By: Anthony Bradley

Anthony Bradley — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:41:35 +0000

Interesting, it sounds to me like you are saying that advertisers wanted the channel provided by the newspapers regardless of whether or not they were being read (i.e., the content was compelling). I’m not sure I agree but the point is interesting.

By: TravisV

TravisV — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:06:00 +0000

I’d argue that the publications’ delivery reach was their asset – not the content itself. Awful newspapers like the SF Chronicle and SF Examiner that continue to exist despite consistently sub-rate content (because they happen to be the only two shows in town in a major metro) prove this point. It’s the infrastructure that they have to get content in front of people, not the content itself.

Comments on: People Won’t Pay for News. What Will They Pay For?

By: Anthony Bradley

By: TravisV