palewire

post Mixed media

So I'm browsing through Christopher Hitchens' latest screed over at Slate tonight, and what do I bump into but an advertisment for the New York Times. Seems a bit funny, seeing as Slate is owned by the Washington Post Company. I've always thought of them as competitors with the NYT.

Yep.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think? Seems a little weird to me.

Comments

wynn on 2008.04.29
Because a newspaper advertising person made this decision. Per usual, it's a little boneheaded and clunky.
Permalink
palewire on 2008.04.29
Boneheaded and clunky?! Sounds like this blog most of the time. Perhaps the better word choice on my part would be "odd." This isn't a big deal or anything, just a little odd. But I think it must say something about how the world thinks the Web relates to print, I'm just not sure exactly what. And I feel like I'd be smarter if I knew. Obviously, the Washington Post Company makes money on the deal, which is good for them, but at the same time they're exposing their readers to the competition's product. There's some trade off calculation going on. And maybe the online revenue is so coveted -- or lucrative -- that it's an easy one to make.
Permalink
wynn on 2008.04.30
Lotso companies, I think, are trying to beef up online ad revenue any way they can. That's becoming one of the key measurements of sustainability. So I wonder if it didn't boil down to, "These guys will pay us money to advertise, and they aren't the KKK or a pro-choice group."
Permalink
palewire on 2008.04.30
I now have you on the record comparing pro-choice advocates to the KKK. Good luck with any future political endeavors.
Permalink
wynn on 2008.05.01
Or, to be fair, a pro-life group. I meant to say that. Future political career unscathed!
Permalink
palewire on 2008.05.01
Nice try. Your life is over. Prepare to be thrown overboard.
Permalink

Submit a comment

:
Email:
:
en
64
© 2013 palewire . colophon . rss feeds . powered by django . hosted on an openstack in the rackspace cloud