1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fannin on the dotcom pillage

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Pulitzer Wannabe, Oct 12, 2007.

  1. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

    In your third line, you forgot to include "(that we want to sell)."

    In all my years of radio and TV, I've found that the biggest sales job is with the sales staff. IF they're interested, you can't get rid of a product. If they don't care, no amount of cajoling, even by publishers, is going to make them work, by God. Because they're so much better than you. Ask them.
     
  2. The situation with the stockholders has always reminded me of the scene in Goodfellas where Henry Hill explains how the business works.

    " ... But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? Fuck you, pay me."

    Ad revenues going down? "Fuck you, pay me."

    Pretty soon we'll be reading about a bunch of suspicious newspaper fires to collect on the insurance ...
     
  3. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    It's the same pressure with all public holdings.
    Whether it be a Widget factory or the New York Times.
     
  4. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    As circulation drops, we should be saving tons of money on newsprint and carrier costs. So we got that going for us.

    * I wish I knew how to use blue note.
     
  5. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Well, see, if salespeople try to tell us about content, we go all separation-of-church-and-state on them, as well we should. Yet somehow we believe we not only know better than they do what their clients will be willing to buy, but it's OK for us to say so. Can't have it both ways. Either there's a wall or there isn't one. If we expect them to keep their noses out of newsrooms, we need to respect that they know advertising better than we do.
     
  6. leo1

    leo1 Active Member

    all i know as a former journo, now just a reader, is that the way to make money online is NOT to keep coming up with inane obtrusive ads. we all know the banner ads can be ignored but the more my local paper puts up that fucking ad that blocks the entire screen the less likely i am to view the site at all.
     
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Hear hear!

    And as this site proves, I will pay money for the sole purpose of NOT seeing the ads. :D
     
  8. Satchel Pooch

    Satchel Pooch Member

    One of the models I'd like to float when I'm in charge someday is having all of the local copy on the Web site free after 1 p.m., but $5 a month (and free if you're a print sub) before that when everyone's getting to work and jerking around doing nothing up until after lunch.
     
  9. Screwball

    Screwball Active Member

    In fairness to Carroll and Baquet, they were hired by Tribune. They were told to cut the editorial budget. Then they were told that again, and again, and again -- until they got tired of it and left.
     
  10. Bingo. My paper is developing a new Web site that's state-of-the-art...for 2002. Meanwhile, our rival popped up a new one recently with all the bells and whistles I wished ours would have.
     
  11. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    Not quite. John Carroll was the editor of the Baltimore Sun, a former Times Mirror property.
    He moved over to the L.A. Times after Tribune bought all of Times Mirror holdings. He was already part of the chain. He then hired Dean Baquet.
     
  12. pressmurphy

    pressmurphy Member

    Try going to one of the Advance Newhouse web sites -- SIlive.com, Syracuse.com, nj.com, etc. They're CCC (cookie-cutter crap) products that are completely ugly, almost completely un-navigatable and rarely updated after 6 a.m.

    Why do they even bother having web sites if they're going to do them that poorly?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page