Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Old media develops dementia

werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
edited August 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

What is a more recent development is that a couple of titans of the old world, the New York Times and the Associated Press, have decided that simply staying the course in the face of inevitable doom was just taking too long. Being a proactive group, they decided to simply go insane instead.

Warming us up is the NYT deciding to charge $5/month for access to their web content. This isn't stupid per se, just pointless since they had been charging for their web content just a couple of years ago and scrapped the idea because it wasn't profitable.

The real genius is coming from the AP though. They aren't going to try and hide their content behind a subscription or stop people form using it. They are just going to embed "code" in each article that will charge anyone who sees their articles a royalty fee. Search engines, websites, blogs, doesn't matter. The code will see all and track all (and report back to the AP on usage, of course). I have to admit I'm not sure if I'm more confused by the insanity involved in thinking this is technically feasible, or the stupidity involved in thinking everyone will just go along. And this isn't some idle talk, or a CEO who doesn't know anything mouthing off somewhere, this is their honest to god strategy and they've sunk significant amounts of money into making it happen.

What to do with the old forms of journalism is an interesting question and one that will impact a staggering number of aspects in our day to day lives. Wasting time on idiotic ideas like this is just like being inside the music industry a decade ago, with the added twist that the morons involved will actually hurt society at large when they fail.

werehippy on
«13

Posts

  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    This magical "code" they have is pure snake oil.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    This magical "code" they have is pure snake oil.

    Their houses will be burned down by angry people the second the attempt to do it.

    Couscous on
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The AP's plan seems daft. How are they going to charge these people? I suppose they could grab the info on the domain and mail a bill, or take them to court but how much would that cost vs. what they get back?

    And how are they going to stop sites from stripping their 'code' from the article before posting it (which I'm sure will be a ridiculously easy task)?

    Tomanta on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?

    Couscous on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Are we certain that the AP knows how those internetz things are working?

    zeeny on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    I, for one, will enjoy watching this fail horribly. Because it's awesome to watch execs talk about shit without listening to their technical department.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    The AP's plan seems daft. How are they going to charge these people? I suppose they could grab the info on the domain and mail a bill, or take them to court but how much would that cost vs. what they get back?

    And how are they going to stop sites from stripping their 'code' from the article before posting it (which I'm sure will be a ridiculously easy task)?

    Shhh!

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.

    moniker on
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    This is just the death rattle of an industry that has failed to keep up. As they die, new forms will spring up in their place.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.

    Daedalus on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?
    Because readership doesn't actually pay the bills. The number of issues sold is only tangentially related to the fiscal health of the newspaper.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Actually, the AP is just going after people using their stuff without their permission. They're just saying that the excerpts don't count as "fair use." So, they're going to send C&D letters to blogs and others using them. Not to newspapers or anything, or even Google News (since they have a contract with the AP).

    And I guess search engines, too, but really, Google has a contract with them, so... does it really matter? Is there some other search engine I'm not aware of? Oh, like Bing. As in "I just Googled Bing."

    Thanatos on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?

    Which doesn't contradict what he said.....which doesn't mean that I'm saying what he said is true...which...oh god.

    zeeny on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.
    But he doesn't even actually have a paper, does he? Is he going to whore out AP content? Wouldn't that be like getting newspapers to pay you for putting ads in them?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.
    But he doesn't even actually have a paper, does he? Is he going to whore out AP content? Wouldn't that be like getting newspapers to pay you for putting ads in them?

    Sure, except make them look like actual news articles! It's brilliant, we'll make millions!

    Seriously, that's the only way the Google analogy would work.

    Daedalus on
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.
    Actually he's saying that in the same way people pay to be associated with keywords on Google, sites will have to pay to be associated with headlines from the AP. It's not the best analogy, but it does work.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.
    Actually he's saying that in the same way people pay to be associated with keywords on Google, sites will have to pay to be associated with headlines from the AP. It's not the best analogy, but it does work.

    Why would anybody pay them for that? That isn't even Google's main source of revenue from what I know.

    Couscous on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    The AP's plan seems daft. How are they going to charge these people? I suppose they could grab the info on the domain and mail a bill, or take them to court but how much would that cost vs. what they get back?

    And how are they going to stop sites from stripping their 'code' from the article before posting it (which I'm sure will be a ridiculously easy task)?

    I'm quite sure the Associated Press don't give a shit about Timmy's Private Blog, nor will they ever press on their stuff being used without permission on such a small scale. The goal of this initiative is the print media. Of which I'd wager 90% of copy is lifted as is from the AP, Reuters and Bloomberg newswires, and then mirrored throughout these media corporations' various online hosts.
    I've seen senior editors literally copy and paste an entire ticker report and put it right there on page one. And the AP gets almost nothing out of this practice, despite putting up firm restrictions on how their material can be used that are almost never followed.
    They are simply making it much easier for them to track and properly charge these media outlets for using their material. While they are huge, they aren't so huge that they can manually check each and every international, local and regional paper that uses their material. And their ticker subscription fees are vast, and vetted, but I would assume no longer paying the bills. They know they can't charge more for the service, and lord knows they've tried in the past, but they also know that their shit is all over without a dime going back to them. The AP don't give a fuck about a strap to absolve the paper, they want dollar bills yo'.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?
    Because readership doesn't actually pay the bills. The number of issues sold is only tangentially related to the fiscal health of the newspaper.
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?

    Yes it is. Are you making a point or just throwing in a non-sequiter?

    moniker on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So now when I read new online I guess I better use a proxy.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    “If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley
    What?
    His understanding of "the Google" is horribly flawed.

    No, no, it makes perfect sense. He's saying that he's going to sell the content of his paper to the highest bidder.
    Actually he's saying that in the same way people pay to be associated with keywords on Google, sites will have to pay to be associated with headlines from the AP. It's not the best analogy, but it does work.

    Why would anybody pay them for that? That isn't even Google's main source of revenue from what I know.
    Apparently they think "the AP" is such a mark of distinction people will want to be associated with it? I dunno, I think the plan is idiotic too.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Do they realise that copy and paste doesn't copy code? Or is it going to be a hilarious 90s style "no right-clicking!!" javascript pop-up? Hell, just make their entire site Flash.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?

    Yes it is. Are you making a point or just throwing in a non-sequiter?
    I'm saying that one of your examples of a paper that isn't "dying", is. And if I remember right, the only way to get a newspaper for all of history was to pay for it. Before cable, you had your local network news and half-hour nightly news programs. Until the internet, that was the only free news there had ever been.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?
    Because readership doesn't actually pay the bills. The number of issues sold is only tangentially related to the fiscal health of the newspaper.
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    Unless there are other, better places to advertise than on newspapers and news websites which makes their carpet bombing approach obsolete. And there are!

    moniker on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?
    Because readership doesn't actually pay the bills. The number of issues sold is only tangentially related to the fiscal health of the newspaper.
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.
    Yes, but the amount you can reliably charge for those ads depends on what the people who are buying them are willing to pay. When your competition for ad money is other newspapers, concrete readership numbers help sell pagespace, but that's simply not the case any more.

    Things like the internet have pushed the baseline cost of effective ads downward to the point that paying to put them in a newspaper is simply no longer cost efficient. Thus, newspapers are having a very hard time remaining operational regardless of actual readership.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Do they realise that copy and paste doesn't copy code? Or is it going to be a hilarious 90s style "no right-clicking!!" javascript pop-up? Hell, just make their entire site Flash.
    Ctrl C kills their entire business model.

    Damn you, office clipboard! Damn you and all who have access to you!

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Do they realise that copy and paste doesn't copy code? Or is it going to be a hilarious 90s style "no right-clicking!!" javascript pop-up? Hell, just make their entire site Flash.

    The one that never worked? I'm surprised they're not charging ISP's to access their site like so many other web sites that charge for content.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?
    Because readership doesn't actually pay the bills. The number of issues sold is only tangentially related to the fiscal health of the newspaper.
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    In theory that is the case but in the real world that stopped being how it worked twenty years ago. Back in the good old days, at least in the UK, you had like three newspapers. Total. So the only metric that governed ad revenue for the newspaper was sheer circulation numbers. How many people bought their shit.
    Now, there are a million publications, each catering to an increasingly specific demographic. Circulation is no longer considered among ad men the primary rule for paying the newspapers money. It is the readership demographics. For example, even though the Financial Times has a fraction of the circulation of, say, The Sun, certain companies are going to pay more - above what the circulation figures would warrant, to advertise in the FT. Because they know that if one person buys their watch, then their like minded friends will also.
    Newspaper ads are more specific than ever before. For example, open the Mirror and you won't see a Omega ad, but open today's Guardian and it's right there, page three. John Fucking Kennedy with it on his wrist.

    The problem arises when ad agencies no longer feel the newspapers have enough social importance to warrant this overpaying of ad space. Which is why all their money is going online, where the kids roam. Few young people today read newspapers, therefore the newspapers have less social impact.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a discussion about journalism for months that didn't dwell on the fact that the old media models are failing. Readership and viewers are leaving the old standbys in droves, and advertising revenue was falling rapidly even before the recession hit. Whether it's the lose of a competitive advantage, the moving of classified business to craigslist, or the rise of new media is anyone's guess.

    What? Readership has risen at unprecedented levels for the major dailies. Your local swap meet herald may be dying, but NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Trib have exploded with eyeballs. The only problem is that readers never paid for anything in the history of newspaper and the companies don't know how to make a mint yet.
    Uh, the Chicago Tribune is bankrupt?

    Yes it is. Are you making a point or just throwing in a non-sequiter?
    I'm saying that one of your examples of a paper that isn't "dying", is. And if I remember right, the only way to get a newspaper for all of history was to pay for it. Before cable, you had your local network news and half-hour nightly news programs. Until the internet, that was the only free news there had ever been.

    It isn't dying in readership it's actually thriving rather well. You're talking about the business model failing to rake in profits, which I addressed on the last line of my post if you had bothered to read it. Do you honestly believe that the nickel it cost to get the paper delivered at home in the 60's paid for overseas bureaus? Because getting every unique visitor to put in a dollar isn't going to put anyone back in the black, even if all other forms of news coverage were somehow banned.

    moniker on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Damn you derailing typo! Revenues are down, not readership.

    werehippy on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.
    They're talking about paying for news, which is what people have been doing the entire time there have been newspapers. It use to be ads+readership=enough money, because the newspaper was the only place to actually get news. Now, when I can pay my $45 to Comcast and get every news bureau's news around the world for free 24 hours a day, and a million different people's takes on it, I have no reason to buy a newspaper. When the large papers charge for content online, people leave in droves for other free options, because there are so many other options. News organizations are damned if they do and if they don't. If their content is free online, they lose money. If they charge for content online, nobody buys it, and they lose money. They always lose money on newspapers. About the only thing making money now is cable news networks, and only because of the price they can charge to run commercials.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.
    They're talking about paying for news, which is what people have been doing the entire time there have been newspapers. It use to be ads+readership=enough money, because the newspaper was the only place to actually get news. Now, when I can pay my $45 to Comcast and get every news bureau's news around the world for free 24 hours a day, and a million different people's takes on it, I have no reason to buy a newspaper. When the large papers charge for content online, people leave in droves for other free options, because there are so many other options. News organizations are damned if they do and if they don't. If their content is free online, they lose money. If they charge for content online, nobody buys it, and they lose money. They always lose money on newspapers. About the only thing making money now is cable news networks, and only because of the price they can charge to run commercials.

    [citation needed]

    The monthly cost for my grandpa to get physical home delivery wouldn't cover the gas it takes to get from the neighbor's driveway let alone everything else that it entails.

    moniker on
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.
    They're talking about paying for news, which is what people have been doing the entire time there have been newspapers. It use to be ads+readership=enough money, because the newspaper was the only place to actually get news. Now, when I can pay my $45 to Comcast and get every news bureau's news around the world for free 24 hours a day, and a million different people's takes on it, I have no reason to buy a newspaper. When the large papers charge for content online, people leave in droves for other free options, because there are so many other options. News organizations are damned if they do and if they don't. If their content is free online, they lose money. If they charge for content online, nobody buys it, and they lose money. They always lose money on newspapers. About the only thing making money now is cable news networks, and only because of the price they can charge to run commercials.

    [citation needed]

    The monthly cost for my grandpa to get physical home delivery wouldn't cover the gas it takes to get from the neighbor's driveway let alone everything else that it entails.
    Citation? How about the fact that they're all edging towards charging for online content since they're all slowly going bankrupt?

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The monthly cost for my grandpa to get physical home delivery wouldn't cover the gas it takes to get from the neighbor's driveway let alone everything else that it entails.
    Why would an advertiser advertise on a newspaper's online website instead of the many other websites that will probably meet their demographic target and other needs better?

    Couscous on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.

    Actually, the NYT would be solvent if they hadn't taken on a stupid amount of debt years ago. Leaving aside refinancing that they're in the black, which is probably why their plan is more on the stupid end of the desperation scale, as opposed to the insane.

    werehippy on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    Readership encourages advertisers to purchase advertisements, which pays the bills. The more readers, the more ads sell.

    It doesn't pay enough. Ad revenue is what they're doing now, and that doesn't work. Which is why some of them are talking about paywalls.
    They're talking about paying for news, which is what people have been doing the entire time there have been newspapers. It use to be ads+readership=enough money, because the newspaper was the only place to actually get news. Now, when I can pay my $45 to Comcast and get every news bureau's news around the world for free 24 hours a day, and a million different people's takes on it, I have no reason to buy a newspaper. When the large papers charge for content online, people leave in droves for other free options, because there are so many other options. News organizations are damned if they do and if they don't. If their content is free online, they lose money. If they charge for content online, nobody buys it, and they lose money. They always lose money on newspapers. About the only thing making money now is cable news networks, and only because of the price they can charge to run commercials.

    [citation needed]

    The monthly cost for my grandpa to get physical home delivery wouldn't cover the gas it takes to get from the neighbor's driveway let alone everything else that it entails.
    Citation? How about the fact that they're all edging towards charging for online content since they're all slowly going bankrupt?

    Because of a drop in ad revenue thanks to better advertising resources made available to Madison Avenue with the advent of the internet. Not because people stopped paying 50 cents a copy. If anything the web has reduced the amount of subsidy that went to printers for an increase in audience levels.

    moniker on
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.