Baptist newspapers? Who wraps fish anymore?

[William Thornton]

In search of a provocative subject title, since yawns are what Baptist newspapers seem to elicit the most of these days anyhow.

The state Baptist papers are in decline and have been since 1977. Picture losing 500 subscribers daily for all those years. Baptist Planet's graphic on the same.

Salient points: advertisers aren't much interested in web versions nor does it appear that sufficient people will pay for web versions. The geographic limit of the papers is out of date.

I've never paid to get a state paper. Maybe once in 30 years have I been in a church that paid for a mass subscription. But hey, our state convention can always prop up the state paper (looks like $71k/yr for my state, minor money).

I do find state papers to be useful in my keeping up with SBC news. The Christian Index (GA) watches NAMB pretty closely. The Florida Baptist Witness seems to have the GCRTF news first, and the NC paper does some good reporting too. But, here again, I get their stuff online, for free.

Baptist Planet seems to think that the LA paper is about to commit online suicide by charging a fee.

[georgefrink]

The state Baptist papers are in decline and have been since 1977. Picture losing 500 subscribers daily for all those years. Baptist Planet's graphic on the same.

I do find state papers to be useful in my keeping up with SBC news. The Christian Index (GA) watches NAMB pretty closely. The Florida Baptist Witness seems to have the GCRTF news first, and the NC paper does some good reporting too. But, here again, I get their stuff online, for free.

Baptist Planet seems to think that the LA paper is about to commit online suicide by charging a fee.

Looking back over the piece, we came close to arguing that the LA online publication is too dead to commit suicide.
I think everyone can see what I mean if they look at the Alexa numbers for baptistlife.com (traffic rank = 323,043) and the LA Baptist Message (traffic rank = 4,551,727). Even lawsuit-beset Word&Way has better numbers (traffic rank = 3,124,533) than LA.

Certainly GA and FLA do have some nice spots in their coverage. As does BR.

[Bruce Gourley]

The state Baptist papers are in decline and have been since 1977. Picture losing 500 subscribers daily for all those years. Baptist Planet's graphic on the same.

I do find state papers to be useful in my keeping up with SBC news. The Christian Index (GA) watches NAMB pretty closely. The Florida Baptist Witness seems to have the GCRTF news first, and the NC paper does some good reporting too. But, here again, I get their stuff online, for free.

Baptist Planet seems to think that the LA paper is about to commit online suicide by charging a fee.

Looking back over the piece, we came close to arguing that the LA online publication is too dead to commit suicide.
I think everyone can see what I mean if they look at the Alexa numbers for baptistlife.com (traffic rank = 323,043) and the LA Baptist Message (traffic rank = 4,551,727). Even lawsuit-beset Word&Way has better numbers (traffic rank = 3,124,533) than LA.

Certainly GA and FLA do have some nice spots in their coverage. As does BR.

For the record, Alexa is widely recognized as being very unreliable (just Google "alexa unreliable").

Two respected and reliable metrics services are http://www.quantcast.com and http://www.compete.com.

[Mrs Haruo]

Except for brief quotes on this forum, I for one have never SEEN a Baptist newspaper, other than the Evergreen district newsletter. We don't even subscribe to our beloved Seattle Times any more because the papers pile up so high and we have to negotiate several flights of stairs to get to the recycle bin after its been read. I buy a copy at the corner newsstand if the picture on the front is scrapbook worthy -- but now that we are getting ready to move, I need it to pad breakables I read it on-line every day however.

[Lamar Wadsworth]

I think it's worth noting that the circulation of Baptist state papers started to tank a decade or better before most of us got on the Internet. My loss of interest in Baptist state papers coincided precisely with the loss of editorial freedom, the silencing of dissenting opinions, the inability to present all sides of controversial issues, and the change in purpose from covering denominational news to being a promotional piece. While the Internet has certainly contributed to the decline of Baptist state papers as it has contributed to the decline of ink-on-paper newspapers generally, I think the decline has had far more to do with the factors I cite.

[georgefrink]

My loss of interest in Baptist state papers coincided precisely with the loss of editorial freedom, the silencing of dissenting opinions, the inability to present all sides of controversial issues, and the change in purpose from covering denominational news to being a promotional piece.

Exactly so.
As long as the N.C. Biblical Recorder was able to maintain substantial editorial freedom to report and comment without handcuffs, its Web readership soared, outrunning all of the other state Baptist publications and a great many Web publications outside the Southern Baptist realm. Each push compelling compromise of that mission did and I believe continues to do measurable harm.
Where factually well-vetted, impartial information is scarce, audience response says it's all about the information.
Yes, the history does say giving up that franchise is, over time, fatal.

[William Thornton]

I can't say that any state paper I read during the years of SBC controversy was particularly unbiased.

[georgefrink]

For the record, Alexa is widely recognized as being very unreliable (just Google "alexa unreliable").
Two respected and reliable metrics services are http://www.quantcast.com and http://www.compete.com.

True.
Even so, I use Alexa for comparisons when I have other sources of data (server logs themselves, etc ...) from the same realm (Baptist news services in this case), so that I can evaluate its relative accuracy of the comparisons. We are not, after all, basing ad rates on these numbers.
For comparing these sites, good luck on getting usable data of any kind for all of them from the sources you list. Not being critical of your report. Just sayin'.
When those sources offer "estimated" numbers, those numbers are in my experience wildly inaccurate for sites whose server logs I've simultaneously evaluated.
So I went to a source whose *relative accuracy* is known to me for this realm (Baptist news services) and from which numbers were actually available for those I sought to compare.
The result in this case is usable relative comparisons and general performance graphs.

[Bruce Gourley]

For the record, Alexa is widely recognized as being very unreliable (just Google "alexa unreliable").
Two respected and reliable metrics services are http://www.quantcast.com and http://www.compete.com.

True.
Even so, I use Alexa for comparisons when I have other sources of data (server logs themselves, etc ...) from the same realm (Baptist news services in this case), so that I can evaluate its relative accuracy of the comparisons. We are not, after all, basing ad rates on these numbers.
For comparing these sites, good luck on getting usable data of any kind for all of them from the sources you list. Not being critical of your report. Just sayin'.
When those sources offer "estimated" numbers, those numbers are in my experience wildly inaccurate for sites whose server logs I've simultaneously evaluated.
So I went to a source whose *relative accuracy* is known to me for this realm (Baptist news services) and from which numbers were actually available for those I sought to compare.
The result in this case is usable relative comparisons and general performance graphs.

Good point. Alexa's traffic is a mere estimate based on ... their own Alexa toolbar, which is why it is less reliable than other estimates. From the Alexa website:

=======================================

Some Important Disclaimers

The traffic data are based on the set of toolbars that use Alexa data, which may not be a representative sample of the global Internet population. To the extent that our sample of users differs from the set of all Internet users, our traffic estimates may over- or under-estimate the actual traffic to any particular site.

In some cases traffic data may also be adversely affected by our "site" definitions. With tens of millions of hosts on the Internet, our automated procedures for determining which hosts are serving the "same" content may be incorrect and/or out-of-date. Similarly, the determinations of domains and home pages may not always be accurate.

Sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa. Alexa's data comes from a large sample of several million Alexa Toolbar users and other traffic data sources; however, the size of the Web and concentration of users on the most popular sites make it difficult to accurately determine the ranking of sites with fewer than 1,000 monthly visitors. Generally, traffic rankings of 100,000 and above should be regarded as not reliable. Conversely, the closer a site gets to #1, the more reliable its traffic ranking becomes.

==============================

In fact, all traffic data are estimates, even internal logs (which have a variety of issues to contend with, including non-full loading pages) and Nielson and Comscore (the two top tier web analytics corporations) ratings. Thus, all we can speak of when we speak of site traffic numbers are estimates, and the best way to handle this data is, as you say, by using a variety of traffic estimating tools.

[georgefrink]

In fact, all traffic data are estimates, even internal logs (which have a variety of issues to contend with, including non-full loading pages) and Nielson and Comscore (the two top tier web analytics corporations) ratings. Thus, all we can speak of when we speak of site traffic numbers are estimates, and the best way to handle this data is, as you say, by using a variety of traffic estimating tools.

Yes. All traffic data which we attempt to report is estimated, and although some estimates appear to be better than others, additional (big) external issues include caching servers. Just for example.
Yes, all traffic data and I thank you for pointing that out.
It was a significant oversight on my part not to say that in my own brief explanation of what I was doing.
For that, my apologies to all.

[Dave Roberts]

There are several things working against state Baptist papers. First, their focus is too narrow. Second, print media are not doing well in our present culture. Third, many of us get the news from Baptist sources, BP, ABC, BT, and others days to weeks before the state papers get it in print. Those that have any success seem to be trying to provide more analysis and thought and not just a rehash of all that BP or ABP puts out. To me, Baptists Today is much more relevant though I still read the state Baptist paper here.

[Chris]

I have been a subscriber to the Virginia Baptist paper - The Religious Herald since Dr. Pentacost was editor. I almost always read it cover to cover. Now that it has an alliance (of some kind) with the Texas Baptist paper, I find it even more interesting and there is more color. I think the annual subscription is about $23, but I would pay more, if asked to.

I also subscribe to the print edition of Baptists Today and also read it cover to cover. I consider it well worth the subscription cost. ..especially the Formations commentaries, because this gives me yet one more source of information to help prep my Sunday School lessons.

[georgefrink]

For the record, Alexa is widely recognized as being very unreliable (just Google "alexa unreliable").
Two respected and reliable metrics services are http://www.quantcast.com and http://www.compete.com.

FYI: Using Compete as you suggest to compare baptistlife.com, baptistmessage.com and wordandway.org produces the same relative outcome as using Alexa (above) albeit on a neat interactive graph.
It is I think somewhat more enlightening to use Compete to compare Tony Cartledge's blog, traffic to our secondary blog site and baptistmessage.com. Again, the result is a neat interactive graph.
BTW, I suspect that Tony isn't contemplating a pay wall (no, I haven't asked), and we certainly aren't (silly to try).
As you no doubt inferred, we still strongly recommend baptistmessage.com pursue a more productive strategy (there are several).

[georgefrink]

Pay walls promise to become real walls for Southern Baptist state newspapers. But there is an enhanced-product approach which will work if the publication can inspire enough readers to believe the overarching service is worth sustaining.
The strategy adds what amounts to an offering-plate appeal to an enhanced product (which has to work flawlessly), without killing overall site usage by erecting a pay wall between users and any of the baseline content.

[Sandy]

My loss of interest in Baptist state papers coincided precisely with the loss of editorial freedom, the silencing of dissenting opinions, the inability to present all sides of controversial issues, and the change in purpose from covering denominational news to being a promotional piece.

Exactly so.
As long as the N.C. Biblical Recorder was able to maintain substantial editorial freedom to report and comment without handcuffs, its Web readership soared, outrunning all of the other state Baptist publications and a great many Web publications outside the Southern Baptist realm. Each push compelling compromise of that mission did and I believe continues to do measurable harm.
Where factually well-vetted, impartial information is scarce, audience response says it's all about the information.
Yes, the history does say giving up that franchise is, over time, fatal.

I actually can't remember a time when editors of Baptist state papers were completely free with regard to their editorial freedom or the content of their paper. I guess it probably depended on the state convention and the paper. I know that in Arizona, a good portion of the old Baptist Beacon, no longer in existence, was dedicated to the promotion and advancement of programs and ministries of the state convention. It was a bi-weekly publication and I understood from the son of the former editor, who was the advisor to the student newspaper at Grand Canyon University when I was on its staff, that the executive director read, edited and signed off on each issue before it went to press. Readership died off in the 1990's, and it was replaced by a monthly magazine format called Portraits which highlights specific ministries under a monthly theme, and emphasizes the work of local churches. It's really a good publication, virtually all feature articles, and doesn't deal with Baptist "news".

Even the papers with reputations for editorial freedom had a level of bias that drew criticism, even before the controversy broke out in 1979. There are those who equate the term "editorial freedom" with "liberal bias." But I don't think that's necessarily the problem here. The variety of sources available at the touch of a button, on an ipod or a phone, simply makes it hard for print media to compete. State papers have some advantage in that they cover news that national sources can't, but there is all kinds of competition on the internet even for that news. I agree that charging for the service will be a mistake, but it takes money to pay reporters and gather information and there isn't much in the way of advertising to help that with electronic sources. So if a state Baptist convention is going to have a news source, it is more than likely going to have to foot more of the bill and that's not always good for media independence.

[georgefrink]

Most American Baptist regions haven't had a newspaper for years if they ever did.

But I can tell you one thing, no one is going to pay a subscription for news on the internet. Big name news outlets have tried this and have failed. People will just migrate to a free site for their information.

People do pay for subscriptions for news, and some subscription products are profitable.
For example, the Economist as an online subscription product that by all accounts does quiet well, although it isn't the only online product they offer.
Science(AAAS) offers a highly specialized kind of news. People pay for online access in droves. Likewise various Association of Computing Machinery journals. Just for example
The Texas Baptist Standard product has subscribers, but I suspect it has too few thus far to make its support worthwhile.
Really, I'm just taking a minute to suggest that there is no one size fits all answer to the pay wall question. Just that people have to perceive considerable value if they're going to pay.

[Chris]

...it was replaced by a monthly magazine format called Portraits which highlights specific ministries under a monthly theme, and emphasizes the work of local churches. It's really a good publication, virtually all feature articles, and doesn't deal with Baptist "news".

Sounds boring to me. I wouldn't pay for that.