Henceforce known as Wilson’s Rule of Online
: And I quote: “Online does not canibalize offline, it turbocharges it.”
While Wilson’s examples of non-news related offline content are absolutely correct, his one example of the New York Times is an argument that makes no sense. The NYT‘s audience online has NOTHING to do with its offline, and folks who are reading the Times online are probably less likely to pick up a print edition than people who had never read the Times before in their lives.
It ABSOLUTELY cannibalizes those who had been or would be print readers. He points out that he is “certain that the New York Times website gets more readers than its paper version. That it reaches more people.” I’m sure he’s correct as well. But this point only furthers the argument that for NEWS sources, online cannibalizes the offline. People aren’t flocking to buy NYT somethingorothers because they read the same content, plus more that didn’t make the print edition, surely, offline. Doesn’t happen. Well, unless someone gets their name in the paper for the first time and they want to hang it on the wall – that’s about it.
I hereby redeclare Wilson’s Rule: “Online does not canibalize [sic] offline, it turbocharges it. Except when said offline entity is a news organization’s print edition.”
You reaaly should spellck cannibalize
Yeah, hence the [sic]
Has anyone cross-checked this witticism against the experiences of incumbent publishers in San Francisco who have lost revenues to Craigslist?
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!