4 ms·

You consider the cost of printing and delivery to be much higher than it really is. You also ignore the elements of the newspaper that used to off-set various

You consider the cost of printing and delivery to be much higher than it really is. You also ignore the elements of the newspaper that used to off-set various costs for you that are disappearing. In essence, you were never paying for the news, and so unfortunately, you don't have a firm grasp of the true cost.

watsix 14y ago
In essence, you were never paying for the news, and so unfortunately, you don't have a firm grasp of the true cost. This is such a critical thing to understand. No one understands the true cost, because no one has ever paid for the news, it's always been advertisers. And now, for whatever reasons, advertisers don't want to pay for the digital equivalent, and they don't seem to be coming around. This correlates to brandnewlow's comment above as well. It would be fascinating to see a news source that was paid for entirely by customers and thus not beholden to advertisers--something like HBO. But it would very hard to sell such a thing, because $15-$30/month for news, historically speaking, seems insanely high.
- horsehead 14y ago
  I know i'm not really adding anything to this discussion by posting this, but I just want to say this thread here is an excellent analysis. If I could sum up the plight of newspapers in a few paragraphs, i would pick this and its few parent comments.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  This correlates to brandnewlow's comment above as well. It would be fascinating to see a news source that was paid for entirely by customers and thus not beholden to advertisers--something like HBO. But it would very hard to sell such a thing, because $15-$30/month for news, historically speaking, seems insanely high. Sounds basically like what Stratfor was trying to do. I don't know what they charged, or if the value was there, though.

4 ms·

You consider the cost of printing and delivery to be much higher than it really is. You also ignore the elements of the newspaper that used to off-set various

by jasonlotito 14y ago

watsix 14y ago
In essence, you were never paying for the news, and so unfortunately, you don't have a firm grasp of the true cost. This is such a critical thing to understand. No one understands the true cost, because no one has ever paid for the news, it's always been advertisers. And now, for whatever reasons, advertisers don't want to pay for the digital equivalent, and they don't seem to be coming around. This correlates to brandnewlow's comment above as well. It would be fascinating to see a news source that was paid for entirely by customers and thus not beholden to advertisers--something like HBO. But it would very hard to sell such a thing, because $15-$30/month for news, historically speaking, seems insanely high.
- horsehead 14y ago
  I know i'm not really adding anything to this discussion by posting this, but I just want to say this thread here is an excellent analysis. If I could sum up the plight of newspapers in a few paragraphs, i would pick this and its few parent comments.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  This correlates to brandnewlow's comment above as well. It would be fascinating to see a news source that was paid for entirely by customers and thus not beholden to advertisers--something like HBO. But it would very hard to sell such a thing, because $15-$30/month for news, historically speaking, seems insanely high. Sounds basically like what Stratfor was trying to do. I don't know what they charged, or if the value was there, though.