On 14/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The market tells me you're wrong: because people still pay for content, a huge amount of it.
The people who pay for content production are advertisers. They are becoming more interested in placing ads on digital files than in printed media, because that's what people are looking more and more at - especially the highly consumptive savvy types. What makes Google and Yahoo et al so profitable is that they don't pay for content production. Which makes us free culture people look like Google shills, alas.
> That fact is borne out by the growth of the net and by ordinary people > having a say and doing their own things: a lot of the stuff read, > listened to, watched, etc today isn't being produced by "media people" > it is being produced by regular people who now have access to tools > which allow them to record and share their work. That, frankly, is nonsense. For example, more magazines are being sold in the UK than have ever been sold before: how does that fact fit into your view?
Can you provide a reference for this claim? :-) I was at http://stbride.org/events_education/events/newspaperdesign and heard that the _only_ newspaper that is profitable today, apart from the zero-price 100%-ads papers that have sprung up like mushrooms lately, is the Daily Mail. I figured magazines would be the same, and am genuinely curious to hear differently :-) -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
