@Ricki-Oh: and you're supposed to get paid by advertisers. Most magazines and newspapers lose money on subscription and newsstand revenue. They just do it to make the advertisers happy that someone had to actually pay for it, and therefore would more likely read it. Online, there's none of that problem because only ads that are viewed are counted.
I like David Carr's idea that newspapers should engage in collusion in order to make this happen. Then only people with money will get the "news". Unused online views could be discarded on park benches as bedding.
The minute Nisenholtz was forced by the powers that be to say that, he quietly went to the men's room, threw up a little and started cutting himself. I love how all these people who say they'll never lurch from one strategy to another, proceed to lurch from one strategy to another as soon as the economic winds are no longer behind the advertising sail. I got a better idea - why don't you cut down on your still bloated staff, cut all your secretaries, and reduce your print circulation instead of expanding it? The ad revenue is never going to make it worthwhile.
10/22/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
Where people got the idea that they have a right to consume the work of others without paying for it is beyond me.
Full disclosure, I produce content, and strangely, I expect to get paid to do this.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
10/31/08
10/31/08
10/31/08