Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 03/2004

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    RSS

    Your email address:


    Powered by FeedBlitz

    « The Blogosphere | Main | Content Adds Value to Technology »

    Newspapers May Fade Away Because...

    John Batelle has an excellent post explaining why the subscription models of the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, neither of which support deep linking, are pushing both publications towards irrelevance. I suppose I’ll be one of the last holdouts for physical newspapers and magazines – I take the subway and bus too much – but it’s not farfetched to see that increasingly people will acquire daily information in what John describes as the “Pull to Point” method – reading things that have been pointed to by others, rather than only those he pulls down himself. I gave up the FT in print several years ago, and only occasionally go to the online site that I pay for. While I can’t see giving up the WSJ or the New York Times, the amount of time I spend with them is limited to my daily subway ride – the Times in the morning and the Journal on the way home.

    Comments

    Battelle might be right about the WSJ (though with 600K paid subscribers they're not exactly complaining) but he's completely mistaken about The Economist, which despite calling itself a newspaper is a weekly magazine. First, once you've sampled it you don't need the web herd to tell you to read it thanks to the strength of their brand and content. Second, it's inaccurate to say they don't support deep linking, as economist.com has plenty of free articles you can directly link to. Third, again it's a weekly with in-depth reports and articles. Do I want to read a 14-page economics or country survey online anyway? I didn't think so. Fourth, those two publications are actually making money online, including through ad sales. Of course they do, they have the most affluent and influential audience.

    Just because Battelle has made a career as a publisher focused on short-attention span readers doesn't mean he has anything meaningful to say about those who have actual content to sell to their readers (who, moreover, are not always glued to their PC all day long).

    Olivier - I agree with you about The Economist being different than the WSJ or NYT. But unless it's changed recently, the online version of Economist is not fun. So, reading between the lines of Battelle's post, if the online Economist was fun, they might widen the subscription/readership base.

    Verify your Comment

    Previewing your Comment

    This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

    Working...
    Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
    Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

    The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

    As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

    Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

    Working...

    Post a comment

    Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

    PCAN

    • Related Research from Alacrastore.com

    Search the AlacraBlog


    • Google


      WWW Alacra Blog

    Search Premium Business Information