Is junky free content really more popular in the grand scheme of things or just the most popular content on the web? The only thing that creeps up on TV consum

Is junky free content really more popular in the grand scheme of things or just the most popular content on the web? The only thing that creeps up on TV consumption in the US is social media use. Billions of books containing hundreds of pages each are sold in the US each year and presumably some large fraction of those are read. Hundreds of millions of magazine subscriptions are sold in the US, mostly of monthlies. The metrics used to measure online success are just sort of muddled. Imagine if we evaluated magazines by how many pages were turned. You would get some very silly magazines very quickly. Instead magazines are evaluated by the demographics of their subscribers, prestige as judged by things like prizes, and the scale of the subscriber base. Unlike websites which just model demographics and are usually not audited, magazines can have their subscriber lists audited and are mostly not modeled. Same thing with cable TV/Netflix/other paid services. The demographics don't really have to be modeled because you have every person's name and address. Each individual or household has to pay so you know they're individuals that exist and not bots. I think one issue with the way media companies have evaluated 'social media' is that they considered it to be another form of professional media. Really what it replaces are phone calls, mail, and in-person chatter or photo album sharing. It does not and has not really replaced traditional media consumption.