4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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.