3 ms·

> At least try to tell us. Give examples. Sure, here's one. At the time (~12 years ago), Groupon was a booming business. This newspaper (and many others) decid

by holler 3y ago

> At least try to tell us. Give examples. Sure, here's one. At the time (~12 years ago), Groupon was a booming business. This newspaper (and many others) decided to try and get in on the action by creating their own local versions of daily deal sites. That team just focused on the local newspaper's version of daily deal probably employed at least 20 people, including resources from the web team that had to build and maintain a deal site akin to Groupon. All of that in sum likely had a high price tag, and like Groupon itself, eventually puttered and faded away. Is it their fault for trying to find a way to increase revenue? I don't know. At the same time they were doing that, the newspaper itself (both print and online), was bloated with advertising, to the point where the website was almost unusable.

tivert 3y ago
I kind of figured it would be something like that. When you said: > They could have cut huge swaths of people, just focusing on journalism, and saved a ton of money. It sounds like those huge swaths of people were the ones getting the journalists paid. When they moved to a smaller building, did they cut journalists too? I bet they did.
- holler 3y ago
  It's hard to say of course, we don't have all the information, but I can tell you it was very resource intensive, and at the same time the core product (newspaper/website) was bloated and burdened with ads. Honestly to me it felt like the historical newspaper model just simply stopped being as effective, and rather than face that reality, downsize, and innovate, these companies sold their souls to the devil (advertisers). The online platforms did the same thing but found a way to be more effective.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > It's hard to say of course, we don't have all the information, but I can tell you it was very resource intensive, and at the same time the core product (newspaper/website) was bloated and burdened with ads. > Honestly to me it felt like the historical newspaper model just simply stopped being as effective, and rather than face that reality, downsize, and innovate, these companies sold their souls to the devil (advertisers). What now? Are you somehow suggesting the newspapers shouldn't have been running ads, or decided to run fewer ads, when their other revenue was likely drying up (e.g. classified ads)? The historical newspaper model has always been to use news to get eyeballs, them make money showing ads. If that's selling "their souls to the devil (advertisers)," they were doing it from the start.
    - holler 3y ago
      Maybe that model no longer works? I don't recall an option to pay for an online account and not have ads, or pay for a print version without ads. Why not? My points is they were lazy (my experience) or simply just not innovative enough. Times change, behavior changes, technology changes. I don't see how forcing the marketplace to subsidize a failing business model simply because "freedom of the press" is codified in the Constitution is a good idea. Maybe the press needs a rethinking? Sites like Substack are showing that's the case. Lastly, I do want to see local newsrooms survive and thrive, I'm just stating my experience in hindsight gave me a perspective where I'm not entirely sympathetic to ideas like the one core to this thread.

by holler 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

I kind of figured it would be something like that. When you said: > They could have cut huge swaths of people, just focusing on journalism, and saved a ton of money. It sounds like those huge swaths of people were the ones getting the journalists paid. When they moved to a smaller building, did they cut journalists too? I bet they did.

holler 3y ago
It's hard to say of course, we don't have all the information, but I can tell you it was very resource intensive, and at the same time the core product (newspaper/website) was bloated and burdened with ads. Honestly to me it felt like the historical newspaper model just simply stopped being as effective, and rather than face that reality, downsize, and innovate, these companies sold their souls to the devil (advertisers). The online platforms did the same thing but found a way to be more effective.
- tivert 3y ago
  > It's hard to say of course, we don't have all the information, but I can tell you it was very resource intensive, and at the same time the core product (newspaper/website) was bloated and burdened with ads. > Honestly to me it felt like the historical newspaper model just simply stopped being as effective, and rather than face that reality, downsize, and innovate, these companies sold their souls to the devil (advertisers). What now? Are you somehow suggesting the newspapers shouldn't have been running ads, or decided to run fewer ads, when their other revenue was likely drying up (e.g. classified ads)? The historical newspaper model has always been to use news to get eyeballs, them make money showing ads. If that's selling "their souls to the devil (advertisers)," they were doing it from the start.
  - holler 3y ago
    Maybe that model no longer works? I don't recall an option to pay for an online account and not have ads, or pay for a print version without ads. Why not? My points is they were lazy (my experience) or simply just not innovative enough. Times change, behavior changes, technology changes. I don't see how forcing the marketplace to subsidize a failing business model simply because "freedom of the press" is codified in the Constitution is a good idea. Maybe the press needs a rethinking? Sites like Substack are showing that's the case. Lastly, I do want to see local newsrooms survive and thrive, I'm just stating my experience in hindsight gave me a perspective where I'm not entirely sympathetic to ideas like the one core to this thread.