Charles Warner writes on The Huffington Post about why The Economist is so much better than The Wall Street Journal even though they use similar pay strategies for their online content.
“This is a trend — people will pay for excellent, intelligently written, insightful content because it’s now easy to find it on the Web. Discerning people will stray from boring, unremarkable content because news brands don’t mean as much as they used to.
“The New York Times has lost its brand for reliable information, except in art, culture, and food, and the Wall Street Journal under Murdoch has lost its brand for insightful, well-written business coverage.
“No matter what kind of brand it is (news, information, celebrity gossip, or tech gossip), a brand has to earn its stripes every day in the open, searchable, free environment of the Web. The Times and the WSJ have lost their business information stripes by being inaccurate or boring or irrelevant (or all three).”
Read more here.
The Yale Program on Stakeholder Innovation and Management announced the appointment of Alan Murray, departing chief…
The Advocate is looking for a savvy reporter to cover the Baton Rouge business scene…
MLex, a LexisNexis company, is an independent news organization for breaking news and forward-looking analysis…
The Austin Business Journal seeks a staff writer to cover economic development in one of…
A Russian court on Saturday placed Sergei Mingazov, a journalist for the Russian edition of…
Justin Nielsen of Investor's Business Daily writes about the newspaper's 40th anniversary. Nielsen writes, "When the…
View Comments
"This is a trend — people will pay for excellent, intelligently written, insightful content because it’s now easy to find it on the Web."
I guess this explains why the HuffPo is free.