3 ms·
It's not what people have actually paid for, it's what they think they've been paying for. They think they've been getting news for a quarter or a dollar, when
by thwarted 17y ago
It's not what people have actually paid for, it's what they think they've been paying for. They think they've been getting news for a quarter or a dollar, when their subscription price goes up because they arn't just paying for distribution anymore, but rather all the things that advertising used to pay for, will they not perceive that as an increase in the cost of the news?
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago> It's not what people have actually paid for, it's what they think they've been paying for. I would argue that the distinction is irrelevant in this case. If the news was priced according to the cost of creating content tomorrow, the number of buyers would be correspondingly smaller than it is today.