With the danger of me being shot down by the morons on GFY who think it should all be free, except if they are selling it, they it must be paid for. I will point out a few facts of life.
If it loses money is either has to be back with finances it closes down.
If Murdoch is losing money it's a good chance others are losing money as well.
These people may follow the route of Murdoch, unlike among the ree loaders here he's well respected.
Some might go to a paid model, some might see if the advertising will support the costs.
Internet advertising only work for Search Engines, for the rest it is not as successful.
If you want honest in depth news investigations it will cost you money, because nothing is free.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by madawgz
someone will many a site to copy the news with sevral paid accounts to copy all the new news
game over
|
|
No it's not game over and this post shows a lack of business acumen. Because where will the news come from if no one pays for it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tony404
I also think advertising doesnt have the pull of a tv ad or print ad. There is too much distraction on the web and bombardment online is so great I think people really tune the ads out.
This has been proven before in 2000, ads were going to pay for everything and it failed. I would gladly pay $5 a month for access to a news site. Like I said before nothing is free in the bricks and mortar world why should the net be different?
|
Intternet adverting does not even start to comapre with print of TV. And unt5il it does you will have to pay for news or do without it. Or rely on people with a much more extreme views to pay for it so the can brain wash you.