Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: Salon's value
Author: Erik L. Neu Posted: 9/29/2000; 7:40:23 AM Topic: Salon's value Msg #: 21838 (In response to 21837) Prev/Next: 21837 / 21839
There have always been some great publications, like Harper's, The Atlantic, New Republic, etc, which had wonderful reputations, but were not worth very much. Generally, this kind of media has attracted an angel -- either a foundation or a rich, well-meaning owner (perhaps fuelled by ego) -- to keep them alive...Sorry to be all old economy over this, but the correlation between editorial quality and reputation and value of a media asset is not always a straight line I guess I fall in between.
I guess I fall in-between in my thoughts. I totally agree with both points (and would say the second is very under-stated!), but I think only the second one applies to Salon. Even in its editorial heyday, Salon, IMHO, was not in the league of The Atlantic or Harper's. And in the last few years, it has slid quite a bit. A huge percent of the articles are written by free-lancers. It is much more like a very high-glass tabloid, IMHO. National Enquirer for the upper-middle class.
So Salon's prospects for profitability (from its magazine operations) may be much better than those of Harper's, for example. But starting a new magazine hasn't been a way to get really rich for the past 30 years, and I think it is less so than ever in the internet era. So, Salon may make a little money, but it will not be a colossus of profitability, I think.
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:53 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.