Mark Cuban: your saviour?

Who declared that the product should be given away?

If I can read something for free online, it sure isn't going to encourage me to pay for it in print.

 

The prevailing theory was that nobody would want to read it online as a first choice because it was too difficult, or too time-consuming over a 56k modem, or ... or ... hell, let's be brutally honest: the real reason was that they didn't want to do anything that would cut into the 20-percent-plus profit margins that the print product produced. Classic case of not taking the long view of things. Can't tell you how many editorial meetings I sat through with the publisher desperately exhorting us to think of ways to bring younger readers back to the dead trees.

 

So your answer is to let the print product wither on the vine.

 

The real fight is over who sets the agenda.
Some of the blogs are trying to put themselves in a position where they are the ones calling shots. Of course the best blogs are the ones run by large media companies, but never mind that. The idea of blogs setting the agenda might work for a certain level of elite, but for the casual fan, the casual follower of the news, the internet can't and won't top what print does.
The web types think it can, and they are, to a degree, right with the elite, but that is simply not the case with everyone.
That's the point the Mark Cuban is trying to make. He understands that, but most newspaper companies don't. Newsrooms hear on a daily basis how they don't matter anymore and that everything is going online. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and that the publishers believe as well.
What makes it worse though is that every single idea gets shotdown by traditionalists because they think it violates the sacred trust of the reader or some other silly ass nonsense.
So when someone floats something like Cuban proposed, it immediately gets shouted down because of something or other.
Ads pay for the paper, the content is what gets the ads. Take away the content because it doesn't pay the bills is foolish because the content is why you have ads in the first place.

 

Shoppers have ads.

 

Shoppers don't have the history to charge a competitive rate, Frank. We do ..
If we don't give it away.

 

You said it: Self fulling prophecy is correct. Newspapers have killed themselves. There's nothing wrong with the newspaper business model as Cuban points out. Newspapers are run by complete and utter morons, and the kissup managing editor yes men and women who offer no real dissent have also let it happen.
Let's see: Instead of doing a better job with the business model we have we cut good people, severely weaken the print product and give what we do have away online for free. If that is not a self fulfilling prophecy ...
It's obvious the publishers' next step is to go online only, so please Gannett, do it with all your papers so everybody falls in line and we can speed up the inevitable death of this industry.
It's too late to improve the print product: It's already been decimated with layoffs. Let's speed it up and go all online which only an idiot thinks is going to work.

 

Tell the truth.

You're going to shoot your dog if he ever pisses on the carpet, aren't ya?

 

(Damn. Copious amounts of beer and Fredrick's horseshit. The perfect combo.)

 

No. I do not own a gun. Guns are dangerous and I will not have one in the house in case my kids find it and cause a horrible accident.
Isn't it time you are banned. You add nothing to the discussion by personally attacking me. There have been some very good posts on this thread in the last 15 posts or so. You won't discuss them, though.

 

I think you should discuss the discuss the banning thing with the board.

Mwah-mwah-mwah.

 

Fredrick, you're the oddest poster we have here in my book, and geezus, is that saying alot.