Hearld Sun Superfoooty Pay Wall goes up.

Remove this Banner Ad

Welcome to improve if you've got criticisms - hit us up on Twitter. We all have BF accounts, remember.

I should have inconsistent quality of writing. Some of it is fine.

That "Order of the Felines is Restored" one though... whoa. Fanboisim at it's finest.
 
I get better previews pre game and better analysis post game on the Port Adelaide forums then anything I read in online articles.

One less reason to care about newspapers.
And this is just it.

Would be great to have this stuff collected, edited and placed on a news page here.

The major complication though is this work is voluntary, therefore often inconsistent. Its also virtually impossible to get people to write to a certain template though that could change over time.

In the end I feel if we had great user made content collected in one place it would be superior to what is on offer on the news sites but Mods putting in the effort to shift it, or providing incentive for people to regularly do it is another thing.

Again though there are enough lists, blogs, POTY threads, polls, match reviews and previews, SC/DT advice and live match discussion to equal and in some cases beat the pants of any content provided by a pay for site.
 
Im sure those such as myself who write reviews for our clubs boards would be happy for these to be posted on the News Site.

Even though mine are generally drunken ramblings of a madman.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I should have inconsistent quality of writing. Some of it is fine.

That "Order of the Felines is Restored" one though... whoa. Fanboisim at it's finest.

Agreed, whenever you start a venture like this, with basically an open-door policy for any old hobo to have a crack, you will get substandard writing. Some people just aren't cut out to be writers (in before 'like the HS staff'). And when you get these people writing online, without the usual word-limit constraints of print journalism, inevitably Dermott-itis will set in (why use twenty words to say something, when you can use a hundred?).

The only way I see it working is if you either get really, really good writers, or you get some contacts within the league, to allow you to actually interview people and get behind the scenes, instead of rehashing what you see on TV and read from other sources.
 
Cant imagine anyone paying for their recycled puff.
Bad enough having to suffer thru flicking onto to tv channel and seeing that numbskull Robinson still trying to palm himself off as some sort of expert on anything. I saw that show and its a media show about the media ?...since when did they get the idea they were anything but tertiary commentary all hanging out for a juicy bone to be thrown their way.

Anyone can ado a pregame and postgame "analysis", anyone can report who had a good or poor game, anyone can show the score and stats, u only need one "editor"...u certainly shouldnt need to pay for it.

Easy...no more hun on the favorites, will remove today...far too many alternatives to bother.
 
HS would want to have exhibited a far higher level of professionalism BEFORE the pay wall went up if they wanted my cash. They sure as hell aint getting it now, not when there are plenty of other avenues to get the football news.

This.

HS is gutter journalism a lot the time. Half the time you'd think they're trolling bay 13 style just to create discussion. Other times they misreport facts and struggle to get players names right.

I'm staggered they think their content is worth a fair sized subscription fee.
 
****s sakes, they're not going to charge for Supercoach...

Do you have any idea how much money they make just off advertising by driving such a vast number of people to the site???

damn, i want them to charge for it so that it goes the f*** away. im sick of half the footy coverage and analysis being based upon f***ing dream team!
 
Agreed, whenever you start a venture like this, with basically an open-door policy for any old hobo to have a crack, you will get substandard writing. Some people just aren't cut out to be writers (in before 'like the HS staff'). And when you get these people writing online, without the usual word-limit constraints of print journalism, inevitably Dermott-itis will set in (why use twenty words to say something, when you can use a hundred?).

The only way I see it working is if you either get really, really good writers, or you get some contacts within the league, to allow you to actually interview people and get behind the scenes, instead of rehashing what you see on TV and read from other sources.

I like your work MC, you know I do. But there appears to be a whole heap of uneducated outside judgement about BFN. We tried to get AFL Media Accreditation but got knocked back. It's also becoming increasingly hard to get interviews with Telstra putting up a wall of exclusivity through their club contacts.

I hope Dean (the author of the aforementioned article) isn't fazed by the criticism and continues to keep up the enthusiasm. :thumbsu:
 
Posted this in another thread of BigFooty on the same topic.

Quick fix to this situation:

Go to foxsports.com.au

Better live scores and matchday coverage of more sports, more diverse news coverage on more sports, and - unless you enjoy reading the opinions of the Herald Sun writers (but who actually does?) - it uses (pretty much) identical articles to the Herald Sun anyway thanks to both Herald Sun and Fox Sports link to news.com.au.
 
i used to log on to the herald sun website a few times a day. but ***** 'em now.

would love to see how many less hits they'll get now. who did the math with regards to ads vs subscriptions... i can't see it adding up

they're going out of my favorites bar.
 
I like your work MC, you know I do. But there appears to be a whole heap of uneducated outside judgement about BFN. We tried to get AFL Media Accreditation but got knocked back. It's also becoming increasingly hard to get interviews with Telstra putting up a wall of exclusivity through their club contacts.

I hope Dean (the author of the aforementioned article) isn't fazed by the criticism and continues to keep up the enthusiasm. :thumbsu:

I didn't mean to single out anyone and to be honest, I haven't even read the article. I'm speaking of the few articles I have read. What I'm saying is for someone who almost never reads the Herald-Sun anyway (only if I am directed to a Geelong-related feature article), I can find free content without any trouble at all, which I personally think is of a mich higher quality than what I have read on BFN. I'm not anti-BFN. But without media accreditation, it's going to be difficult to be informative. So it needs to be exceedingly well-written and entertaining. With the application process currently in place, that's going to be very difficult.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Posted this in another thread of BigFooty on the same topic.

Quick fix to this situation:

Go to foxsports.com.au

Better live scores and matchday coverage of more sports, more diverse news coverage on more sports, and - unless you enjoy reading the opinions of the Herald Sun writers (but who actually does?) - it uses (pretty much) identical articles to the Herald Sun anyway thanks to both Herald Sun and Fox Sports link to news.com.au.

As Fox are owned by News ltd, wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bloody pay wall.

HS was always going to do this. Pretty disappointed, but there are always other options. Spread the word about BigFooty News :thumbsu:
 
I have to laugh at the economic nuffies having a whinge about having to pay $3 per week.

News Ltd have been providing content for free for almost a decade. To host a website costs money. To employ moderators cost money. I would imagine the site would need a fair sized server to cope with its content - that costs money.

What exactly is in it for them to keep providing all these services for free.

News Ltd aren't going to lose a thing. The people who buy their papers are still going to buy their papers.

And now they are going to get extra revenue via the paywall.

From a financial perspective its an absolute no brainer. I'm amazed its been free for so long to be honest and there is not a doubt in the world that Fairfax will follow suit soon too.

The world is changing. The days of everything being free on the interwebs is over.
 
i have to laugh at the economic nuffies having a whinge about having to pay $3 per week.

News ltd have been providing content for free for almost a decade. To host a website costs money. To employ moderators cost money. I would imagine the site would need a fair sized server to cope with its content - that costs money.

what exactly is in it for them to keep providing all these services for free.

news ltd aren't going to lose a thing. The people who buy their papers are still going to buy their papers.

And now they are going to get extra revenue via the paywall.

From a financial perspective its an absolute no brainer. I'm amazed its been free for so long to be honest and there is not a doubt in the world that fairfax will follow suit soon too.

The world is changing. The days of everything being free on the interwebs is over.

advertisement
 
News Ltd have been providing content for free for almost a decade. To host a website costs money. To employ moderators cost money. I would imagine the site would need a fair sized server to cope with its content - that costs money.

Recouped with interest via advertising.

Because Australia's coasted through the GFC, everyone's a greedy ****. The public is being gouged left, right and centre.
 
What exactly is in it for them to keep providing all these services for free.

News Ltd aren't going to lose a thing. The people who buy their papers are still going to buy their papers.

The people who read their content when it was free and who will now go to their competitiors will also not be viewing the pretty ads plastered all over their articles and, in many cases will also be viewing the ads of those companies' direct competitors. Now, when you're renegotiating, are you going to kick in the same amount, when the readership has dropped by 25-30%? That's the issue with being a groundbreaker here. Even if they were charging 50 cents a year, plenty of people would refuse to pay it, just out of principle (and resentment at having to create accounts on the website). And not only would they refuse to pay it, they will boycott the website altogether (including the free content).

It's like asking why they don't charge twice as much for the daily newspaper, so they only have to sell half as many and still end up ahead by the savings made on printing costs.
 
Forgot to add the fact that the DT app is now FREE whilst the SC app still requires a FEE! To add injury to insult, the SC app has ads plastered all over it! Go figure!! Is it any wonder people hate the Murdochs? Don't be suckered, people. Don't be suckered.
 
I have to laugh at the economic nuffies having a whinge about having to pay $3 per week.

News Ltd have been providing content for free for almost a decade. To host a website costs money. To employ moderators cost money. I would imagine the site would need a fair sized server to cope with its content - that costs money.

What exactly is in it for them to keep providing all these services for free.

News Ltd aren't going to lose a thing. The people who buy their papers are still going to buy their papers.

And now they are going to get extra revenue via the paywall.

From a financial perspective its an absolute no brainer. I'm amazed its been free for so long to be honest and there is not a doubt in the world that Fairfax will follow suit soon too.

The world is changing. The days of everything being free on the interwebs is over.
There is beauty in your consistency.

Web traffic and therefore advertising revenue is something they can and likely will lose.

My bet, the AFL have been waiting for this hence the drop in standards and flurry of new interest articles on the Telstra website.

Not only will it prove a boon for Telstra/the AFL but could be a boost for sites like this as it drives web traffic away from News affiliated sites.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top