Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Doggie the Bubble Boy,
You just don't get.
Publishers that provide content which readers value are able to stay in business.
WSJ is able to charge for online subscriptions. If the content is worthwhile, some people will pay for it.
It looks like secular homilies ad nauseam about Obama just don't sell.
Let me know if you need one of my daughter's step stools. lol.
Great for stealing cookies from the cookie jar.
WSJ is able to charge for online subscriptions. If the content is worthwhile, some people will pay for it.
It looks like secular homilies ad nauseam about Obama just don't sell.
Pretty much with you on your first sentence. Not so much on the second.
WSJ has some brilliant and insightful business minds writing for them, outside of the political sphere. Hard to find them in a single place anywhere else. That is what makes their content useful, and therefore worth paying for.
Newsweek just regurgitated the week in news (as their name suggests), and had no better analysis than literally hundreds of other "free" sites.
It's a supply/demand issue. Not a political one.
WSJ is able to charge for online subscriptions. If the content is worthwhile, some people will pay for it.
It looks like secular homilies ad nauseam about Obama just don't sell.
Pretty much with you on your first sentence. Not so much on the second.
WSJ has some brilliant and insightful business minds writing for them, outside of the political sphere. Hard to find them in a single place anywhere else. That is what makes their content useful, and therefore worth paying for.
Newsweek just regurgitated the week in news (as their name suggests), and had no better analysis than literally hundreds of other "free" sites.
It's a supply/demand issue. Not a political one.
WSJ charges for its premium content - and has quite a good customer base for it.
It's not surprising that you do GROK neither the publishing/content business or the role of the internet.
Successful publishers are able to generate Ad Revenue online and/or charge for premium content. Newsweek failed because readers did not value the content enough to buy the paper version or visit the website.
WSJ is able to charge for online subscriptions. If the content is worthwhile, some people will pay for it.
It looks like secular homilies ad nauseam about Obama just don't sell.
Pretty much with you on your first sentence. Not so much on the second.
WSJ has some brilliant and insightful business minds writing for them, outside of the political sphere. Hard to find them in a single place anywhere else. That is what makes their content useful, and therefore worth paying for.
Newsweek just regurgitated the week in news (as their name suggests), and had no better analysis than literally hundreds of other "free" sites.
It's a supply/demand issue. Not a political one.
WSJ charges for its premium content - and has quite a good customer base for it.
Gunny is gonna make you eat your brussel sprouts if yer not careful.
lol.
What? No! 
My second sentence was: "If the content is worthwhile, some people will pay for it."
You seemed to disagree with it.
Got it. Considering how the content was so Obama focused in 2009, it doesn't make sense to separate the loss of customers with the nature of the content.
Got it. Considering how the content was so Obama focused in 2009, it doesn't make sense to separate the loss of customers with the nature of the content.
Other Obama focused sites/papers/mags aren't failing left and right (pardon the pun).
Therefore the answer is something else. The simplest answer is: People don't want to pay for things they can get for free. Newsweek's business model is outdated in a digital world.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RadiomanATL again.
Got it. Considering how the content was so Obama focused in 2009, it doesn't make sense to separate the loss of customers with the nature of the content.
Other Obama focused sites/papers/mags aren't failing left and right (pardon the pun).
Therefore the answer is something else. The simplest answer is: People don't want to pay for things they can get for free. Newsweek's business model is outdated in a digital world.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RadiomanATL again.
Going to have to wait.
Got it. Considering how the content was so Obama focused in 2009, it doesn't make sense to separate the loss of customers with the nature of the content.
Other Obama focused sites/papers/mags aren't failing left and right (pardon the pun).
Therefore the answer is something else. The simplest answer is: People don't want to pay for things they can get for free. Newsweek's business model is outdated in a digital world.
It's a matter of degree. Obama is certainly newsworthy - but Newsweek was excessive in its fawning, uncritical coverage. Readers have voted by losing interest.
