News Owls Journo For The Star

[@owlstalk]

6 minutes ago, Plonk said:

Thanks Niel, that is my new piece of wisdom for today!

No problem

I'm off now to learn about 50hz vs 60hz when filming traffic lights

 

 

(actually really true story that too)

 

[daveyboy66]

Great addition to the Star but the bloody website is a nightmare 

[sage owl]

On 04/05/2020 at 14:12, @owlstalk said:

 

At writing them he will. No doubt.

Getting people past the paywall is another thing though..

Good conversation topic if you only want free news. 

Does it follow that you only want free music, films, sports  ?.

If you want it all for nowt who pays the artists or closer to home the promoter's. 

[Andrew_Owl]

Great news!

 

Still wont read it. 

[Guest paulvcooke]

On 04/05/2020 at 13:48, @owlstalk said:

It's a welcome move for sure, but you have to wonder about the viewing figures for all this hard work, what with The Star being behind a paywall these days etc..

 

Don't worry Neil, I'm sure your acolytes will still hang on your every word! 

[@owlstalk]

6 hours ago, paulvcooke said:

Don't worry Neil, I'm sure your acolytes will still hang on your every word! 

 

I don't have acolytes my friend, only critics and those who mock me.

 

 

[@owlstalk]

9 hours ago, sage owl said:

Good conversation topic if you only want free news. 

Does it follow that you only want free music, films, sports  ?.

If you want it all for nowt who pays the artists or closer to home the promoter's. 

 

Yeah interesting topic

The issue for me is two fold (or twofold - not sure if it's one word or two hence why I'm not a journalist ha ha)..

Firstly...

Clickbaity nonsense. The Star have been guilty of this for time (before Alex Miller and Joe Crann started there). I'm talking absolute nonsense articles of about 30 words, and the most clickbait titles. 

For those who did click the link to visit it, they were met with an absolute load of tosh and it went on for aaaaaages.

That's created a perception over time that the articles are fluffy, lightweight and don't contain any value.

THEN

The paywall kicked in, meaning if you DID click the link they'd then ask you to pay to subscribe to The Star.

The perceived value of the articles were that they were fluffy clickbaity vacuous articles with nothing to say, but a lot of hype to get you to click the link to them.

So you've got poor quality, low value articles, blocked by a paywall.

THEN

You have the perception that The Star were creating issues with the club, posting anti-Swfc articles, and stirring stuff up hence why it's still referred to these days as THE STIR.

So now you have the perception that there's valueless articles, blocked by a paywall, hyped up by clickbait articles, that are probably going to be stirring trouble.

 

THEN

Let's talk about the user experience of The Star. Anyone who has visited their website will have their own experiences of it. I'll not bother going into it as we've all seen it, all tried it, all been there and had the experience. I'll let others discuss it below

BUT

 

That's the 'MASSIVE' challenge facing Alex Miller and Joe Crann at The Star, and what they've inherited. 

Not the quality of their articles at all (although they do have to bear that in mind and not just post some thirty word fluff) as I'm sure both are capable of producing some excellent work, but the perception of The Star (Stir) as some lightweight, fluffy, anti-swfc establishment publication with the worst user experience on the internet (no exaggeration either - I struggle to find a worse website to navigate and use).

ps - I've not even touched on the fact that the average reader age of The Star newspaper before it switched to online.

So....

With the above in mind is it any wonder you struggle to find anyone willing to pay to read the Star?

 

[Matt_1]

The Star website is terrible as well.

 

Loading times on desktop are atrocious. Mobile is even worse. One of the buggiest sites I have been on.

[sage owl]

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Yeah interesting topic

The issue for me is two fold (or twofold - not sure if it's one word or two hence why I'm not a journalist ha ha)..

Firstly...

Clickbaity nonsense. The Star have been guilty of this for time (before Alex Miller and Joe Crann started there). I'm talking absolute nonsense articles of about 30 words, and the most clickbait titles. 

For those who did click the link to visit it, they were met with an absolute load of tosh and it went on for aaaaaages.

That's created a perception over time that the articles are fluffy, lightweight and don't contain any value.

THEN

The paywall kicked in, meaning if you DID click the link they'd then ask you to pay to subscribe to The Star.

The perceived value of the articles were that they were fluffy clickbaity vacuous articles with nothing to say, but a lot of hype to get you to click the link to them.

So you've got poor quality, low value articles, blocked by a paywall.

THEN

You have the perception that The Star were creating issues with the club, posting anti-Swfc articles, and stirring stuff up hence why it's still referred to these days as THE STIR.

So now you have the perception that there's valueless articles, blocked by a paywall, hyped up by clickbait articles, that are probably going to be stirring trouble.

 

THEN

Let's talk about the user experience of The Star. Anyone who has visited their website will have their own experiences of it. I'll not bother going into it as we've all seen it, all tried it, all been there and had the experience. I'll let others discuss it below

BUT

 

That's the challenge facing Alex Miller and Joe Crann at The Star, and what they've inherited. 

Not the quality of their articles at all (although they do have to bear that in mind and not just post some thirty word fluff) as I'm sure both are capable of producing some excellent work, but the perception of The Star (Stir) as some lightweight, fluffy, anti-swfc establishment publication with the worst user experience on the internet (no exaggeration either - I struggle to find a worse website to navigate and use).

ps - I've not even touched on the fact that the average reader age of The Star newspaper before it switched to online.

So....

With the above in mind is it any wonder you struggle to find anyone willing to pay to read the Star?

 

You miss my point Boss I'm in no way defending or advocating reading the star. I used to buy it every day and then read it online but stopped for all the reasons you  give above. 

My point was about a significant amount of the population wanting services free online , if we don't pay who pays the people who produce the content. 

 

[@owlstalk]

14 minutes ago, sage owl said:

You miss my point Boss I'm in no way defending or advocating reading the star. I used to buy it every day and then read it online but stopped for all the reasons you  give above. 

My point was about a significant amount of the population wanting services free online , if we don't pay who pays the people who produce the content. 

 

This is where all the above points kick back in mate.

If that perception wasn't there about The Star (Stir), If people thought it was a great read, if the paywall wasn't there, if the articles were indepth and quality and had effort put into them, if they didn't have the perception of being anti-swfc trouble stirrers etc then more people would be using it, meaning more people would see the adverts on the page, click them, buy something, and The Star could get a commission from sales made.

They could even attract local businesses to advertise on their pages using their advertisement placements. They could then do deals with businesses directly to place ads on their site.

There's a ceiling on who would want to advertise on The Star with it being local and with it having a limited audience, but there's still the opportunity to do it as there are still people out there who stick to religious belief that The Star is the definitive word on anything happening news wise in Sheffield.

It's not for me to come up with a business plan for The Star to make it self sufficient or viable, but I can definitely point out the aspects that these new young arrivals on the scene have as a challenge when they're writing their articles on SWFC. They're up against it in my view.

 

They are in an industry where The Star haven't just arrived late to the online scene in Sheffield, but they've made so many mistakes with clickbait nonsense, the perception of stirring things., and the worst user experience for their readers, that they're actually killing themselves off permanently.

This is all just my opinion however. I'd be interested in hearing what YOU (*points to camera*) think...

[ken52]

Used to work at The Star in the 70s in advertising. Circulation was 145,000 nightly, now about 40,000. Funny story here was when Big Jack was the manager and we were drawn at Millwall in the league cup, night match. One of our lads rang Millwall and said any chance of four tickets for the match as we were part of United Newspapers at the time.

 

No problem they said. So off we went, afternoon off work, got to the ground and were given 4 tickets in the press box, fantastic. Spoke to the Radio Hallam lad who was if memory serves me right Stuart Linnell. Nice cup of tea and sandwiches before the match then onto our seats. We didn't have any notepads as weren't expecting to be in the press box so my mate says, "We'll memorize the first half and you two memorize the second half." OK that's fine.

 

All the reporters from the dailies just stared at us in disbelief, really funny. Anyway we lost the match which was terrible so went off for a night around London. Next day we arrived back at work at about lunchtime and before we knew what was happening the boss had us lined up in his office for a right bo******ng. He just happened to be a blade, but a good bloke. He said to us, "Right, here's the lunchtime edition of the Star where's the match report?" We couldn't find one, it was usually inside back page. "There isn't one boss." we said. 

 

Apparently there wasn't a match report because Ian Vickers the then Wednesday reporter couldn't get into the ground because we had his ticket so no match report. We were told in no uncertain terms that we could be sacked for this but the boss thought it funny as nobody in advertising liked anyone in editorial. So we created history, first time ever no match report cos reporter couldn't get into the ground. Happy days they were, watching Wednesday players training at Middlewood Road whilst Big Jack and Maurice Setters tried to cadge fags off us but that's another story.

[helmut_rooster]

On 05/05/2020 at 05:56, Plonk said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what’s a paywall?

 

It means, open incognito mode in Chrome to access 

[helmut_rooster]

41 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Yeah interesting topic

The issue for me is two fold (or twofold - not sure if it's one word or two hence why I'm not a journalist ha ha)..

Firstly...

Clickbaity nonsense. The Star have been guilty of this for time (before Alex Miller and Joe Crann started there). I'm talking absolute nonsense articles of about 30 words, and the most clickbait titles. 

For those who did click the link to visit it, they were met with an absolute load of tosh and it went on for aaaaaages.

That's created a perception over time that the articles are fluffy, lightweight and don't contain any value.

THEN

The paywall kicked in, meaning if you DID click the link they'd then ask you to pay to subscribe to The Star.

The perceived value of the articles were that they were fluffy clickbaity vacuous articles with nothing to say, but a lot of hype to get you to click the link to them.

So you've got poor quality, low value articles, blocked by a paywall.

THEN

You have the perception that The Star were creating issues with the club, posting anti-Swfc articles, and stirring stuff up hence why it's still referred to these days as THE STIR.

So now you have the perception that there's valueless articles, blocked by a paywall, hyped up by clickbait articles, that are probably going to be stirring trouble.

 

THEN

Let's talk about the user experience of The Star. Anyone who has visited their website will have their own experiences of it. I'll not bother going into it as we've all seen it, all tried it, all been there and had the experience. I'll let others discuss it below

BUT

 

That's the 'MASSIVE' challenge facing Alex Miller and Joe Crann at The Star, and what they've inherited. 

Not the quality of their articles at all (although they do have to bear that in mind and not just post some thirty word fluff) as I'm sure both are capable of producing some excellent work, but the perception of The Star (Stir) as some lightweight, fluffy, anti-swfc establishment publication with the worst user experience on the internet (no exaggeration either - I struggle to find a worse website to navigate and use).

ps - I've not even touched on the fact that the average reader age of The Star newspaper before it switched to online.

So....

With the above in mind is it any wonder you struggle to find anyone willing to pay to read the Star?

 

 

Eloquently put sir.

[@owlstalk]

12 minutes ago, ken52 said:

Used to work at The Star in the 70s in advertising. Circulation was 145,000 nightly, now about 40,000. Funny story here was when Big Jack was the manager and we were drawn at Millwall in the league cup, night match. One of our lads rang Millwall and said any chance of four tickets for the match as we were part of United Newspapers at the time.

 

No problem they said. So off we went, afternoon off work, got to the ground and were given 4 tickets in the press box, fantastic. Spoke to the Radio Hallam lad who was if memory serves me right Stuart Linnell. Nice cup of tea and sandwiches before the match then onto our seats. We didn't have any notepads as weren't expecting to be in the press box so my mate says, "We'll memorize the first half and you two memorize the second half." OK that's fine.

 

All the reporters from the dailies just stared at us in disbelief, really funny. Anyway we lost the match which was terrible so went off for a night around London. Next day we arrived back at work at about lunchtime and before we knew what was happening the boss had us lined up in his office for a right bo******ng. He just happened to be a blade, but a good bloke. He said to us, "Right, here's the lunchtime edition of the Star where's the match report?" We couldn't find one, it was usually inside back page. "There isn't one boss." we said. 

 

Apparently there wasn't a match report because Ian Vickers the then Wednesday reporter couldn't get into the ground because we had his ticket so no match report. We were told in no uncertain terms that we could be sacked for this but the boss thought it funny as nobody in advertising liked anyone in editorial. So we created history, first time ever no match report cos reporter couldn't get into the ground. Happy days they were, watching Wednesday players training at Middlewood Road whilst Big Jack and Maurice Setters tried to cadge fags off us but that's another story.

 

 

 

Brilliant!! 

That's a quality story ha ha

 

[Hitcat]

If anyone can get the scoops, Joe Crann.

[Jim]

Fancy swapping life in Sunny South Africa where he is obviously well respected for Life at Hillsborough watching Garry Monk’s exciting brand of football while more than likely copping for abuse on Twitter from Wednesday Fans.

 

Best of Luck to the Lad though