Quote:
Originally Posted by gwidomains
Sorry it won't work...as I said it is a basic game theory problem. The newspapers who stay open to the general public stand to directly benefit from the increase in traffic due to the pay-wall.
Further consider that subscription revenues go AGAINST the offline newspaper model -- which is subscription subsidizes the paper/magazine, but ads pay the bills.
A pay-wall is a NEW model where significant revenue to generate profits would come from subscriptions.
What needs to happen is that papers get smaller and ditch the printed models except for high-end magazines that are actually worth it Economist, New Yorker etc.
As ad dollars finally shift online (due to dying publications) the online model for premium content will improve.
|
Disagree. On-line ad revenue will not catch up with print and TV advertising anytime in the near future. The reason is advertisers simply don't have the control they have in those other mediums and therefore will not pay a premium for it like they do with TV or newspapers.
Newspapers that remain free will NOT benefit from the increased traffic. The current on-line ad revenue is not enough to cover their costs, even if it doubles. Newspapers don't make enough now from free traffic, not even close. How will getting a little bit more free traffic make a difference?
Prove to me how newspapers that stay free will make more in ad revenue when their current ad revenue doesn't even come close to paying the bills now.
There is ZERO incentive for newspapers to stay free and try to gain marketshare. That model has been proven a failure, just look at the balance sheets of the newspapers that have gone on-line for free. Explain the benefit of continuing to chase this failed model that has left them all on the edge of bankruptcy?