If ever there was a time in media for radical change, it’s now — but publishers have been too cautious about seizing it. Yes, most magazines and newspapers (shockingly, not all) have launched online, in one form or another, but far fewer have figured out a way to get people to consistently pay for or read stories and visual content that used to drive newsstand sales, print subscriptions and advertising, all of which have been squeezed over at least the last decade. And still, publishers of magazines and newspapers seem focused on how to carry on with all of those things instead of testing entirely new ways of delivering and paying for content. Why, for example, didn’t The New York Times create its own “news feed” operated as a platform for readers? Why didn’t Condé Nast or Hearst, with their archive of photos and relationships with photographers, models and celebrities, create an interactive platform for such image-heavy content? Why did local publications continue to rely on classifieds in the wake of Craigslist? Why did, and do, any of these arms of media take content that would be paid for in print and put it online for free? Hindsight is always 20/20, but
from WWDWWD https://ift.tt/2PmWUnT
Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.
Read More...from WWDWWD https://ift.tt/2PmWUnT
Comments
Post a Comment