) are still growing as print pubs and I have no intention of switching them to digital.
I want to thank all you paper forever enthusiasts. You are the livelihood of many of my friends in the industry.

[mikesride]

What is "The Newspaper"???
I don't know anybody that gets the paper delivered anymore..... Not even my Father, reads it on his Laptop or Tablet.
Good on you guys.

[jyl]

To be clear, the choice would be between a home delivery subscription of the printed publication, and a paid subscription to the digital product.

The Economist and New York Times digital subscriptions are not cheap. I don't know if they make less profit on the digital subscriptions. Anyone know?

[widgeon13]

The NYTimes is now available w/o subscription on the iPhone.

Why pay for something that is free.

[jyl]

Only limited (selected) NYT stories are in the "NYTNow" free app.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

The Economist and New York Times digital subscriptions are not cheap. I don't know if they make less profit on the digital subscriptions. Anyone know?

Advertisers pay a lot less for ads in digital editions, so revenue is less. If a paper has a print edition, it still has that cost, plus the cost of creating the digital edition, so costs are up. Content and delivery have to be paid for somehow.

[RF5BPilot]

wdfifteen makes good points. Time sensitive information has largely moved to the web--which is still having challenges monetizing it. Information (including entertainment) that is more stable, less time sensitive still does well in print...possibly even better in print, especially if it includes expansive photos/graphics.

Consistent with the uses & gratifications line of research, publishers have sometimes missed the boat in assuming their publication would do better on the web. If you work in front of a screen all day, you don't really escape into a publication on the same delivery system...it carries a lot of the flavor of work.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by RF5BPilot

publishers have sometimes missed the boat in assuming their publication would do better on the web.

Yes. We recently bought a property that was exclusively on-line. We added a quarterly print edition of the same content that is making more money than the entire on-line operation.