3 ms·
> I don't pay for WSJ, so I could only read 1st 2 paragraphs. I'm not arguing you SHOULD pay -- I don't -- but found this unintentionally hilarious in a thread
by elicash 8y ago
> I don't pay for WSJ, so I could only read 1st 2 paragraphs.
I'm not arguing you SHOULD pay -- I don't -- but found this unintentionally hilarious in a thread about all the layoffs recently in the online news business.
But more seriously, Google and Facebook take so much of the ad revenue it's not surprising to see so many unable to prosper.
- 40four 8y agoHeh, it is kind of funny now that I think about it. I know nothing about advertising, I wonder why that's the case? Is it just about the sheer amount of volume FB/Google control? Are they in the position to be able to charge higher prices? I mean, I'd imagine BuzzFeed racks up a huge amount of exposures/ click-thrus. But I guess the big guys just control such a huge % of people's time share on the net it can't compare.
- jteppinette 8y agoI’d imagine their target audience is relatively broke.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]