3 ms·

I wouldn't have paid for it. It was a free newspaper and website. It was like The Onion. No one paid to read it. Repeat: no one. It existed to appeal to peopl

I wouldn't have paid for it. It was a free newspaper and website. It was like The Onion. No one paid to read it. Repeat: no one. It existed to appeal to people, and get ads in front of them. Just like The Onion. At which point, whether the ads worked or not (and just like everywhere else on the internet, people resist and try to ignore ads, and that resistance is a known quantity) advertisers paid to get in front of eyeballs. Mostly, New York concert venues paid for its existence, and you picked up the paper, to see who was playing that week, or what dates upcoming shows were. That's why it was free in New York. It didn't really advertise any events outside of New York.

anoncoward111 8y ago
It died because it failed to connect with the younger generations. Additionally, advertisers pay for conversion, not eyeballs. If they aren't noticing an uptick in prospects or revenue, they stop advertising with their current campaigns
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  Truth, but of interest is the part of "if they aren't noticing". I think that the (mostly positive) trend of using more data-driven decision making processes, has caused a lot more advertisers to (very slowly) realize that a lot of the advertising they were paying for wasn't doing anything. The decline in print advertising didn't happen in isolation: billboards, radio, TV, even youtube advertising has had declines recently. I think this is part of a generational change in the management of companies that pay for most of the advertising, where instead of going with a gut instinct about what works and what doesn't, they require evidence that it works, and often it doesn't. This would have killed a lot of the advertising income regardless of anything else.
rsync 8y ago
"No one paid to read it. Repeat: no one." I was a paid subscriber to the Village Voice for a year or so when I was living in Minneapolis. 2008/2009, I think ? So while the cover price was indeed zero, there were indeed people paying to read it.

anoncoward111 8y ago

It died because it failed to connect with the younger generations. Additionally, advertisers pay for conversion, not eyeballs. If they aren't noticing an uptick in prospects or revenue, they stop advertising with their current campaigns

rossdavidh 8y ago
Truth, but of interest is the part of "if they aren't noticing". I think that the (mostly positive) trend of using more data-driven decision making processes, has caused a lot more advertisers to (very slowly) realize that a lot of the advertising they were paying for wasn't doing anything. The decline in print advertising didn't happen in isolation: billboards, radio, TV, even youtube advertising has had declines recently. I think this is part of a generational change in the management of companies that pay for most of the advertising, where instead of going with a gut instinct about what works and what doesn't, they require evidence that it works, and often it doesn't. This would have killed a lot of the advertising income regardless of anything else.

rsync 8y ago

"No one paid to read it. Repeat: no one." I was a paid subscriber to the Village Voice for a year or so when I was living in Minneapolis. 2008/2009, I think ? So while the cover price was indeed zero, there were indeed people paying to read it.