STAR FINALLY LAUNCHES PAYWALL, TO GLITCHES AND INITIAL SUBSCRIBER FRUSTRATION
It had been so long since the Arizona Daily Star started making preparations for launching a paywall, that it was easy to forget those conversations even existed. But Sunday, after years, literally years of trying to make something operational, Tucson’s daily finally announced a structure for its subscription-based service.
Well, sort of.
Based on the way the digital platform rolled out, it didn’t seem as if the Daily Star really wanted any online subscribers at all. First, new Star head honcho Chase Rankin introduced readers to the impending changes in digital access in a letter in Sunday’s newspaper.
But in what amounted to little more than a PR fluff piece about the awesomeness of the paper, he managed to find the time, twice, to hype “the Star’s standing as the largest provider of news, advertising and information about Tucson,” and “the largest news-gathering organization in Southern Arizona,” but failed to mention the two pieces of information most key to readers: how the hell much, and how to sign up.
That was a tad easier to navigate for readers of the Sunday print edition, since there were accompanying instructions and a multifaceted price plan for the paywall in other stories. For those who access the Star online, that wasn’t nearly as convenient to access.
“This also marks the day that we are introducing a subscription model called Full Access,” the Rankin story proclaimed. “Print subscribers will continue to have full access to all of the Star’s valuable digital content when and how you want it. Nonsubscribers will have limited access to local content before they are asked to subscribe.
The only change for subscribers is that you will need to create a login and password to continue to have full access to the huge range of digital content. It’s simple to do.”
Not so fast. If by simple, one means full of frustrating first-day glitches, then yes, it was “simple to do.” In the midst of the newspaper pronouncing the rollout, those who attempted to sign up to the digital platform were stonewalled by code errors. Part of the braggadocio surrounded the easy-to-access set-up for subscribers, but when many of those subscribers, some of whom had print editions to home addresses and telephone numbers the Star had on file for decades, tried to create accounts, the system shut them out, which led to this unfortunate addendum to Rankin’s public relations proclamation in the comments section.
“We apologize that we are having a technical problem with activation. We are working to solve it and thank you for your patience.”
Patience has been the keyword in the Star’s promised paywall launch, and while glitches certainly happen and issues inevitably arise in the early stages of a new endeavor, running into snafus at the gate doesn’t make it look as though the paper was particularly prepared.
It’s not like there wasn’t time. Behind the scenes, the Star and parent company Lee Enterprises had been pushing for a paid online subscription platform for more than three years. It expected to launch in 2011. And then that became 2012. And 2013. And by 2014, when nearly every newspaper that had pondered a paywall had long since implemented something, the Star finally jumped in the game. And then at the outset of the exciting launch, highlighted by a rah-rah speech by the president and publisher, it couldn’t get the system in place to initially accept subscriptions.
Furthermore, during that entire timeframe, this was the major priority for the Star’s technical staff. Understandable. This is the most important inclusion for the paper since azstarnet.com launched. But there was collateral damage. Technical staff often used work on the paywall as an excuse to delay assisting in the improvement of website functionality for tucsoncitizen.com, the Gannett-owned community blog site that Gannett conveniently eventually transitioned into a rarely-accessed archive outlet, largely because access to the site was riddled with a litany of increasingly frustrating technical issues.
But all that aside, here’s the breakdown. The Star has moved its content from azstarnet.com to Tucson.com, a website Lee held in conjunction with Gannett for a number of years. The subscription model is multi-tiered.
The full-access plan is $23 a month. This tier is for print subscribers who receive the newspaper seven days a week. Allegedly, by signing in and creating an account, those folks will get full access to the online version of the publication at no additional charge.
Then there’s full access for subscribers who bypass the anemic amount of content in the Monday and Tuesday print editions and get home delivery Wednesday through Sunday. That print subscription model is $22 a month, and print subscribers, again, get access to online content free.
The Star also offers a full access option for Wednesday and Sunday print subscribers, the two coupon-heavy newspaper days, at $13 a month and a $13 a month platform for all-inclusive digital-only access that includes desktop, tablet and mobile phone viewing.
Naturally, the glitches are going to get corrected, which will then give way to the more important issue. Will the public buy it? And will they buy it in a way that makes up the difference for inevitable losses in print subscriptions and the market’s continuing struggles with the advertising downturn in traditional media buys?
In some markets, paywalls have worked. They’ve helped to buffer the losses accrued by technological changes in the industry. In others, they haven’t.
“Your feedback has told us that you value the local news and information in the Star. You realize that much of our content is exclusive to the Star newsroom—the largest news-gathering organization in Southern Arizona,” said Rankin, in case you had forgotten the Star was the largest news-gathering organization in Southern Arizona, and were instead interested in trying to find out minor footnotes, like how much this costs and why it was so difficult to get your information accepted. “Our commitment to excellence remains as strong as ever. As we invest in producing the high-quality journalism you expect, I ask you to continue your investment with us.”
Now that the digital fence has been constructed, we’ll find out what Tucson residents really think of the daily paper.
(Editor’s Note: The Tucson Local Media sites, including TucsonWeekly.com will remain paywall-free.)
This article appears in Jul 17-23, 2014.
Fraser, please, stop being subtle, ok? You’ve been holding back and building up a head of steam, and that’s bad for your blood pressure & various arteries, including those in your brain…..deep breaths, deep breaths…..
So the Weekly, which has always been given away, will remain paywall-free? Pretty bold.
In the past few years, and at an increasing pace, the Star has become pretty useless. Breaking news and important information isn’t posted to the site in a timely fashion, and in many cases, is never posted at all. A good deal of what is there is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes and is of no interest to me. And the mobile app…ugh. Click into it, and you get to stare at a Jim Click ad for a long time. When it finally disappears, more often than not you’re treated to ilk. On Sundays, for instance, it’s story after story of promotions and etc. of the fancy folk in town. Just…no. No way am I paying for more of the same. Especially when there are other ways to get the information that I actually want.
Now, if they began posting good information that’s well written, I might pay for that. But for now…no.
My canary just died. It refused to excrete its waste onto the Star. It HAD to let go, but didn’t want to inflate the value of what showed up on the doorstep.
So they expect me to pay $13 a month for rehashed stories from other news sources like the New York Times or the AP, with a smittering of local stories I could easily find at local TV news stations. That’s not a good deal.
I will miss the wonderful mugshots -that’s about it
I’m also curious how many items you get to access before you have to pay? I don’t subscribe and so far have been reading it the same as I always have. I wonder if the wire stories (that you can find elsewhere) count toward your monthly total? Still so many unanswered questions that I don’t feel like searching for. The information should be front and center.
Tiredofpc:
They cut my comment! I did use a bad word. But only one. Oh well. Did not intend to but what the neck it’s the Tucson Weekly.
Basically I will save my money and just go by the New York Times on Sunday and read it all week. (it will take that long) and catch up on the news. The only thing I used the Star for was the movie times and the obits and U of A Football coverage.
The articles had the smell of Progressive slime anyway.
My blood pressure is just fine. In fact since I retired from gov’t service it has gone way down! lol
“In some markets paywalls have worked. In others they haven’t.”
Gee, I WONDER how it will pay…errrrr play in Tucson…
A non issue until there are 11 articles a month worth reading. ADS should have just put the UofA sports coverage behind the wall. It is the only content they have that is saleable.
“… failed to mention the two pieces of information most key to readers: how the hell much, and how to sign up.”
Remember, Chase isn’t a news guy (ya know, who, what, where, when, why, how), and I’m sure the one copy editor left out there was loathe to make even one change to the stellar copy provided to her/him.
And Chase has not backed off his assertion that the cost to subscribers would not go up with this change. I have statements to the contrary. To the tune of a 23 percent jump. Guess Chase wasn’t a math major, either.
Thanks to the Arizona Daily Star customer service rep who just confirmed there was an across the board price increase on July 1, to cover the increased cost of ink and paper. Whatever. 23.2 percent is excessive. And the timing is questionable.
Too bad it takes a low-wage front line employee to do what the Publisher can’t.
I feel sorry for the newspaper delivery people who get up early and take us our papers. The Star will loose a lot of customers. Hence they loose icome. Don’t care about the Star employees but only the delivery folks.
Hope the Star folks are reading this.
I surf in to a lot of local papers around the US (not foreign ones, so far) that stop me cold with $ demands. I always think that they must have a strong paying community that wants to remain exclusive to their area, or they don’t just want anyone from outside reading their news. Nevertheless, none are very good. The ADS has changed so much in the last 40 years it is just strange. Corporations may legally be people, but they don’t get it.
Coming to this thread late but with a partially dissenting view. I’ll admit to a sentimental bias in favor of the Star’s digital offerings, given that I was one of the very first folks to sign up with azstarnet.com (back when the handful of subscribers would get together for drinks with Bob Cauthorn) & have maintained a Starnet aka tucson.com login ever since. Not to defend the glitches and delays, but the Star’s digital versions are pretty decent. In particular, the e-edition facsimile of the print edition has a well thought out interface and has a dedicated iPad app version that is legible on a tablet. (In contrast, while the version of the TW on issuu.com is legible if clunky on a wide-screen desktop, Issuu has dragged its feet on an iOS app and forget about trying to read anything on even an iPad with retina display.)
As for the business model and the cost… I won’t be able to issue a verdict on that until I find out next month whether or not I continue to be grandfathered in on the very reasonable monthly fee I’ve been paying for the e-edition for the last half dozen years.