Shane, happy to clarify this with a fair amount of certainty on the answer. Remember when traditional print media was written off as having an out of date business model? They found a profitable new one - online subscribers. Unfortunately places like NYT and WaPo also found easy analytics like A/B headline testing and quickly learned wha…
Shane, happy to clarify this with a fair amount of certainty on the answer. Remember when traditional print media was written off as having an out of date business model? They found a profitable new one - online subscribers. Unfortunately places like NYT and WaPo also found easy analytics like A/B headline testing and quickly learned what kind of content caused people to sign up for a subscription and what caused them to cancel one. Turns out that, after social media outrage stokes their flames, most MSM readers dont want to hear the truth, they want to hear validation of their preconceptions.
Well said, Kelly, and I believe you're right. I was out of the Chicago newsrooms before the industry lost its monopoly-on-ads revenue base, so avoided that disaster. Digital subscriptions are helping immensely, but they can't charge nearly as much as for a print subscription: 40 a year vs. 200. They can't afford to annoy the subscribers because they have little advertising to fall back on ... so clicks, likes, and Rageahol all around. Thanks.
This works both ways, btw. Epoch Times used to be interesting to me to read, with unique viewpoints. Then they went to a subscription model and now produce material I find way too far out there.
The Epoch Times has always been interesting to read and their "unique viewpoints" have always been way too far out there. You do realize it's a mouthpiece for Falun Gong? With a stated mission to "save sentient beings." The Times outta adopt this as their slogan.
Shane, happy to clarify this with a fair amount of certainty on the answer. Remember when traditional print media was written off as having an out of date business model? They found a profitable new one - online subscribers. Unfortunately places like NYT and WaPo also found easy analytics like A/B headline testing and quickly learned what kind of content caused people to sign up for a subscription and what caused them to cancel one. Turns out that, after social media outrage stokes their flames, most MSM readers dont want to hear the truth, they want to hear validation of their preconceptions.
Well said, Kelly, and I believe you're right. I was out of the Chicago newsrooms before the industry lost its monopoly-on-ads revenue base, so avoided that disaster. Digital subscriptions are helping immensely, but they can't charge nearly as much as for a print subscription: 40 a year vs. 200. They can't afford to annoy the subscribers because they have little advertising to fall back on ... so clicks, likes, and Rageahol all around. Thanks.
This works both ways, btw. Epoch Times used to be interesting to me to read, with unique viewpoints. Then they went to a subscription model and now produce material I find way too far out there.
Fiction is more popular than truth.
Pays better, apparently, though you couldn't tell from my royalty checks :-)
The Epoch Times has always been interesting to read and their "unique viewpoints" have always been way too far out there. You do realize it's a mouthpiece for Falun Gong? With a stated mission to "save sentient beings." The Times outta adopt this as their slogan.
Steve Bannon is a big fan---nuff said.