• The KillerFrogs

Star-Telegram

C

calisuperfrog

Full Member
Fellow KFF's...does it seem like there aren't near as many TCU FB articles this year? In the past building up the season there have been far more articles (player bio's, game info, etc.) leading up to the first game. Dare I say the DMN seems to have more? Is this cutbacks at FWST? 
 
Very pumped for our first game and surprised not to see more from our local press!
 
Horned Toad

Horned Toad

Active Member
I actually thought we had a lot of coverage leading up to today when there was none except for the Arietta No Hit story. I was surprised with the game coming up on Thursday we didn't have something on football today.
 
D

Dman890

Active Member
Coverage has been light, considering we are #2 heading into the season.  However, part of that has to do with the fact that Gary has locked down information even tighter than he normally does.
 
Even the paid sites (e.g. 247) are lacking anything.
 
BABYFACE

BABYFACE

Full Member
Todd D. said:
Newspapers are still a thing?
Click to expand...
Not picking on you personally, just using your post to make a point.

I do not work for a newspaper or any related business.

Where does one expect to get your news and coverage when newspapers are gone?

Newspapers should have never offered any of the content for free. It has created a new generation that expects to get their news for free.

With newspaper budgets shrinking, it thus means less writers and content. How can anyone expect to get a quality product for free on a regular basis?

Ultimately newspapers are to blame for giving away content for free. This is where they cut their own throat IMO. Nothing wrong with putting a paper online to adjust to technology and emerging habits of readership. Just charge a subscription rate.

The Star-Telegram is a shell of it's former self, but I sure do not want to have to rely on the DMN for news on the west side of the DFW.
 
Pharm Frog

Pharm Frog

Full Member
BABYFACE said:
Not picking on you personally, just using your post to make a point.

I do not work for a newspaper or any related business.

Where does one expect to get your news and coverage when newspapers are gone?

Newspapers should have never offered any of the content for free. It has created a new generation that expects to get their news for free.

With newspaper budgets shrinking, it thus means less writers and content. How can anyone expect to get a quality product for free on a regular basis?

Ultimately newspapers are to blame for giving away content for free. This is where they cut their own throat IMO. Nothing wrong with putting a paper online to adjust to technology and emerging habits of readership. Just charge a subscription rate.

The Star-Telegram is a shell of it's former self, but I sure do not want to have to rely on the DMN for news on the west side of the DFW.
Click to expand...
 
Did the S-T give away their content for free?  When I lived down there I paid a subscription for the paper and I assumed that advertisers paid as well.  If your point is that the little content one can get online for free (with some papers) is sufficient to knock down paid readership, then I think that may speak to the overall perceived value of the product.
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
BABYFACE said:
Not picking on you personally, just using your post to make a point.

I do not work for a newspaper or any related business.

Where does one expect to get your news and coverage when newspapers are gone?

Newspapers should have never offered any of the content for free. It has created a new generation that expects to get their news for free.

With newspaper budgets shrinking, it thus means less writers and content. How can anyone expect to get a quality product for free on a regular basis?

Ultimately newspapers are to blame for giving away content for free. This is where they cut their own throat IMO. Nothing wrong with putting a paper online to adjust to technology and emerging habits of readership. Just charge a subscription rate.

The Star-Telegram is a shell of it's former self, but I sure do not want to have to rely on the DMN for news on the west side of the DFW.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between free to consumer and Free to all though.  Local networks have offered news "for free" to anyone with an antenna for 50 years, but the anchors, newscasters, and producers all made salary. Their model doesn't charge consumers (but rather charged folks that wanted to make money off those consumers).

Information is more readily available now than at any point in recorded history. Asking people to pay for it when they can easily access it for free only means that the model, not the content, is outdated. We saw it with newspapers, we see it with music, we see it with other forms of media.
 
NNM

NNM

I can eat 50 eggs
2314 said:
Go to hell, punk. They are to intelligent people.
Click to expand...
 
Clint-Eastwood-in-Gran-Torino.jpg
 
BABYFACE

BABYFACE

Full Member
If newspapers were making significant coin off online advertising, we wouldn't see skeleton staffs and reduced content.

Papers sold their AD space based on how many subscribers they have. AD revenue based on online hits is not as much as some think. Ask Scott and Wes. It is still revenue but not substantial.

I do not know, if newspapers had stuck to a solid business model and had not given away content and created the expectation of free news, if it would have made a difference. But I think the path they chose is their own undoing.
 
F

froginaustin

Active Member
Frognosticator said:
I think the S-T has done an excellent job this year covering the frogs.
Click to expand...
 
I have seen more, and much better, S-T content on the Frogs posted on this web site, than I have seen equivalent material on UTx football in the print version of the Austin American-Statesman.  Subjective opinion.  I haven't counted articles or anything, just relying on gut reactions-- of course the ceaseless whining about the state of UTx football in the Austin paper ceases to be entertaining after a while.
 
Be thankful you have as much as you do, you folks in the Fort.
 
C

cousinjoker

Active Member
Dman890 said:
Coverage has been light, considering we are #2 heading into the season.  However, part of that has to do with the fact that Gary has locked down information even tighter than he normally does.
 
Even the paid sites (e.g. 247) are lacking anything.
Click to expand...
 
barbrady.jpeg
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
BABYFACE said:
If newspapers were making significant coin off online advertising, we wouldn't see skeleton staffs and reduced content.

Papers sold their AD space based on how many subscribers they have. AD revenue based on online hits is not as much as some think. Ask Scott and Wes. It is still revenue but not substantial.

I do not know, if newspapers had stuck to a solid business model and had not given away content and created the expectation of free news, if it would have made a difference. But I think the path they chose is their own undoing.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I agree. Let's say that newspapers decided to stay behind a paywall, we're saying that somehow news websites not affiliated with newspapers, such as CNN or Drudge wouldn't have popped up? Usenet groups were spreading information for two decades before the world wide web became dominant.

Let's say that they didn't spring up though, that newspapers retained their position as distributors and put their stuff behind a paywall. What then? I look to music for the example. That's roughly analogous to the music companies sticking their fingers in their ears and staying with the "You'll go to Tower Records and like it" business model, right?

What happened to them? Napster. Started in the underground realms of piracy, but eventually yielded the iTunes music store and the a-la-carte music pricing everyone had wanted. I dare say we would have seen the same thing with news.

You can't fool the market. The internet has too many advantages over print, and eventually "I'll just put this on my website instantly...for everyone" will emerge.
 
Get Your Frogs Up

Get Your Frogs Up

Full Member
Todd D. said:
There's a difference between free to consumer and Free to all though.  Local networks have offered news "for free" to anyone with an antenna for 50 years, but the anchors, newscasters, and producers all made salary. Their model doesn't charge consumers (but rather charged folks that wanted to make money off those consumers).

Information is more readily available now than at any point in recorded history. Asking people to pay for it when they can easily access it for free only means that the model, not the content, is outdated. We saw it with newspapers, we see it with music, we see it with other forms of media.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in regards to global and national news, but sharply disagree when it comes to local and regional news and events. One thing I think that is overlooked is the fact that newspapers have been an accurate and trustworthy catalogue of local and regional history, almost like you would rely on a county clerk for real property records. It's unfortunate that resource has suffered and dwindled, and it would be sad if that resource eventually went away.
 

Latest posts

Top