Maybe it's a good read. I'm moving on.

*shrug*

I found it infuriating, especially since they didn't explain that very well. I wondered if it was just a mistake--an early version that teases it, then someone was supposed to post it. And no, I didn't buy the paper and I won't. This is backwards--they need to be forward-looking by investing more thought, talent and creativity in their "video" offerings rather than trying to push the print versions. The Strib. has a great opportunity to be a leader in this area, but instead readers just get cable-access style video and weak story selection for the video pieces.

I haven't bought a Sunday Strib for years, and this kind of tactic won't tempt me, or force me. I do subscribe to the Sunday New York Times, even though I get some of the stories on Saturday via their RSS feed. It's about the breadth, depth, and quality of reporting--not what some lame marketing exec. decides.

Jeez, I hope the paper does more of this. Giving away your product does not seem to be a viable strategy.

This unproved assumption that you can monetize journalistic web content makes me think of the street corner violinist.

Everybody loves him, they'd be sad if he went away, but only a few altruistic folks throw coins in his violin case.

I speak with the moral authority of somebody who adores MPR but doesn't financially support it.

By the way, Bridgette, I hear the Strib's weekly movie review videos are tight, bright and on the money! Check it out:

http://www.startribune.com/video/?vid=41551347&elr=KArks5PhDcU9PhDcU9PhDcU5PhDco8P77jyPhU

Colin Covert
Star Tribune

I think it was worth a try, but it sounds like it didn't work -- unless there's a Silent Majority out there who, like me, still values the print product. I think it was a very well-done story (as good as anything in the Sunday NYTimes, and local), but guess there wasn't a good reason for withholding it from online presentation except for attempting to funnel readership into an avenue where readers have to pay for it. I do, and think it's worth it, but I'm old.

What strikes me is the jerking around of readers by the Strib. When you do something for the first time, you'd think they would make it more clear just what they are doing, but no - the geniuses at the Strib leave it to the reader to figure out that this front page real-estate was given over to a giant tease testing out a risky new concept of the newspaper business.

As a subscriber, it kind of gave me a little bit of a thrill. I think the paper doesn't do enough to reward subscribers for buying the paper with something special. I liked seeing that I was reading something that I paid for, and other people can't freeload it.

I believe while the paper needs to be aggressive online, and they can't generally be jerking people around, it'd be smart to give subscribers extras.

I tend to think it'd be nicer to give subscribers access to MORE things (full RSS feeds online, special online coupons, bonus offers to local partners) it's not a bad thing to WITHHOLD content to the web audience for long-form investigations.

Very smart move!

My neighbor owns property nearby this development, and was irritated he actually had to pay to read it. "I had to drive down to the gas station and buy it. Can you believe that?"

My solution: subscribe and save yourself the gas

The story is online now. That seems like a reasonable strategy - try to keep selling papers by holding certain stories as web-only until the hardcopy is out of date. Its not like the housing story goes stale in a day.

I'm with Jason, Barb and Colin on this one. As a print subscriber (who sometimes wonders why she is subsidizing the online trolls who fill the Web site with some of the nastiest comments I have EVER seen) I like getting something the online folks DON'T get. In fact, we print subscribers should get more than the folks who read online for free. . .

I'd like to see the StarTribune survey its readers (or someone to survey newspaper readers of both cities) to see how many now purchase the Sunday Pioneer Press to get the TV schedule for the coming week. Dropping it was a cost-saving idea from their new owners, but perhaps it is a false economy.

They do such a poor job of keeping the website updated that it's not surprising that a move such as this would be misunderstood. As a regular reader on-line I am amazed at how they fail to keep it fresh. You can go and look and find stories that are 5 and 6 days old. If they ever expect people to pay for it they're going to have to tune it up considerably.

This is a good strategy -- if it was still 2005.

Sorry Strib but you've so damaged your brand in my household that buying a copy of the Sunday newspaper is literally beyond consideration.

I moved here in '88 and subscribed faithfully until 2000 when I went broadband and have never looked back. I don't suppress your online ads when I surf, and when I cite your content I link to it.

If you continue with this new policy you may force me to buy a copy of your newspaper, but only so I can excerpt the meat from your story so my blog readers don't have to buy a copy of the newspaper. In other words, if this strategy succeeds, bloggers will simply become more powerful as we will be the dispensers of "free" news.

Then, as with original video sales, newspapers will start charging $10 for a newspaper as they attempt to recoup their lost revenues by overcharging bloggers for their source material.

This strategy has dead end written all over it.

Mark,

Maybe newspapers should sue people who spread copied content without compensation. It costs money to investigate news.

It would be an interesting lawsuit.

Wow. Not only do people like reading the news on *paper* but you like having a printed TV guide to tell you what's on TV? This is 2009, here, folks. Please get the Internet. Kthxbai.

The problem is that there is almost nothing the Strib can withhold for print-only that would be life-changing enough to compel me (and many others) to actually buy the paper. Would I have liked to read the Serres story? Probably. Do I care enough to buy the paper? Nope.

I might be motivated to buy the paper if the withheld story was one I (a) couldn't get anywhere else AND (b) was compelled to read by its subject (e.g., "read this story or you will die tomorrow"). Short of that, I just don't care enough. Most items that the Strib prints fail test (a) above, and those that don't generally fail test (b).

That said, I think the Strib should continue doing this. It helps to make a certain type of reader (like Jason, for example) "sticky." If that type of reader feels they are getting something special, keep doing it. You need to keep your existing readership somehow.

Ooh! ooh!, somebody pushed my MPR button! (Sorry, I know this thread is about the Strib, but I gave up on them long ago.)

I figure I should be supporting MPR to the tune of at least $10.00/month. $120.00/year. But every time I hear them doing a self promotion, I subtract .25 cents. Every time they plug one of that endless list of supporting foundations I subtract .50 cents. Then when they plug one of their corporate sponsors with a 10 second mini commercial I subtract $1.00 and finally, when they call themselves "listener supported commercial free radio" I take away $2.50.

At the end of the year I find they owe me about $800.00 to $1,000.00! Rather than try to collect however, I just go on listening for free...

Matt, although you certainly have every right to choose to read the paper online, there are several reasons that make me read the paper in print. (I have more than 300 RSS feeds dumping into my google reader, I'm no luddite.)

1) Layout matters. In print, you can see what the journalists place more of a priority on. The web layout (especially on the Strib site) is not as pleasing to me, nor is it as helpful from an informational standpoint.

2) Discovery. Online, I click headlines and stories that I'm interested in. With the paper in hand, I have more of a linear experience. I read stories that I would never click on. I read international stories, business stories, lifestyle stories that aren't easily discovered online. And I learn things about the world. Try it sometime.

3) Supporting journalism. I believe in the work that all those people do at the Strib, and so I feel that writing my check for a couple hundred dollars every year helps support that.

But, you know, it's cool to hate on print and say clever things like "Kthxbai," so good work with that.

Incidentally, my forward-looking thoughts on this echo what James says. This will not get anyone to subscribe. It'll get an incremental number of people to pick up a single copy of the paper. But it may help some of us subscribers feel better about writing that check.

If you don't believe in the product, you shouldn't pay for it. But if you value the product and use it as a blogger... does it really kill you to chip in to support it?

In case anyone's still following this thread...
Jason's comment makes me nod. For much of my 37 years at the Tribune and Star Tribune I did layout, and before then I taught it at St. Thomas, passing along old ideas learned in high school and college journalism classes and practice. It would be devastating to think that there is no longer a need for experienced, skilled, unbiased editors to guide readers in ranking the significance of what's presented to them, whether on a printed page or a website. I'm not crazy about Startribune.com's helter-skelter presentation and know from experience (questioning and getting responses) that "anything about the Vikings" draws the most eyes, so gets major play. And Mark's comment makes me shake my head. So if your blog and everyone else's is allowed to rip off the investigative reporting of professionals, how long will the investigative reporters make a living at it and how long will the public be able to benefit from their work?

"Maybe newspapers should sue people who spread copied content without compensation. It costs money to investigate news."

Barb, a legal excerpt under Fair Use guidelines can tell readers what they want to know. Sometimes a single sentence does that. Fair use may protect works of art, but the news can be shared on Twitter!

We are going through technology-driven change, and the emperors of the old order are not passing from the scene gracefully. Had the Strib remained in the business of finding news instead of lobbying for baseball stadiums and becoming a political player, they'd still be doing well. They might also have been less attractive to the parasites who now own them and who undermined their previously very successful business model.

Richard Parker -- it's not a rip off if it promotes your product (why do fashion designers lend their designs to celebrities for free?). I've had dozens of readers tell me they only read the Chicago Tribune because I kept linking to their stories. The only reason blogs have cut into newspaper revenues is because newspapers are drowning their content in dross making it easier to follow a deep link than to work your way past all the front page distractions.

Blogs like mine are as much about aggregation as about opinion. Technology gives us access to too much information, and readers are looking for gatekeepers to tell them what's worth reading. It says too much about the Strib and other daily newspapers that most people don't find them worth picking up.

I also appreciate layout and design. For years the #1 reason why thousands of people used my resume service was my ability to properly lay out a resume (despite Microsoft's determination to Wizard everything to death). Online layout is improving and it's only a matter of time before printed materials are seen as quaint due to their lack of visual dynamics. I would think you would find the task of bringing your dead tree layout skills to the internet to be a worthy challenge.

As for me, I don't make any money from blogging and don't even bother with ads. I realize it's not my content and I respect that. Foolishly I keep waiting for newspapers to remember that readers only care about content and not having their opinions massaged or their sensibilities assaulted by out-of-state MBAs who know nothing about the news or news readers.

Mr. Parker, try focusing your loyalties on your coworkers and peers, and not the SOBs who are currently running our newspapers and their shareholders. Content comes from talent. Newspapers are people, but sadly that's now usually in a soylent green sense. Laid off writers can write online and, once the last dead tree newspaper has died, I think they'll find online journalism to be quite remunerative. Maybe so much so they'll be able to pay designers to make their sites look nicer.