Rush's is one of two radio shows I'm willing to pay to listen to. (This is the other one, but unfortunately they're not offering.)
And yes, Rush 24/7 is WELL worth the money. Especially compared to other radio hosts' subscription sites.
-Dan
Posted on 09/21/2005 3:35:43 PM PDT by goldstategop
RUSH: Welcome to the program, Pete. I'm glad you called.
CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush, long-time listener, first-time caller.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Uh, you were talking earlier about the $49 that the New York Times is charging now to read their op-ed page?
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: Just looking at the surface of that as far as paying people to read their opinion, what's the difference between that and your service?
RUSH: (laughs) Well, where do I start? My service has more than just five or six op-ed writers on it. If you've been to the Rush 24/7 site, you're looking at a veritable encyclopedia of information, historical data, and intelligence. It's all wrapped up -- it's got far more value to it than five or six editorial writers in the New York Times, three or four of them who all say the same thing anyway. The second thing is it's stupid marketing. You can buy the newspaper for 50 cents and not have to pay the website price of $49.95 if you want to read that drivel in the newspaper. The third mistake is: For how many years did they give it away? They established the notion that it was free. This is a problem I think that a lot of websites are going to face, because they gave it away.
I've been wondering when they're going to start charging for some of these services in the first place for a number of years. It's just insupportable. It's no wonder these outfits are losing money. Their circulation is down, probably some of that being made up by people reading online. There's not nearly the banner advertising revenue on websites that there is. That's why they're charging subscriptions to try to make some money back on this. The third thing is they're charging for the wrong thing. If you're going to charge $49.95, charge for some content. Charge for the rest of the newspaper. You know, throw in the op-eds for nothing b-- you know, as an incentive for people to actually pay for the service. They've got it backwards. The marketing here is so -- it's -- well, it's understandable; they're a bunch of libs. And it's interesting. They think that, you know, people that can't afford things ought to have them given to them and the Times tried it and they found out you can't sustain giving their stuff away. Now, when they can't sustain it they're going to start charging everybody for it but they bitch and moan about everybody else who does the same thing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, other reasons why it makes sense for us to charge, the New York Times doesn't have a Dittocam. Who in the world would pay to watch Maureen Dowd do anything much less write a column? The New York Times doesn't have anything like podcasting, as we have here. The New York Times has nothing fun. There's not one thing fun about the New York Times. Nothing! Reading the New York Times is sheer drudgery, misery and depression. That's all it is. Who wants to pay for that? We have to pay for enough misery as it is with our cable TV bills and the phone bills and everything else, but on the Rush Limbaugh Show you get Club G'itmo. You get the Club G'itmo photo gallery, all kinds of fun, plus access to this program on a daily basis. This program doesn't cost you anything to listen to on the radio, doesn't cost you a thing. But the website offers more than just what is on the radio. The New York Times website doesn't offer one thing more than isn't in the newspaper on a daily basis other than its archives.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Where did the Gray hag put their story on Mike Pence and Operation Offset I wonder?
Perfectly said. Our present crop of Liberals have no sense of fun, nor humor. Hence political correctness. Hence their imminent demise.
I've been wondering when they're going to start charging for some of these services in the first place for a number of years. It's just insupportable. It's no wonder these outfits are losing money. Their circulation is down, probably some of that being made up by people reading online. There's not nearly the banner advertising revenue on websites that there is. That's why they're charging subscriptions to try to make some money back on this. The third thing is they're charging for the wrong thing. If you're going to charge $49.95, charge for some content. Charge for the rest of the newspaper. You know, throw in the op-eds for nothing b-- you know, as an incentive for people to actually pay for the service. They've got it backwards. The marketing here is so -- it's -- well, it's understandable; they're a bunch of libs.
Got love the Rush.
Err... I'd rather watch Catherine Zeta Jones write a column.... she's more fun to watch any day than MoDow -;-)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Also, Rush isn't laying off 700 people...
Serious question...
As the MSM decline, what do people think will rise up to replace them... after all, bloggers and Rush and FR don't do much primary reporting--it's analysis.
Do you think that private reporters will be the next wave? Conservative newspapers? Moderate newspapers? An absence of hard news coverage?
Rush said from day 1, his website was a capitalist venture, most others did not. He has been honest about breaking for advertisements, to make money, not to rest his voice, and well, enough said.
BECAUSEEEEEEEEE the Gray Hag is STUCK ON STUPID!! LOL!!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Nothing. ABC, NBC, etc aren't going anywhere (anymore than they were when they were covering Vietnam).
I want to know where The Grey Hag put the story on the Afghan elections.
And yes, Rush 24/7 is WELL worth the money. Especially compared to other radio hosts' subscription sites.
-Dan
The marketing here is so -- it's -- well, it's understandable; they're a bunch of libs.
---
LOL, reminds me of:
A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist.
- Ronald Reagan
A pool of independents throughout the country breaking news, real-time with no fluff, no politics and no nonsense. The investigative stuff will be done by bloggers. Non-profits will form as watchdog organizations.
ABC, NBC will eventually close their newsrooms simply because they will not have the power to compete.
Even simpler, Rush practices what he preaches: capitalism. If Rush's website lost money he'd shut it down because it wasn't profitable. The Times never misses an opportunity to editorialize how wonderful labor unions are yet when the profits go bye-bye it lays off union members. Still the Times doesn't have the courage to say high labor costs had anything to do with the layoffs. It simply blames it all on lower circulation, as if the public had a moral obligation to buy its' paper...and therefore support the union members.
This is the height of elitist hypocrisy. And it's no different than the Dixie Chicks attitude that "no matter what our personal opinions are and no matter that we publicly proclaim them, you 'little people' have an obligation to buy our product because we are who we are". Not to mention that liberals don't have the common sense to realize when you run your mouth about politics these days there's a good chance you're gonna alienate half of the market. It's not rocket science but it is logic and elitists can't comprehend the concept.
Regardless of the New York Times' ideology, does anybody believe it would be in this dire situation if it was not a closed union shop? The Times has two choices. Cut payroll or change with the times (no pun intended). It chose the first because, being elitists, it's impossible for those there to do the second.
Why would any liberal be so dumb as to throw that softball question to Rush? He's tough to go against, just ask Howard Dean - remember, he ran against Rush in the primaries. As I recall, the result was 34 to 1 when Dean
dropped out. (Of course, that's using Dean's failed logic)
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.