I think it's a huge leap to say that someone hatched up the idea to NOT show something they might otherwise show JUST to drive traffic to their website. I bet 50 people didn't go their website that night.

 

I buy their stated reasoning.

I think it's a huge leap to say that someone hatched up the idea to NOT show something they might otherwise show JUST to drive traffic to their website. I bet 50 people didn't go their website that night.

 

I buy their stated reasoning.

I bet you're wrong. I bet all too many did go to their website.

I think it's a huge leap to say that someone hatched up the idea to NOT show something they might otherwise show JUST to drive traffic to their website. I bet 50 people didn't go their website that night.

 

I buy their stated reasoning.

Yeah, the media would never do sneaky things to improve advertising sales.

 

[i'll give you the best part of my argument, right after these commercial messages.]

The police department didn't do anything wrong. I'm not sure on their policies or Ohio's state laws, but I'd say they had no choice but to release the video.

This is true.

BF ya know I love ya man, but I'm with Bench on this one, how do you know it was phony? Maybe they knew they have a strong audience that follows them and that some of that audience may or may not want to see it, and that they also didn't think it was appropriate to put it on tv for the family to see unexpectedly. Honestly, if anyone wanted to see it 60-70% of people could probably do it on their cell phones via youtube....

I don't mind them not showing it. My point all along was that they shouldn't say they are withholding it out of respect, if they're going to show it on their web site...which just happens to improve their page view numbers and make the advertisers happy. I just think some people (not necessarily, you) are being naive when they trust commercial media outlets to not have the almighty dollar in the forefront of their minds.

Yeah, the media would never do sneaky things to improve advertising sales.

 

[i'll give you the best part of my argument, right after these commercial messages.]

 

How much do you think they will make off of 50 or 100 sets of eyes coming to their website? How much do you think advertisers pay? Web advertisers is not just about people coming to a site. They need eyeballs to then click on their ad. THEN the site might make some money.

BUT, If people start to understand that when you drive, you are behind the wheel of a deadly weapon. Not only are the victims and their families lives effected, but this guy who killed them will be in prison i'm guessing the rest of his life, and his family suffers too. People need to see what stupid decisions can cause. I have no issue on how they did this.

I don't either. My issue was the stated reason. Maybe it's true, maybe not. But, based on the reputation of the media, I remain skeptical.

But drove traffic to their web site where they, say it with me, show it. That's BF's point, and he's right. No, I missed nothing.

That's the ticket! :thumb:

How much do you think they will make off of 50 or 100 sets of eyes coming to their website? How much do you think advertisers pay? Web advertisers is not just about people coming to a site. They need eyeballs to then click on their ad. THEN the site might make some money.

 

Interesting timing. By your estimation eyes = ad $$. Why then would the NYT erect a pay wall? In February their site attracted 31M unique visitors. Why would they risk alienating the great majority of those by forcing them to pay for their access? If eyes = $$ they should be swimming in money. They're not. By some estimations they will have about 4M digital subscribers.

 

It's a myth that eyeballs = $$. Therefore, I stand by my belief that you are incorrect in your assumption as to the ulterior motive.

Interesting timing. By your estimation eyes = ad $$. Why then would the NYT erect a pay wall? In February their site attracted 31M unique visitors. Why would they risk alienating the great majority of those by forcing them to pay for their access? If eyes = $$ they should be swimming in money. They're not. By some estimations they will have about 4M digital subscribers.

 

It's a myth that eyeballs = $$. Therefore, I stand by my belief that you are incorrect in your assumption as to the ulterior motive.

 

But...isn't getting those eyes there TO click on those links the first steps?

But...isn't getting those eyes there TO click on those links the first steps?

 

Yes.

 

However, one story isn't going to do it.

 

NYT proves that eyeballs aren't enough. Clicking on ads occasionally isn't enough.

Yes.

 

However, one story isn't going to do it.

 

NYT proves that eyeballs aren't enough. Clicking on ads occasionally isn't enough.

 

But, that's like saying that you can bake a cake without using the flour and eggs.

But, that's like saying that you can bake a cake without using the flour and eggs.

 

Disagree. NYT has shown that you have to charge people to enter your site if you're a news organization. 31M individuals came to their site in Feb and it wasn't enough to earn the money they think they can earn. More sites will follow. Heck, Guru followed. He couldn't make enough from eyeballs when it was free. He added value and expectations by charging for it. Eyeballs aren't enough.

 

I view TV channels' websites as advertising for the TV channel - not a moneymaker itself. I'd write it off as advertising expense for the TV channel.

I'm fairly certain they fpo have to release it, the Freedom of information act would require them to release if anyone requests it.

 

But I don't think it has to be immediate, if there is still a trial to take place and an investigation.

I don't mind them not showing it. My point all along was that they shouldn't say they are withholding it out of respect, if they're going to show it on their web site...which just happens to improve their page view numbers and make the advertisers happy. I just think some people (not necessarily, you) are being naive when they trust commercial media outlets to not have the almighty dollar in the forefront of their minds.

 

Stretch........