Get with the Times

I posted something earlier today on abLA regarding the raping, I mean $150 fee, LA Times wants to charge me to re-post a review one of their writers wrote on my last exhibition.

What I’m hoping to get across, and it’s not as eloquent as I would like, is that this is the old way of thinking. Not being able to reference informative material via the web (in case you don’t know, you have to pay $$$ to read anything on the LA Times site) quickly and without fee, is outdated and will eventually cause the demise of publications who refuse to get with the program.

New Note: I turned off the comments here (two discussions at once was confusing). Please feel free to post on abLA!

6 Replies to “Get with the Times”

  1. It really does suck for theatre people too, you can’t refer back to a review of a show either on a website ever since they locked off the calendar section to non-subscribers. Restaurants, movies, opera, anyone who gets reviewed basically has to pony up just to see what they said about them.

    I remember when my hometown newspaper reviewed a short film of mine and interviewed me … they sent *me* five complimentary copies!

    It makes LA Times *less* relevant. It does *not* make me want to subscribe.

  2. It stinks for a mom who wants to show the family what little Johnny did. It’s appaling that they are essentially withholding information. And the real kicker is…this info is from events that we’re doing. So who’s information is it really? I mean, if the writer is ok with it, then I should be able to re-publish it. I believe the web and blogging will take care of this eventually. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

  3. I don’t understand locking off the reviews section and keeping the news and so on available for free. I’d be more likely to pay for access to news than access to reviews, but I get really frustrated when I can’t see a review – not even an abstract. Argh!
    Off to the library to read it for free!

    Too bad that doesn’t work for the reprint rights. Lame!

  4. Speaking as a former L.A. Times staff writer/columnist, I can tell you they’re doing whatever it takes to protect their shrinking bottom line.

    With mindshare being eroded hourly by the Internet, cable, network gaming, magazines and a host of other media, daily newspapers that were already in a death spiral in the late 20th century are now circling the drain at dizzying speed.

    What sucks is that they’re still (generally) among the most reliable (if slow) news sources out there, they’ve failed to innovate sufficiently to keep pace (especially LATimes.com, which sticks to the visual-train-wreck-for-news-junkies format over a more useful news/portal/community model) and their audience is dissolving as they watch.

    Put in that position and unwilling to make drastic changes, wouldn’t you want to charge $150 a pop for digital reprints?

  5. Mack – Thanks for your comment…it makes total sense. Here’s what I would do…I would not charge the $150 a post for re-posting. What I would do would be to integrate new information, stuff that is late-breaking and info not in the actual paper, try to build readership on the site and then charge for advertising to reimburse for funds. Making money on the web is indeed not fool-proof and takes a gamble. But you’re right, if I was unwilling to change and in that position that might seem like a good option. It’s too bad that they are going to lose readership because of it!

  6. Since I have two discussions about this going at the same time, I’m turning off the comments on this site. But, feel free to post comments on art.blogging.la. -The link is in the original post.

    Thanks!

Comments are closed.