urbanMSP

I've noticed the same thing, mullen, but you also have to remember that a lot of the daily news is driven by what press releases are sent out that day. The Star Tribune versions of the stories, by the nature of the medium, just tend to be published sooner and more in depth.

Regarding the Pioneer Press, it remains the more popular newspaper in the east metro somehow. The Star Tribune is still considerably bigger, to be sure, but I feel like it also publicizes itself much better. I can't think of any major Star Tribune sportswriter who doesn't have some affiliation with a local radio station, for example, but I can't think of one Pioneer Press guy who does.

Sort of off-topic, but what would they call it if and when they merge? Pioneer Tribune? Star Press? I would vote for the PP name to just go by the wayside and keep it as the Star Tribune. It's just cleaner. But I could understand why and would expect that many would be upset by that.

I can't think of any major Star Tribune sportswriter who doesn't have some affiliation with a local radio station, for example, but I can't think of one Pioneer Press guy who does.

Bob Sansevere. But your point still proves true.

I see a Pioneer Press/MPR merger more likely as they're both downtown St. Paul institutions. A metro of 3 million deserves two large papers. Sadly the business economics may not support it. The PP's main problem is it's apathetic ownership.

What is keeping the Pioneer Press going, at this point?

The same thing that has us building duplicate stadiums.

I see a Pioneer Press/MPR merger more likely as they're both downtown St. Paul institutions. A metro of 3 million deserves two large papers. Sadly the business economics may not support it. The PP's main problem is it's apathetic ownership.

Highly unlikely. Mostly cities just can't sustain two papers. People mostly get news online and don't like to pay.

It seems likely that the PP will fold eventually with no need for the Star Tribune to buy them out, especially since they already have east metro coverage. There's no reason to do so - they don't need the name, just the talent. And the talent can be recruited.

I can't think of any major Star Tribune sportswriter who doesn't have some affiliation with a local radio station, for example, but I can't think of one Pioneer Press guy who does.

Bob Sansevere. But your point still proves true.

I had to look up which radio station Sansevere has his own show on and it's 105 The Ticket. For fun I looked up the December rating of the station and it's a .3. For reference KFAN had 6.7 rating and KSTP had 1.5 rating. That shows you how far the Ticket and Sansevere has to go to be competitive.

He's on the KQ morning show too, I think they're still the #1 morning show... but don't quote me on that.

What is keeping the Pioneer Press going, at this point?

Snark? I hate their opinion pages. They're written by children.

As for MinnPost, I've found myself reading it much less over the past year. The sports coverage is indeed great, better than anywhere else. But I've just not been so excited about Cityscape anymore. The Stroll is a nice gem, though.

We do have Fri-Sun Strib service. Mostly I like the Sunday paper which has a lot of content not easily accessible online. Plus I like to read over breakfast on non-work days.

The introductory price, for anyone considering a Strib digital subscription, is now $5 for 10 weeks, which I would be thrilled to pay them, if I could convince them to take my money. Alas, I need to call them, and speak to an actual person, like its the iron age, and their customer service closes sometime before 5pm, like it's the bronze age. Maybe tomorrow, I guess.

As for MinnPost, I've found myself reading it much less over the past year. The sports coverage is indeed great, better than anywhere else. But I've just not been so excited about Cityscape anymore. The Stroll is a nice gem, though.

I feel like I'm a little less jazzed by MinnPost also, though I can't quite put my finger on why. Cityscape is much better now that it's being written, and I think overall they're doing a pretty good job filling their role as Star Tribune: Advanced Edition. Maybe it's the comment sections? I don't think the quality has gone down that much, but I remember when I first came across MinnPost and was so impressed by the discussions in the comments, and after two years of reading them it's basically just the same ten people arguing about the same things with the same two people.

I'm definitely still very pro-MinnPost and probably still visit their site at about the same rate, I just don't think I click as many stories. It might have something to do with the increasingly clicky way the headlines are written, but I might be a one person demographic there.

"Minneapolis asked for an iconic tower. You won't believe what one developer proposed!"

That was my roundabout way of saying I don't click stupid headlines either.

I think they've lost a few really strong voices over at MinnPost. David Brauer is one that definitely comes to mind. I feel like the Cityscape has been lurching along since Steve Berg left (I love Lindeke, but it's definitely not the same). There are others. I do still enjoy reading Eric Black and Doug Grow, but I feel like there's a lot more filler that I'm just not particularly interested in reading.

^Agreed that Cityscape is very different. I do love reading Bill Lindeke's version of it (and I honestly didn't mind some of the former columnists who took it over), but it's definitely a change from the Steve Berg column that really hooked me into urbanism.

Maybe it's the comment sections? I don't think the quality has gone down that much, but I remember when I first came across MinnPost and was so impressed by the discussions in the comments, and after two years of reading them it's basically just the same ten people arguing about the same things with the same two people.

That's a big part of it I think. I used to read the comments a lot because I would learn things. Now, not so much. It's very predictable what people are going to say. That's true here, too, to a degree but I do still see people stepping out of their comfort zones.

Getting back to the whole price vs. value discussion we had on the previous page, I just called to cancel this morning. My amazing 6 months for $20 or whatever was up.

The regular price of a digital-only subscription is $2.99/WEEK. PER WEEK.

Do I value it? Yes, of course I value the Star Tribune. I value it enough that I'm happy to pay a nominal fee to not have to dick around with incognito windows and multiple browsers, etc. I probably read 5 (or more) articles per day, so I'm definitely willing to pay something, but not that much.

I'd probably pay $9-10/month, on par with Netflix, and equal to what I donate to MinnPost and MPR combined (I give each $5/month). I'd also probably give them $80-100/year, in advance, if they offered that option (like Amazon Prime). I won't pay $2.99/week.

Star Tribune really needs to fix their website. I had to call a human being to change my address, and to cancel. The online account management you can do is extremely limited. It is clear they still view the online access as a niche product, and care primarily about selling papers. I would honestly be more apt to subscribe again if they would just fix the online account management portal. I need the ability to cancel without calling a human between 6am-4pm.

So in the interim, until they start begging me to come back with a great offer, I'm on the incognito windows, etc.

Ayup. I'm on the same trial right now, and I'll be calling to cancel when it's up, mostly because it doesn't work on my phone. For no discernible reason, the login details that work without a problem on several different computers are not recognized by the mobile site, or even the desktop site viewed on my phone. It's infuriating, but not enough so to call from work to sit on the phone for an hour trying to get it fixed.

$2.99/week ends up being about $13/month, which is really only nominally more than Netflix.

I agree that it would seem like they could very easily trim that down a bit and probably do fine. It sure seems like they should be able to provide online access for significantly less than the paper version.

Does $1.99/week sound better? I'd bet they could attract enough more subscribers at that price to make the thing roughly revenue neutral, and it would presumably put more eyeballs on their ads.

For $2/week, I would probably continue to pay for it, assuming it worked on my phone. Its not really rational, but the $10/month level is a barrier for me.

At $2/week instead of $3/week though, could they really attract 50% more subscribers than they do now? Probably not. I'd hope so, but I'm not sure a large enough percentage of the population cares enough to subscribe. People that get actual papers delivered are dying off, and online-only signups have shown tepid growth at best. MinnPost had done some occasional reporting on this, but I haven't seen more recent numbers as they were without a media reporter. Hopefully Brian Lambert dives into that stuff with his new/expanded role there covering media.

At $2.50/week ($10/month) Star Tribune would have to attract 20% more subscribers. That's perhaps more realistic.

I completely agree that $10/month is a significant mental barrier. Giving out a weekly number actually seems like a bad idea...for some reason $2.50/week sounds like more than $10/month. These brains of ours, man.