Mark Cuban hits nail on the head, re: newspapers

[Columbo]

As much as I'd enjoy seeing Cuban refine some forked-up operation like CNHI, I think a more likely outcome would be he'd have a brain aneurysm once he encounters a daily dose of what passes for newspaper strategy.

I can only imagine the reaction when he hears about the grand plan of front-page design attracting thousands of walk-up buyers.

This may be the first time I have tossed a WFW your way.

 

[OnTheRiver]

WFW

Lil help, please?

 

[fishwrapper]

BEFORE WE CALL HIM ST. CUBES...
Let's recall how he made his money. In 1995, he started an audio site on the Internet. Except audio wasn't available for another 1.5 years. He and his co-founder morphed their initial company into Broadcast.com.
[snip]
On July 17, 1998, Broadcast.com had their initial public offering, setting (at the time) a one-day record for IPOs by rising almost 250% percent from its opening price. The stock closed up at $62.75 per share from their initial trading at $18 per share.
The record IPO made instant financial successes out of the company's employees through stock options, making 100 employees millionaires on paper (although most of them were unable to exercise their options and sell their shares before the stock price dropped) and founders Cuban and Wagner billionaires.
[snip]
Their employees? They became thousand-aires.
In the months after Yahoo's purchase, Broadcast.com's technology was outdated by streaming/broadband technology.
As for Cubes, he struck gold or oil or pork-spending by Congress. Whatever analogy you want to use. That's how he made his money. Not dealing with archaic, 125-year-old institutions hemorrhaging money, advertisers and customers.
He said it himself...If he had more time. If newspapers were as profitbale (looking forward) as he and this thread thinks, don't you think he would make time? Instead of HDNet which is losing money at the moment?

Just a couple of thoughts before you canonize the man.

 

[printdust]

BEFORE WE CALL HIM ST. CUBES...
Let's recall how he made his money. In 1995, he started an audio site on the Internet. Except audio wasn't available for another 1.5 years. He and his co-founder morphed their initial company into Broadcast.com.
[snip]
On July 17, 1998, Broadcast.com had their initial public offering, setting (at the time) a one-day record for IPOs by rising almost 250% percent from its opening price. The stock closed up at $62.75 per share from their initial trading at $18 per share.
The record IPO made instant financial successes out of the company's employees through stock options, making 100 employees millionaires on paper (although most of them were unable to exercise their options and sell their shares before the stock price dropped) and founders Cuban and Wagner billionaires.
[snip]
Their employees? They became thousand-aires.
In the months after Yahoo's purchase, Broadcast.com's technology was outdated by streaming/broadband technology.
As for Cubes, he struck gold or oil or pork-spending by Congress. Whatever, analogy you want to use. That's how he made his money. Not dealing with archaic, 125-year-old institutions hemorrhaging money, advertisers and customers.
He said it himself...If he had more time. If newspapers were as profitbale (looking forward) as he and this thread thinks, don't you think he would make time? Instead of HDNet which is losing money at the moment?

Just a couple of thoughts before you canonize the man.

Well then shirt. Let's just revert back to the "Sky is Falling" mind-set. Good god, the man has sinned and therfore ain't worth a shirt. Th' heck with what ever he could do for our industry. Let's just keep rammin' front-page design at readers.

 

[fishwrapper]

It has nothing to do "with the sky is falling."
And, of course, there is some validity to what Mark Cuban has to say. The man knows how to make money. But, so does Dean Singleton. Any big fans of Dean Singleton out there? Anyone?
Advice I give reporters (or students) when doing a investigative piece? Consider the source. And what does the source have to gain by divulging the information. Sources don't divulge information with purely altruistic intentions. Just doesn't happen.
Mark Cuban isn't any different.

 

[Columbo]

WFW

Lil help, please?

I'm in word-for-word agreement.

 

[Editude]

Of course, maybe people don't read newspapers as much these days because of all the WFW and LOL crap that passes for writing.
Cuban makes some good points, although it's easier to ponder when your next seven generations are set for life. Younger people already consider e-mail old-fashioned, so it is important to innovate with information. Maybe the a la carte approach Harry Chandler discussed in the LA Times this weekend makes sense. Who has time to read even one story in each section each day?

 

[Columbo]

Of course, maybe people don't read newspapers as much these days because of all the WFW and LOL crap that passes for writing.
Cuban makes some good points, although it's easier to ponder when your next seven generations are set for life. Younger people already consider e-mail old-fashioned, so it is important to innovate with information. Maybe the a la carte approach Harry Chandler discussed in the LA Times this weekend makes sense. Who has time to read even one story in each section each day?

text messaging, which is a form of e-mailing, is the biggest rage in the country among young people.

 

[fishwrapper]

So is the "Macarena," I hear.