Many pubs claimed to go 'digital first' in the mid-2000s (e.g. InfoWorld, a 25 year old publication even dumped print entirely). But the cost of unique content

Many pubs claimed to go 'digital first' in the mid-2000s (e.g. InfoWorld, a 25 year old publication even dumped print entirely). But the cost of unique content creation often still far outweighed the cost of production. And online, it's still easier to run a "story" about an iPhone rumor to generate traffic than real hard news or investigative journalism. Soon, all pubs start to re-publish the same tired crap in the race for pageviews and everything gets watered down. Content can be a lot cheaper to produce and promote if you aren't the content originator (e.g. Associated Press is literally everywhere now) but it's death by a thousand cuts more often than not for publishers that go this route. Unless one has simply massive online traffic, the advertising model that propped up print for so long is broken online. Print is mostly free from delivering hard metrics with the exception of circulation numbers. Online, pure visits and ad impressions are never enough. Thus, an impossible slippery slope forms creating a paradox of expectations between "engagement" with vendor content and "real content." In all reality, the "digital first" strategy is impossible for many publishers as the subscription dollars are almost free money for them. The lure of another $20 annual subscription is too great. And the growth necessary to survive, so hard.