If you've perused the Providence Journal's website recently, you may have noticed that the articles seem shorter than they used to be. Links on the front page often lead to articles of just one or two paragraphs, many reprinted from the Associated Press. In-depth analysis, multipage exposes and regular columnists are nowhere to be found. We all know the Journal is bleeding money - its advertising revenue has dropped 61 percent in the past six years - but has it really gotten so bad that it has had to cut almost all of its substantive news coverage?
Luckily, no. All of that content is still there - it's just hiding behind a paywall, available to subscribers to download as an e-edition for $4 per week. Though we respect the dire situation of local newspapers across America - many of whom have instituted similar paywall systems - the Journal's efforts seem fundamentally misguided and ill-adapted for the realities of the media world within which it operates. Many specifics of their subscription model compare poorly with those of other newspapers, and we worry that the limitations of the Journal's paywall will only further drive readers away.
First, the entirety of the Journal's full-length reporting is inaccessible to non-subscribers. This offers no way to entice potential readers, many of whom may be skeptical of the quality of the Journal's reporting. On the New York Times' website, readers can view a set amount of full-length articles per month before being asked to subscribe. As a result, people are drawn in, convinced the product they will be paying for is worth their money. Potential Journal readers have no way to "try before they buy."
Even worse, the Journal's model fails to highlight the paper's most intriguing features. New readers who go to the ProJo's website and overlook the e-edition button may be misled into thinking that the news summaries on the front page are all the newspaper has to offer. Again, compare this to the New York Times, which prominently features in-depth analyses on its website. Visitors to their website are drawn in, while visitors to the ProJo's are too easily turned away at the door.
Further, the Journal's decision to offer its full articles as a glorified PDF seems wrongheaded. It is both inconvenient for readers and sharply reduces the means by which Journal articles can be shared. The proliferation of political blogs across the state offers a constant stream of links to news articles. But with the Journal's top articles stuck in the e-edition, there is no way to link to them - even for subscribers.
Here's the kicker: All this will cost you more than a subscription to the New York Times, despite an inferior quality both in reporting and in reader experience. The Times' paywall has been widely praised, resulting in increased subscribers and bringing the Times into the black. If the Journal wants to see the same results, it needs to reorient its own subscription model towards the future. Rather than shut off its highest quality content and let the readers trickle in, it needs to put its best foot forward and aggressively work to compete in the digital age.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
