SubscribePorn, porn and porn.
Look, the Nation and the National Review aren't all party line all the time either, but why does Salon try so hard to act like it's not partisan? It's such a charade. What's wrong with partisanship?
It doesn't sell, especially liberal partisanship. Which is not to say that conservative sites such as National Review are exactly rolling in dough; NR has even started begging for PayPal donations on its front page. But they're doing better than most liberal sites. Whether you agree or disagree that the media is liberal, most conservatives believe it is, and that's why they actively flock to conservative-oriented sites. Most center-left types are already relatively satisfied with the media in general, so they aren't as likely to seek out partisan liberal sites. And to truly left-wing hardcore liberals, sites like Salon are themselves too conservative. Add to that the fact that the majority of consumers hate politics altogether, it's tough for Salon to get readers.
I think the only thing this sudden new wave of attempts to charge for online content only shows how quickly people forget the lessons of the past. It was only a couple of years ago that it was quite strongly proven that the subscription model does not work. Every site that tried it ended up either abandoning it or going out of business altogether. And now sites are trying it again, sometimes even the same sites that were burned before (such as Salon itself). Why would it suddenly work now?
As to why it doesn't work, two reasons IMHO. First, it's because consumers find web content to be ephemeral. When you subscribe to a magazine, you get physical copies, which are yours to keep for as long as you wish. When you subscribe online, you only get to access the material for as long as your subscription remains current. After that, it may as well have never even existed. And even while you do have the subscription, you can only read it in one place, on your monitor. (Sure, you could print out what you want, but that's your ink, your paper, your dime.) You can take your magazine anywhere. It just doesn't seem like you're getting as much for your money. Second: Every web site is essentially competing with every other web site for your time and attention. When you buy a magazine, or watch TV, you have limited options, maybe a few dozen magzines on the rack to choose from or a few dozen TV channels. Either way, there's enough audience to go around. But there are millions of web sites out there, and a given user is only going to spend so much time online before logging off. That makes it extremely tough to get enough eyeballs to be profitable.
As for the WSJ, it contains not just interesting material, but rather necessary material for many. And it's usually paid for by a person's employer.
posted by aaron at 12:28 AM on April 9, 2001
« Older The redesign may not have been well received but A... | Just in time for the easter ca... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But Salon tries when not asking for funds to act impartial, perhaps too hard. Salon wrote some of the nastiest articles re Gore that I saw last year, also some of the most depressingly cynical coverage of the campaign. Salon's Jake Tapper spends much of his time in his recent 2000 recount coverage telling Gore voters that they can't complain about the results of the election, because Gore didn't really want all the votes counted either. As if Gore's statements were all that mattered and not something larger like, say, the meaning of American democracy.
Look, the Nation and the National Review aren't all party line all the time either, but why does Salon try so hard to act like it's not partisan? It's such a charade. What's wrong with partisanship? It is wrong to never hear the other side, but one can easily find second or third opinion elsewhere.
Also, sex articles may get lots of hits, but that doesn't mean the people who read them respect you in the morning.
posted by raysmj at 9:00 PM on April 8, 2001