So the Charlotte Observer now charges you....

[vmaxnc]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

First, just because someone receives revenue from one source does not mean they are making enough revenue altogether. Second, some of this hits may not be tracking but simply loading assets such as buttons or security context. Third, tracking companies are often paid to tally information instead of charged. Finally, if they were charged by volume, a pay wall makes sense in order to keep those numbers lower than they would be if people were all over the place.

The example that ticks me off the most is Domino's Pizza. They run through at least a dozen companies and many are trackers and they already have me as a customer. They won already. I'm there to buy a damn pizza and they slow down the process.

This. Limiting oneself to one revenue stream doesn't make much fiscal sense if there is another available.

Originally Posted by cltlilly

Which of the 6 corporations listed above does your theory pertain to?

He is referring to the CO, not the trackers, I assume, based on the post I highlighted.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by cltlilly

Which of the 6 corporations listed above does your theory pertain to?

The logic holds true to the universe. Well, the known universe.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by vmaxnc

He is referring to the CO, not the trackers, I assume, based on the post I highlighted.

Right. Just because the CO allegedly has revenue from the trackers doesn't mean it's enough to pay the bills. I was making hand over fist on website ad revenue until the bubble burst and the industry decided what was worth $3 is now worth $.002.

So when these sites started it was assumed that advertising revenue would keep them afloat and maybe help the ink and paper side of the business. Now major papers are getting rid of their photographers and telling their reporters to use their iPhones. This isn't because the editors think iPhones are better. Papers are in real trouble.

I doubt the trackers are paying much if not anything to glean data for some huge aggregate. Most likely it is to enhance existing ad streams which still pretty much suck no matter what.

[cltlilly]

Allegedly? LOL

The original point being responded to was that the Observer needed to charge because it allegedly needs the money to run its website. This was a presumption as well. You guys are countering a presumption with a presumption.

No matter, I won't be paying the fee as I don't read the rag anyway.

[Bulok]

If you run NoScript on Firefox you can read the site without paying