5 ms·
Can someone explain clearly to me how an old publication like The New Yorker continues to succeed in both print and online form without resorting to these patte
by krisdol 10y ago
Can someone explain clearly to me how an old publication like The New Yorker continues to succeed in both print and online form without resorting to these patterns, while an old publication like the Boston Globe may be resorting to these patterns because they're failing to achieve high success? Is it just because The New Yorker has been very careful not to water down their brand? Has it always just had innately more national reach?
The Boston Globe publishes some really good long-form investigative journalism from time to time. Not always, but there are regularly some really good pieces coming out of it.
- acomjean 10y agoThe Boston Globe used to be at Boston.com. They still own both now, but they have different content. I guess bostonglobe is their more serious publication, while boston.com is lighter. The strategy differentiating the two was confusing and I think it really hurt the paper. They also weren't doing a lot of local stuff until recently. They had a decent local event listing calendar when the web was newer, but it fell by the wayside and I never went back. Even with the "Boston Pheonix's" closure I didn't go back. I'm a local radio news listener, and Globe journalists are on the radio talking about the articles they write. So they are getting the word out there. They seem to be trying to get back into the local game.
- superuser2 10y agoNew York Times would be a better comparison. It's relevant and widely read all around the country. A city paper like the Boston Globe has stories of national interest occasionally, but its addressable market is mostly the city it reports on.