- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:07 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
You get what you pay for.
This saying doesn't even make sense for online news. I don't pay for WAFB or WBRZ content and I'm fine with their sites
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:16 pm to lowhound
Did it ever occur to you that the free model is why it sucks now?
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:16 pm to Ed Osteen
quote:
This saying doesn't even make sense for online news.
It really hasn't made sense for news at all for a long time. Television news has been ad supported for many decades.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:19 pm to lowhound
quote:
Screw The Advocate
How dare they not give you something for free.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:37 pm to skinny domino
quote:
i believe Georges (advocate owner) is worth right at 1 billion. Pretty rich for not being too bright.
He's going to lose his arse on this. Blockbuster used to be worth a lot of money too.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:06 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Are you trying to pretend that ad-supported businesses aren't a thing? Or that every ad-supported content site is trash?
When it comes to interface, websites that are overrun with ads are trash, yes.
Ad-supported businesses are a thing, but the ads have to be enough to support the business. In the case of news websites, that's not the case.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:10 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It really hasn't made sense for news at all for a long time. Television news has been ad supported for many decades.
Right. There is more money in tv ads than there are in online news ads.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:24 pm to skinny domino
quote:
quote:
Pumping up their numbers. I save them for crawfish boils.
call 388-0200 and give ur address and ask for a stop - they will do it in 24 hours -
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:29 pm to lowhound
But they won a journalism award for fighting racism and trump and stuff.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:35 pm to lowhound
If someone writes something not worth reading and tries to charge for it, does anyone really give a damn?
The Advocate’s reporting in general has been shite for quite a while now, so charging for the right to read their articles means I no longer give them clicks for local stories.
The Advocate’s reporting in general has been shite for quite a while now, so charging for the right to read their articles means I no longer give them clicks for local stories.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:36 pm to SuperflyLSU
wrong - how so? Call 388-0200 and ask for yourself - believe me I know.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:44 pm to skinny domino
Must have better luck than me then. I've called numerous times over the past few years, they still throw a copy in my drive every Friday morning. 1 in 5 make it down the storm drain.
Edit: I'm talking about the shitty free Southeast edition, I've never had a paid subscription.
Edit: I'm talking about the shitty free Southeast edition, I've never had a paid subscription.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:50 pm to fallguy_1978
You have to pay for the business report?
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:04 pm to lowhound
Pay to fund swamp pulpers.
Naw
Naw
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:30 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:theadvocate.com is trashy as frick with all those ads, yes. The solution is less intrusive ads.
When it comes to interface, websites that are overrun with ads are trash, yes.
quote:Plenty of news sites seem to make it work.
Ad-supported businesses are a thing, but the ads have to be enough to support the business. In the case of news websites, that's not the case.
Anyway, as far as I know, the advocate publishes little to no exclusive, quality, or valuable content. Basically anything the advocate reports can be found elsewhere, for free. Am I wrong?
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:32 pm to lowhound
TD's gives faster breaking and more accurate news than The Advocate. Sure you have to wade through a ton of shite posts but nothing worse than you would find in Advocate comments. The Advocate is a wannabe fake news MSM.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:40 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:Well sure, but it's also orders of magnitude more expensive to produce a TV news show than it is to run a website.
Right. There is more money in tv ads than there are in online news ads.
It's just hard to imagine a site like the advocate generating more revenue with subscriptions than it would by just getting rid of the trashy ads and switching to less intrusive, higher quality ads. When you visit the home page and you can't even read the top headline due to gigantic ads, I'd imagine their bounce rate is atrocious.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:46 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Plenty of news sites seem to make it work.
Every day, more and more newspapers, including the big national ones, are moving behind a paywall.
Now, the tv news websites, those don't seem to be moving in that direction. Their websites aren't getting any more online ad money than the newspapers.
However, tv ad dollars are still stronger than newspaper ad dollars. Think about it, tv stations can run local ads on not only newscasts but also throughout the day.
So tv stations can afford to still "give away" online content.
Honestly, I see the entire model for newspapers - whether in print or online - changing.
TV news websites are going to be the place for the free, breaking news, "just the facts" content.
The successful online newspapers are going to be the ones that shun the minute to minute fact updates, and instead focus on longer-form stories and analysis. Not unlike a magazine.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Well sure, but it's also orders of magnitude more expensive to produce a TV news show than it is to run a website.
But as I said in another response, they sell ads for time all day long, newscasts and not.
Plus, take WWL tv for example, they have always been 100 percent tv ad supported.
You just can't compare tv to newspaper.
quote:
It's just hard to imagine a site like the advocate generating more revenue with subscriptions than it would by just getting rid of the trashy ads and switching to less intrusive, higher quality ads. When you visit the home page and you can't even read the top headline due to gigantic ads, I'd imagine their bounce rate is atrocious.
The Advocate is going to have to invest in higher-quality journalism with this subscription fee. If they don't improve the content and the quality of the website, this will surely fail.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News