Readers, have a say in saving your paper
HEY GLOBE readers, can you spare some time?
Tell me. What does this newspaper mean to you?
As you've no doubt noticed, we've become one of the biggest stories in town. The New York Times Co. is threatening to close the place down unless it gets $20 million in concessions from the Globe unions.
We're suffering from a double whammy: A bad recession and a self-defeating business model. Troubled times have sent advertising revenues plummeting. Meanwhile, we're selling the paper with one hand and giving it away on Boston.com with the other. That's never made any sense - the more so since website ads aren't anywhere near the revenue-generator that print ads are.
When it comes to the printed product, the picture is discouraging. Overall, our daily print circulation is about 324,000, 14th in the country as of September 2008; that's off 10 percent from the previous year, and down 22 percent from 2005. Although conservative critics would have you believe our liberal editorial stance has alienated legions of one-time readers, fewer than 10 percent of subscription cancelers cite disagreement with content as their motivation. The big reasons: No time to read, delivery problems, and cost.
But online readership trends are encouraging. Boston.com had nearly 5.7 million unique visitors in February, according to Nielsen
In February, the average visitor spent 19 minutes on the site. Among the top 10 newspaper websites, only the New York Times kept visitors longer.
Nevertheless, if you're a regular reader, you've obviously noticed the way the paper has changed as we've downsized. The Globe is thinner, the coverage less comprehensive, and the focus more local.
I still think we put out a damn good paper. To cite some recent examples, the Globe is the reason Sal DiMasi is now the former speaker of the Massachusetts House; the reason the State Ethics Commission is probing Treasurer Tim Cahill; and one major reason the Legislature may finally put an end to some outrageous abuses of the public pension system.
Paul Grogan, president of the Boston Foundation, is right when he says the Globe sets the agenda for civic discussion in Boston. And, I'd add, for much of the TV coverage and talk-radio conversation.
"I frankly am very skeptical that anything that is currently in view in the new media would perform anywhere near the same function," says Grogan.
I am too. Yet I also doubt we'll be able to maintain the kind of quality newspaper and website readers expect unless we start charging online visitors who don't subscribe to the paper.
Newspapers, eyeing several earlier failed experiments, including one by the New York Times, are skittish. That approach has worked for the Wall Street Journal, however. And as someone long wary about giving away our product on the Web even as we sell it in print, I think it's time to try.
So back to my question: What does the Globe mean to you?
Would you pay to read the paper online? Seven-day home delivery currently costs $9.25 a week in the Boston area. Would it be worth $10 or $12 a month to read Globe content on Boston.com? Another idea under discussion in the news industry is micropayments. You'd give a credit card number once, and then be charged a small amount - a nickel, say - for each story you clicked on. Which would you prefer, a subscription or micropayments?
Some think charging for Web content will only deter readers, while keeping links to our website from appearing on other sites. Any payment system must be voluntary, they say. I'm dubious. But tell me, if we nagged you incessantly - ah, make that, politely prompted you at frequent intervals - would you make a voluntary payment of some sort?
Finally, can you think of better ways to have online readers pay for Globe offerings?
Either e-mail me or leave your thoughts in the comments space online. We'll print some of the best on Friday.
But please take a minute to weigh in. After all, the Globe is your paper too.
Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. 
