4 ms·
Hypothesis: It turned out that a lot of people did not want to pay for news. They wanted to pay for entertainment. Newspapers had a distribution monopoly, and c
by hessenwolf 11y ago
Hypothesis: It turned out that a lot of people did not want to pay for news. They wanted to pay for entertainment. Newspapers had a distribution monopoly, and chose what the users wanted to receive.
Now that the monopoly is broken, other parties are providing services give for free. It turns out that many users are happy with those services.
Some users wanted news enough to pay for it. Those users now pay subscriptions.
However, the old news was subsidised by the users who just wanted entertainment. The new news is paid for by a smaller group. They must either pay more, or accept less news.
I pay for financial news. There is no other news I would be prepared to pay for. I am not prepared to pay for entertainment, except the cinema and overpriced popcorn.
- dsr_ 11y agoCompeting hypothesis: advertisers irrationally spent money on advertising, because they had beliefs about effectiveness and reach. Internet advertising comes with much better feedback mechanisms than ever before possible, destroying those irrational beliefs. Secondarily: advertising quality has generally been correlated to price. Internet advertising reduces the price so far that we don't just get the equivalent of a local used-car dealer in between the national toilet-paper ad and the international fast-food restaurant ad, we get a Nigerian 419 scam and Ed's Fantasy Football League afterwards.
- hessenwolf 11y agoBut isn't advertising spending increasing?