Boston Globe Launches Pay Site: BostonGlobe.com

NEW YORK -- The Boston Globe unveiled a two-pronged strategy Monday to help keep the 139-year-old newspaper afloat amid industry-wide advertising and circulation drops.

Following in the footsteps of its corporate parent, the New York Times, the paper's executives are banking on devoted readers paying for online content.

For those readers only interested in breaking news, local coverage, sports scores, blogs and classifieds, there won't be much of a change. All of that content, along with a selection of up to five Globe articles daily, remains free at Boston.com. However, readers seeking full access must head to the just-launched pay site, BostonGlobe.com.

Publisher Christopher Mayer told The Huffington Post that by separating the two brands, the Boston Globe will now have "its own door in the digital space." Until now, BostonGlobe.com redirected to Boston.com, a popular news site that's been the main destination for the paper's content since 1995.

"We have two different sites and they're targeted at two different types of audiences," said editor Marty Baron. "BostonGlobe.com is targeted for people really interested in the full depth of journalism we offer. They're interested in a comfortable reading experience. They're interested in reading the full stories in many instances."

Similar to the Times, any Boston Globe print subscriber -- even one subscribed only to the Sunday edition -- can access BostonGlobe.com. (The Globe's print circulation is 219,000 daily and 356,000 on Sundays). Digital-only subscribers will have to pay $3.99 a week to read all of its content online and across mobile devices and tablets.

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage is sponsoring the site through September, so the BostonGlobe.com pay wall really doesn't kick in until Oct. 1. But when it does, who'll subscribe online? Since so much content remains available on Boston.com, casual readers are unlikely to open their wallets. But executives hope dedicated Globe readers -- the ones who want editorials, op-eds, enterprise stories, documentary video and all the paper's reviews -- will drop around $16 a month to get everything.

Still, there are a few pay wall exceptions. For one, Globe editors can opt to move a story of national interest to Boston.com in hopes of reaching a wider audience online. Also, social media users can read any Globe article linked on Twitter or Facebook. (They'll appear as Boston.com articles and therefore won't lead through the BostonGlobe.com pay wall).

Mayer won't get into specifics about digital-only subscription goals. But given the past couple rocky years, it's understandable why executives might be trying to tap into another revenue stream.

In Spring 2009, the Times Company put its New England Media Group –- which includes the flagship Boston Globe and smaller Worcester Telegram & Gazette -– on the market. That year, the Globe was on pace to lose $85 million, and there were serious threats of a shutdown before the paper's union made significant concessions.

Yet by October, the Times Co. decided not to sell the newspaper group after getting bids in the $35 million range. While not bad for a money-hemorrhaging paper, such an offer is a far cry from the $1.1 billion the Times Co. paid for the Globe in 1993.

Rumors of an impending sale haven't quieted. Earlier this year, local entrepreneur Aaron Kushner made a lot of noise about buying the New England Media Group, with reports that he and other investors would pay $200 million.

Once again, the Times Co. quashed the idea. In May, chief executive Janet Robinson told staff that the Globe "is not for sale." When asked if the paper is still not for sale, Mayer referred back to Robinson’s comments and said the Boston paper has always tried to be "a positive contributor within the New York Times Company."

“We focus on the assets that we have that we think make us distinctive, unique, and that we think we do tremendously, extremely well and, in fact, better than anybody else in our marketplace," Mayer continued. "And we look to turn that into a business model that supports the journalism that not only we do, but frankly, that we need to do."

RELATED

Comments

[Daedalus22]

12:24 AM on 09/14/2011

Newspapers have only themselves to blame--they waited and generally acted like watchmakers did when Japan began mass producing quartz watches. They thought they were so successful the Internet would not affect them. They ignored it in may cases. They have been playing catch-up since day one. I worked in daily papers for many years and watched as newsrooms failed to read the writing on the wall. News executives were paralyzed into inaction. More's the pity: we need reporters and editors and others who gather the news.

[AlfredE69]

10:05 PM on 09/12/2011

My one pronged strategy is to go to google news.

[GatorGrrrl]

02:18 PM on 09/13/2011

And where does Google news get it's links, genius? From the print journalists who are starting to wake up and stop giving away their product for free. Good for Boston. I hope this works

[AlfredE69]

08:16 PM on 09/13/2011

It gets its links from the internet, genius.

[Ba Fangul]

08:52 PM on 09/12/2011

21 comments shows how little anyone cares about the Globe .

[Freedomaphile]

02:31 PM on 09/12/2011

If it was 4.00 a month, I might consider it, but not at $4.00 a week.

I read the print edition of the Globe for a lot of years when I lived in the Boston area. Many of the articles went very deep giving info not available elsewhere. Yes, there is a liberal, progressive slant. But they work hard at balance and since bias is usually in what you leave out, the fact that they go deep eliminates most of it.

Now that I have retired to Florida, I hit Boston.com almost every day, before I log onto HuffPost.

I will miss it, but $17.33 a month is too much.

[Eric Shin]

01:19 PM on 09/12/2011

The Boston Globe must be taking lessons on business from the USPS.

[Freedomaphile]

02:33 PM on 09/12/2011

Yes, because the USPS charges such an outrageous amount to send a letter anywhere in the U.S. of America.

[jesocr]

12:30 PM on 09/12/2011

Good luck; why would anyone pay there is so much thats available for free?

[GatorGrrrl]

02:20 PM on 09/13/2011

Hopefully, that won't be the case anymore before long. Newspapers made a fatal mistake giving away their product for free at the start of the internet. Someone has to pay for that reporter to sit in court, or read a budget or hound the congressman.

[elsololobo]

12:19 PM on 09/12/2011

Hey, if you can't put an online newspaper on the 'puter for free, then fold up and go home. I am sick of people wanting to charge money for everything. That time has passed.

[GatorGrrrl]

02:21 PM on 09/13/2011

And I'm sick of people wanting something for nothing. Someone has to pay a reporter to do the shoe-leather reporting it takes to uncover the news. It's not done by bloggers in their basements

[Cornelius Cox]

10:50 AM on 09/12/2011

why would you pay to read the news when freely available online and on cable....

[chesscub]

02:56 PM on 09/12/2011

You pay for cable and online access.

[raker]

10:33 AM on 09/12/2011

The Globe the good columnists and now fills its pages with huge photos and miles of white space. Whatever they're planning to charge readers, it ought to be very low.

[madame fate]

10:11 AM on 09/12/2011

Thousands of news sites on the internet and we can get our fill of news there for free.

I go to a few British news sites and get indepth articles on doings in America without any bias or slant. It's nice to see another country's perspective of what's happening in this country.

[englishman545]

11:17 AM on 09/12/2011

Yes We Brits are above all unbiased. (unless you are Irish)

[bessielil]

10:05 AM on 09/12/2011

As newspapers put up paywalls, the risk is that people will be too seduced by unvetted, unedited, non journalism standard based news.

After all, what reasonable reader would pay to keep access to the LA Times, The Globe, the AJC, the NYT, and the Washington Post in order to stay informed?

[JakeMontero]

09:47 AM on 09/12/2011

The demographics of the Times/Post/Gobe are upper income left/progressive urban folks who now get their news from the Internet and MSNBC

[Dr Confuso]

09:27 AM on 09/12/2011

"Good night and good luck...see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya."

[gnorrfa]

09:13 AM on 09/12/2011

I could understand paying to read certain outstanding journalists for their considered output, but there's an enormous ocean of news out there and I can get that information through a little "effort." I must say, smugly, most don't even consider that effort worthwhile, just take one "news" source's word for it. The Murdoch Empire is very secretive so it's difficult to learn how they're doing with their "pay for view", but they might be doing all right for the NYT to re-open it.

[jones]

09:08 AM on 09/12/2011

I worked at the BG for a few months on contract. Its like working back in time.

[madame fate]

10:13 AM on 09/12/2011

In what way?