Washington Times sports

So you spend money to read standings in the paper when you can read those exact same standings (and probably updated with the late results) with a couple clicks of the mouse? Those same clicks you use to open stories or scoreboards?

Weird. But OK.

 

This connects with a conversation I had with our ME. We're the only paper some of our readers subscribe to, a second buy for a large percentage of our base, and a third buy for a few in certain areas. We target ways to boost our numbers in the places where we have a realistic chance.

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, and the path you're on takes you near more truth. I suspect Moddy's thinking is shaped by the fact that his is not the only paper serving D.C. area readers. Is the goal to be the No. 1 paper? Post readers will switch to the Times? Or, is it to publish alternative takes, fresh voices and enough "different" to persuade people to get a second paper? I think answering those questions goes a long way toward helping him decide how much a sports section "of record" he wants to be and how much a "good read" he wants to be -- all while trying to balance the legitimate point Bubbler so eloquently makes.

 

I'm the same way. There's more of us than you think.

 

Makin' me nostalgic. My dad could nearly make one of those things sit up and bark.

 

No doubt there's benefit to hunting and gathering and assembling a lot of information in a one-stop destination for people. That's the monopoly newspapers had for years, essentially. So, playthrough, jr/shotglass and someone with millions in venture capital, you want to get together and talk about starting AgatePage.com?

 

I know the smiley face indicates you are joking, but you might be on to something there.

 

I'm smiling because I'm already thinking of how rich and famous Imma be.

 

So what did you think?