No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could criticize those numbers. Over $1mil in just two weeks for a no-name indie bundle with next-to-no marketing? That's fan-fucking-tastic! It's way more than I would have expected.
Won't work. Fun to try, but raw materials in a restaurant are expensive. This isn't being used as a loss-leader, so those economics are out the window. It would be easier to just sell sandwiches, but then the non-profit competes with their for-profit locations. No matter how they do this, Panera will be competing with itself.
Why aren't the employees volunteers? How will local governments respond to lost taxes? What about after people acclimate psychologically? Will they pay full price for a time, but then start skewing downward? The only example has been staying "afloat" since 2003.
The market, in its current situation, has provided 146,000 subscribers with an estimate of about $30mil in revenue.
If we assume that the content on the internet will simply get wider and MORE diverse, that means that they're already near the peak of the subscriber numbers that they are likely to get.
So he thinks that he can run a top-tier newspaper with $30mil per year. And if we assume that he's monetized the 1.9mil registered users to the tune of $.03 per user per day (based on my previous experiences with online advertising), that works out to another $20mil per year. So he's saying that he can run a top-flight newspaper on $50mil per year.
Considering that the NY Times newsroom is a $200mil per year expense, I find that claim dubious.
Even in another country, our issues should be of concern to you. Our companies are global, which means choices here will mirror choices in other countries. Viacom specifically is a French company. And our politics are frequently forced on other countries through back-door deals and trade agreements. Issues here will likely become issues there.
Daily Show and Colbert were the only reasons I ever went to Hulu. And Viacom's website interfaces are bad enough where I don't go there. Hulu's design and speed were much better.
Which... no longer applies? I just went to the Daily Show website, and new episodes are shown in a player oddly similar to Hulu.
How long has this been the case? My last trip a number of months ago had a really crappy design.
Ok, so. I guess Viacom FTW.
Still, it pisses me off that content providers are obsessed with taking things AWAY from the centralized media houses and trying to nestle it away on their own sites. Hulu was great because it had so much crap on it. Dailyshow.com has... Daily Show.