March 18, 201115 yr 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.Clyde, I don't care if only one person clicks the ad, they claimed they wouldn't show it out of respect for the family members then tell you go to their website where they show it. Classless. If it was my family member, I'd be rather unhappy about it. Some repect...
March 18, 201115 yr Clyde, I don't care if only one person clicks the ad, they claimed they wouldn't show it out of respect for the family members then tell you go to their website where they show it. Classless. If it was my family member, I'd be rather unhappy about it. Some repect... RTS, you can debate all day whether they should show it on their website. I'm telling you that the NYT proves that they are not intentionally driving people there for revenue purposes. The family respect issue is a completely different argument and one that BF claims he is not making.
March 18, 201115 yr I agree with Clyde here. I'll buy their reasoning for not showing it. I think you all are stretching it. They obviously get more eyes on the TV rather than their website. If they only cared about a buck, they would of showed it in their original newscast where they get most of their audience like the other news channels.
March 18, 201115 yr RTS, you can debate all day whether they should show it on their website. I'm telling you that the NYT proves that they are not intentionally driving people there for revenue purposes. The family respect issue is a completely different argument and one that BF claims he is not making. BF can handle his point, I'm arguing the "respect for the family" claim they gave with a wink and a nod.
March 18, 201115 yr I agree with Clyde here. I'll buy their reasoning for not showing it. I think you all are stretching it. They obviously get more eyes on the TV rather than their website. If they only cared about a buck, they would of showed it in their original newscast where they get most of their audience like the other news channels.I not arguing about the buck made, don't tell me "we won't show it out of respect for the family" then in the same breath tell me "you can see it on our website". That comes across, as BF said earlier, as phony.
March 18, 201115 yr I not arguing about the buck made, don't tell me "we won't show it out of respect for the family" then in the same breath tell me "you can see it on our website". That comes across, as BF said earlier, as phony. That wasn't BF's argument. He said they had financial motives.
March 18, 201115 yr That wasn't BF's argument. He said they had financial motives.It's my argument, more-so than anything. I don't know how much they do or don't make off of their site traffic. I'm sure they don't mind the hits on the site in the least.
March 18, 201115 yr RTS, you can debate all day whether they should show it on their website. I'm telling you that the NYT proves that they are not intentionally driving people there for revenue purposes. The family respect issue is a completely different argument and one that BF claims he is not making. :thumb: I agree with Clyde here. I'll buy their reasoning for not showing it. I think you all are stretching it. They obviously get more eyes on the TV rather than their website. If they only cared about a buck, they would of showed it in their original newscast where they get most of their audience like the other news channels. :thumb:
March 18, 201115 yr :thumb: :thumb: Where's the thumbs down smilie when we need it? :lol: Right here: Edited March 18, 201115 yr by Birdsfan
March 18, 201115 yr Author I agree with Clyde here. I'll buy their reasoning for not showing it. I think you all are stretching it. They obviously get more eyes on the TV rather than their website. If they only cared about a buck, they would of showed it in their original newscast where they get most of their audience like the other news channels.Showing it on TV, at that point, would have given them no additional revenue. On the other hand, sending page views to their site does create revenue.
March 18, 201115 yr Author I not arguing about the buck made, don't tell me "we won't show it out of respect for the family" then in the same breath tell me "you can see it on our website". That comes across, as BF said earlier, as phony.That's all I was trying to say. Didn't mean to make such a big deal out of this thing.
March 18, 201115 yr Showing it on TV, at that point, would have given them no additional revenue. On the other hand, sending page views to their site does create revenue. Again, incorrect.
March 18, 201115 yr Author Again, incorrect.Don't know how much you know about the Internet. It's completely correct. That's the way it works.
March 18, 201115 yr Don't know how much you know about the Internet. It's completely correct. That's the way it works. When you refute the NYT I'll listen.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.