Effing brilliant.

Confused about why you want to pay for something that's free. Being a pain in the a$$ for the heck of it? Why don't you just turn off adblock and click on all their ads? Or attempt to view an older article, which DOES require payment?

Um, news is free. I get it on the TV daily. I'm pretty sure they only make you pay for the actual paper that the words are printed on... Not completely sure, but I get my news either on the internet (for free) or television. News should always be free. It's kinda our given right to know what is going on in our community. I'm sure some people disagree.

If u have money to throw around, donate some to the less fortunate and to heck with the news tribune. They don't need to money.

You could donate the $200 and change to the PartsGuy's SUV Needs An Upgraded Stereo Fund.

Barring that, give it to the United Way.

"when you buy a newspaper, you're not buying the paper"

Actually, you are buying the paper.  The ads in the paper are buying the news.

"Do they get paid more if I click on ads?"

The answer to that is, "it depends on the newspaper".  One of the cool things about newspapers and their general autonomy from one another is that they often have wildly different monetization strategies.  I'm not sure exactly what the trib does.

I suspect that at most papers, clickthroughs on national ads tend to bring more revenue than impressions, but national ads bring so little revenue that it probably doesn't matter. Local online ads that are sold directly to local businesses by the paper's ad reps tend to make the most for OUR customers (once again, I don't know what the trib does) and those usually don't have a clickthrough component as the newspapers usually don't have the tools to track that sort of stuff.

What does matter is pageviews, because that's what unofficially sells online ads right now. After the dust settles, it may be that that's the new "circulation" value that we care about.

"I still prefer reading the environmentally unfriendly paper version of the DNT, Strib and magazines."

The newspaper is bulky and non-linear (this article continues on page 3C...) and I personally find the online version to be more convenient.  But readers like you are the reason why I'm confident that print editions will exist for at least another decade.

That said, I really prefer to hold magazines and books in my hands to read them -- esp. photography magazines.  Photos on a monitor simply don't compare to a well-printed magazine.

The ads in the paper don't begin to pay for the cost of gathering the news. And advertisers won't advertise unless they think the newspaper has paying subscribers. 

Whether Chris gives money to charity isn't really relevant. He's trying to pay for a service he receives and values. The paper is committing suicide by giving that service away online, and yet it has failed to devise a way even to accept money from an online reader who offers it.  

Sure, you can get news free online and on TV, but where do you think most of that reporting originates? In newspapers, where reporters are paid to dig it up. Most websites just aggregate news that appeared originally in newspapers. TV, with its paltry handful of overworked reporters, depends heavily on local papers to find the news it follows.

Yes, the DNT sucks, but I want someone to go to City Hall and tell me what they're up to over there, and no one else is going to do it. The paper has to devise a way to let us pay for that service without the waste and the unacceptable carbon footprint of a paper paper.

"The ads in the paper don't begin to pay for the cost of gathering the news."

What causes you to believe this?  I'm curious because I write software that opens new ad revenue streams for newspapers, and this runs opposite of everything that I have observed in the industry.

"And advertisers won't advertise unless they think the newspaper has paying subscribers."

Most newspapers are audited by the ABC (http://www.accessabc.com/) and their ABC audit determines their circulation numbers. Advertisers don't have to "think" that the newspapers have paying subscribers; newspapers will always base rates on their ABC circulation and share their ABC circulation with advertisers.

It's unfortunate but absolutely true that branding/exposure sells free services.  Does anyone actually ever click on the ads?

I mean, I can get the whole subliminal thing, but the last time I clicked on one (not including the one on this site a few days ago, which turned out to be misleading and brought my perfectly innocent web browser to a different ad distribution server; whole other story).

I digress.  The last time I wanted to click on a sidebar ad was about 8 years ago. 'nuff said.

Oh, and, don't use your TV tray in the bathtub :-)

"Really? Everything you have observed in the industry involves online ads paying for gathering of the news?"

No, everything I've observed involves ads paying for news.  You added the "online".  I don't know, but I suspect that the majority of newspaper revenue comes from print editions still.  That's why they're so worried.

What I'm saying is: your subscription to the newspaper doesn't make them any money.  It doesn't even cover the cost of printing and distributing the damn thing (unless you are paying someone like the L.A. Times; large newspapers can use the economy of scale to make subscriptions profitable).

How much money do you think papers spend on gathering news, anyway?  It's not much.  They spend as much or more on selling ads, because ads are their revenue stream.  Unless they're very large, once again, but I think we can safely say that the New York Times is the exception to the rule, and not the rule.

I would think the only way they would benefit from someone clicking on an ad was if that particular advertiser saw an increase in sales of its product or service from advertising online and then decided to continue advertising with them because they thought it was effective. Just clicking on an ad doesn't the advertiser a sale.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but here goes...

There's a term for this business model, but I don't know what it's called.  With my innate hatred of such a thing, PDD actually does an excellent job, since they make a good effort to subtly pair up consumers with products.  Paul made a good post a short while ago with the "suggestion box" throw-out about gaining readership match with local interest.  A simple survey.  Brilliant.

I would, on the other hand, blast my snobbery at that.

Question then: Does advertisement provide dissemination of knowledge?
Answer: To a large degree

Question: Is that a bad thing?
Answer: Depends

just my 2 euro

The Hillsider Newspaper is non-profit and accepts donations too.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/154587/

Rather, did you e-mail to him what you typed here?

As you note, udarnik, Rob is quoting from the letter I sent with my check. 

But he did call me a couple of days ago. We had a good talk. 

He's earnest about finding a way to fit electronic subscriptions into the mix. And if the DNT goes with software something like Olive for its e-edition that would be quite cool. It presents a very readable digital version of the paper edition, and it offers awesome archive access.

Well, other people could pay for the subscription too, just like they do for the newspaper.