Re: <nettime> Google dubbed internet parasite by WSJ editor

[Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@yahoo.com>]

It is the fact that selling news for cash directly to end users today does
not work. Maybe because there is more cash in selling ads next to "news",
but still, it doesn't work.

"Considering getting rid of advertising" assumes an act of choice, where
some critical mass of people would prefer to buy news directly as opposed
seeking them through ad-supported outlets. While people may make this
choice, consumers do not exercise a choice, they have been bred not to have
one, and the breeding worked. It's a closed system with tight feedback.

The best I can think of is offering people $10 print weeklies and $100
monthly subscriptions to daily news, and see if it's sustainable. My guess
is that it has been done and it didn't work.

What is needed is a competing eugenics program.

> Getting rid of advertising in news media is worth considering,
> no matter the technology used, paper, airwaves, internet.
> 
> The need for advertising to support news is not an absolute,
> merely a rationale for boosting profits, and worse, valorizing
> advertising way beyond its value.


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org