Bummer

It's sad when a business can't figure out how to change with the times. : /

RolandDeschain wrote:It's sad when a business can't figure out how to change with the times. : /

They tried to bring what they knew, sometimes bowing out graciously is better then to sell out.

I do know for many many years I was at constantly waiting for their draft guide and pre view to hit the stands, Kudos for a long and classy run.

They go the way of first the Green section in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, then The Post Intelligencer, soon the Seattle Times as well which I stopped buying for 75 cent a day because it's thinner and has less in it then The Stranger in Downtown Seattle. I will browse it's storys on line but thats it.

Sports Illustrated, Sport I'm sure are not far behind this, Sport more the Sports Iluustrated since it comes out in multiple issues and has a larger support stream.

This is the way of all printed news someday in the future.

He said it,,people now are getting their information online and are not willing to pay for something they feel they can get for free.

The fact they don't understand is soon there won't be any media to check on, merely opinions, guesses, and out and out lies for news places. And those that either aren't interested in electronic news or can't afford them,,,,tough.

The Radish wrote:This is the way of all printed news someday in the future.

He said it,,people now are getting their information online and are not willing to pay for something they feel they can get for free.

The fact they don't understand is soon there won't be any media to check on, merely opinions, guesses, and out and out lies for news places. And those that either aren't interested in electronic news or can't afford them,,,,tough.

I don't think we have too much to worry about. There will always be big advertising supported websites that give us info. Each of the sports has their own networks and each team has their own website that you can get the information from. There will always be forums where we can discuss our favorite teams. I don't see any of that going away.

Forums are great but you end up hating the other teams more than you probably should. Even though these are very active forums they still only represent a tiny portion of the Seahawks fanbase. The same is true for the Niners fans and all the other teams. Since we are basing our opinions on such a small section of their fanbase sometimes it is difficult to forgive the other 99.99% of the fanbase that isn't represented. We are getting judged by a small portion of our fanbase too that troll other sites. That said I do enjoy forums the best because it is a lot of fun discussing the Seahawks with fans that are just as excited about the upcoming season as I am.

Being in my 30's though, I do gotta admit that waiting for the newspaper to come and wrestling my dad for the sports section was pretty awesome and fun. I found myself reading the entire section and then going back and making sure I didn't miss anything. Checking on the updated stats for the Sonics, Mariners, and Seahawks was always fun and I was always disappointed when they forgot to include the stats. I think people that missed that are missing out but there are also a lot of great things about the way information flows these days.

I don't think we have too much to worry about. There will always be big advertising supported websites that give us info.

I don't think this is true, Newspapers also thought this for many years but advertisers pulled back slowly but surely to the new medium the Internet, it can be said for many magazines. Not sure what the new information highway will be but already everywhere you go is bogged down with a huge amount of ads and like commercials on TV you begin to route around stuff to avoid them. You Tube has advertising for 30 seconds on many vids.

The other aspect is us older people know is news integrity, used to be you had to have a qualified source of information to publish a story, you didn't want to be sued or libel for miss information. These days seems 90 percent of things are speculation, editorial, or incomplete or inaccurate. You have to piece things together from several stories and form your own opinion. News groups and media outlets are owned by what I think I read 5 groups now for everything. When the Ackerlys owned the Sonics initially I think I recall the number was 160 or so, they control everything for us to see hear and read, many times not putting up stories if they conflict with their political affiliation or make it look bad. This is a big change as well; people deciding what is allowed to be seen by the public and what parts of a story reported and the spin on it rather then just the facts.

With the advent of being able to edit so many photos and videos now it's really almost impossible to tell what’s real and not on many of the subtle influencing stories with out an expert being able to analyze the video and pictures to with detecting technology see if it was doctored.

Long way of saying we can't trust what we read see or hear anymore, the integrity and reporting is more about sensationalism and influence of a group then the story and people involved in todays society.

We could never really trust what we saw or read; there was lots of irresponsible journalism and straight-up cheerleading back in the print days, too (see the Democratic and Republican-leaning papers in the first hundred years of our country's existence, for examples).

We're just easing over to a new medium for news, and news companies will have to figure out how to make a profit on an ad-driven market rather than a subscriber-driven one.

chris98251 wrote:

I don't think we have too much to worry about. There will always be big advertising supported websites that give us info.

I don't think this is true, Newspapers also thought this for many years but advertisers pulled back slowly but surely to the new medium the Internet, it can be said for many magazines. Not sure what the new information highway will be but already everywhere you go is bogged down with a huge amount of ads and like commercials on TV you begin to route around stuff to avoid them. You Tube has advertising for 30 seconds on many vids.

Well, either you pay for a subscription, or you sit through a :30 commercial. I'll sit through the commercial.

I don't mind commercials, because I understand that's how businesses have to make money. Though I'm partially biased, since I work in TV. But the same holds true for internet media, companies have to pay their employees, and make a profit.

The additional infrastructure required to put physical media on the news stands nowadays just isn't worth it when you can make the same story available instantly on an electronic device. There was no reason for them to die, but they just couldn't (or wouldn't) adapt. The cost of putting out a weekly magazine must've been staggering.

Smelly McUgly wrote:We could never really trust what we saw or read; there was lots of irresponsible journalism and straight-up cheerleading back in the print days, too (see the Democratic and Republican-leaning papers in the first hundred years of our country's existence, for examples).

I agree with this whole heartedly. It was the same damn puppet show back then, we were just too naive to see the strings. At least now the people with the insight to call bullshit have a significantly larger platform to do so from.

But yeah, kinda sad to see PFW go. End of an era...

It's a bummer that PFW is closing. It was a good source of unbiased data. As a science nerd, I really enjoyed how they developed their arguments, the formulae used to support data, etc.

On the second topic of the death of newspaper:

Good riddance. I once visited a landfill with a girlfriend who was an environmental scientist and saw how our nation's infrastructure struggles to deal with the tons and tons of wasted paper we generate - mostly newspapers, magazines and junk mail. It was terrifying to see a pile of stacked paper that loomed menacingly over a 50' crane. My girlfriend commented that it seems absurd that we cut down forests, grind the trees into pulp, produce a ton of toxic waste creating paper, create more toxic waste to produce ink for the paper, then immediately throw all that printed paper into a landfill where it creates more waste. She told me that printed paper is responsible for a very large portion of harmful pollution in our country, and when you think of how little benefit it offers our society, it just emphasizes the absurdity of the whole cycle.

We both felt one of the best advantages the internet offers to mankind is its potential to reduce and possibly eliminate this extremely unnecessary cycle of waste. Let's face it - we don't need printed media any more. Computers and internet access is cheaper than buying printed paper, so there is no excuse to continue. By reducing the amount of printed media we throw away, we drastically reduce harmful pollution (toxic waste disposal) and reduce deforestation.

The death of newspaper is one of the more positive results of technological evolution.

Same old comments.

"we want all the information but we don't want to pay for it". is alive and well here in this forum.

Sadly you don't realize that someone has to do that work and they expect to be paid.

The Radish wrote:Same old comments.

"we want all the information but we don't want to pay for it". is alive and well here in this forum.

Sadly you don't realize that someone has to do that work and they expect to be paid.

If the information is good and enough people want it, revenue from advertising and other sources should be more than enough to cover that cost. Plenty of sites have no problem generating enough revenue to stay afloat. Simple matter of supply and demand economics. Survival of the fittest, if you will (as much as I despise Herbert Spencer, his theories about social darwinism apply very well to market economics).

For those sites that can't generate enough ad revenue and other revenues, that is just a matter of not having a good "business development" staff on board. Or, to simplify, the site is being run by a mediocre businessman.

A huge component of business success in America is dependent on having a good marketing department and business development team. Without that, you won't be competitive. I have a "biz-dev/marketing" team for my medical practice. They've grown our business tenfold.

The Radish wrote:Same old comments.

"we want all the information but we don't want to pay for it". is alive and well here in this forum.

Sadly you don't realize that someone has to do that work and they expect to be paid.

If you're lumping me in with that, I pay for the access to Pro Football Focus, and once Football Outsiders drops their new book, I'll be buying a year's subscription to that, too. I repeat my prior statement, that it's sad when a business can't figure out how to change with the times.

RolandDeschain wrote:

The Radish wrote:Same old comments.

"we want all the information but we don't want to pay for it". is alive and well here in this forum.

Sadly you don't realize that someone has to do that work and they expect to be paid.

If you're lumping me in with that, I pay for the access to Pro Football Focus, and once Football Outsiders drops their new book, I'll be buying a year's subscription to that, too. I repeat my prior statement, that it's sad when a business can't figure out how to change with the times.

I didn't lump anyone in with anything, no need to be so insecure. Those that operate that way will know who they are. I get enough of that crap at home. Doesn't matter what or how you say something it insults someone. Even worse than here.

RolandDeschain wrote:

The Radish wrote:Same old comments.

"we want all the information but we don't want to pay for it". is alive and well here in this forum.

Sadly you don't realize that someone has to do that work and they expect to be paid.

If you're lumping me in with that, I pay for the access to Pro Football Focus, and once Football Outsiders drops their new book, I'll be buying a year's subscription to that, too. I repeat my prior statement, that it's sad when a business can't figure out how to change with the times.

Yep, gonna agree with you here that it's sad when a business can't change with the times. No need to blame it on anything else. If the business can't find a way to build that revenue to support their "bridge to online audience" (as the PFW editor called it), perhaps that business needs to re-think its strategy.

When I read the article, it was clear to me that PFW saw their business model as being print-first, with the online version being a supplemental thing. That is clearly a foolish model and has been since 1998. No need to sugar-coat. Anyone with half a brain has seen this coming for a long time.

The PI tried to adapt, and they failed. I know some folks who worked for the PI during that period, and they told me the reason the PI failed is because there was a lot of bull-headed hubris at the top of a chain of command that was outdated, old, and refused to listen to any ideas other than their own. You look at the death of any large company and it can ALWAYS be traced to some bull-headed hubris in upper management. Old guys sitting around talking about the good old days and refusing to see the world for what it is NOW.

Good example is the American car industry. They got so full of hubris and had such inflexible management during the 70's that it basically killed their entire market. While the japanese clearly saw that the fuel crisis would drive consumers to smaller more fuel-efficient (and cheaper) cars, the "Big Three" were still obsessed with building gas-guzzling land yachts. While the japanese saw the advantages of composites and alternate alloys, the Americans stubbornly stuck to heavier, higher-cost, higher-maintenance steel. I could go on, but we all know the story. Simple stupid hubris and poor upper management killed the USA's auto industry.

The simple fact of life is that the only people who will survive are those who adapt, as it has always been. All those old men sitting around yacking endlessly about the "good old days" of journalistic integrity, IBM selectrics, and the way a freshly printed newspaper feels and smells - those guys just don't get it. They might see those things as good, but the rest of the world doesn't. We've evolved. Either evolve with us, or go extinct like the dinosaurs.

Also, as a follow-up, I think a great example of a contrast (successful online media specializing in sports) would be ProFootballTalk.com.

They are successful because they put out a TON of articles very quickly. They have a small flexible staff of writers who can generate a ton of content in real-time. By following that site, I've often discovered Seahawks updates before anyone else reported on it. They use a team of full-time editors and fact-checkers to stay on top of rumors and respond immediately, so they can do their fact-checking and still get the reports out quickly. Outside of a few false reports, they do a generally excellent job, and I don't think their content suffers in any way. In fact, I think they provide an excellent source of information that is very desirable to their target market, and they do it in a way that gives them a distinct advantage over "traditional" media - without losing the "integrity".

And they have no issues with revenue. They're making hand over fist for NBC.

Well, maybe I was mistaking you for DTex, Radish; who thinks I have quite literally stolen billions of dollars from rightful owners of products.

@Hans: I agree.

I pay for National Geographic Online and Hemmings Motor News Online... why? Because they are awesome. They are things I paid for in print, and gladly support, because the bang for your buck is amazing. I won't pay for the New York Times though, because I think it sucks. I may read an article linked from their site, but I only read it for free because I wouldn't have paid for it. I could live off of one or two forums and Natgeo and Hemmings and be fine. If something else as good as those two publications went online and I could read it on my iPad and not have to wait for it to be mailed, then I'd be all over it. Good quality stuff is what we pay for.

Look at what they did in Chicago and fired all of their photogs and want to just use iReporters. The joke the dude played on Craigslist was hilarious, because it is true. Media has always made a fortune off of sharing information. Now that they have to TRY then they all quit or go to a model where their reporters are just idiots like on Bleacher Report.