Posted on 11/12/2010 3:20:11 PM PST by jimbo123
There apparently isn’t room for two sites at the Newsweek Daily Beast Company. The new joint venture will kill off Newsweek.com, even though its audience is larger than the Beast’s.
Newsweek.com, the offshoot of a 77-year-old brand, has 3.8 million monthly unique visitors to the two-year-old Beast’s 1.5 million, according to Compete.com.
The Beast is the survivor, said Stephen Colvin, the company’s new CEO, “Because the Daily Beast is a very credible and successful news and opinion Web site. And with great vitality and distinct voice.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaweek.com ...
This has Tina Brown’s cloven hoof prints all over it!
Credible?
Ping!
Ping!
Will the Daily Beast be forced to cut off Meghan McCain’s unlimited supply of jelly donuts as a result of the merger? Or will George Soros find the money to keep them coming?
Haven't read anything from or about Newsweek in years except that it was sold for $1 and became even more unfathomably obtuse as it searches for more extreme ways to peddle Leftwingtard delusions.
NewsBeast
Bet the corporation will not write off the goodwill on the balance sheet for the Newsweek brand and the newsweek.com website domain.
TO do so would nuke the entire deal.
Mark to fantasy fully embraced by the DailyBeast!!, news at... never, no one cares.
Isn’t the Daily Beast a blog?
ping
It sounds like a sex with animals sicko website.
If this is all you can get for a dollar these days I take it as proof that the devaluation of the dollar is in full swing.
“Haven’t read anything from or about Newsweek in years except that it was sold for $1”
You didn’t miss much, as these covers illustrate:
http://amominredhighheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sarah-palin-newsweek-cover1.jpg
http://bumpshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sarah-palin-newsweek-cover-photos.jpg
Buh bye Newsstink.
Never heard of either of these.
Libtard press needs to realize that 90% of Libtards DON’T READ ! ! ! ! The other 10% CAN’T READ.
Ha!
Translation: Daily Beast is a lot cheaper to operate.
No kidding!
Newsweek disappears, she is the editor and the Daily Beast [a hard left rag] survives.
Yes. But now with the imprimatur of the Newsweek name. Not that their name is worth anything.
Uncle George can always find money to take care of maverick Megs and her spooky dude parents.
Beast writers are cheap. There are no editors.
Die, die, die. Now if we could just get rid of the N&O.
Newsweek had a website? Why? What purpose did it serve?
Thank you for answering my question, which may sound stupid, but was meant to have a point.
First of all, The Daily Beast is definitely a blog. It is, for example listed as a blog on Technorati, the blog search engine, etc.
http://technorati.com/blogs/www.thedailybeast.com
My question reflects my surprise that a mere blog has swallowed up a long-established media giant, albeit one that has fallen on hard financial times because it no longer meets customer needs.
However, The Daily Beast is a lot better funded than most blogs, and can afford to pay the salaries of such media stars as Tina Brown, and to get well-known writers to produce articles for it.
One reason that I am so surprised is that I am myself a blogger. I run a (strictly non-political) blog for our business that is well-respected in our industry. However, like most blogs it has essentially a zero budget. And I would never have thought that our modest blog could ever become a big business on its own.
However, after the Daily Beast takeover of Newsweek, maybe I should think again!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
