Hot Boat Magazine For Sale?
VIP Member
12-16-2008, 09:19 AM
#13
Registered
I think you will see many publications faltering soon.Our worthless little local paper here in Naples ain't fairing to well in the ad revenue department these days.
The days of paper publications are near their end.Just to much cost to produce compared to online.It will only make it harder during these hard economic times with far less companies advertising and less subscribers to put out and deliver paper pubs.
The days of paper publications are near their end.Just to much cost to produce compared to online.It will only make it harder during these hard economic times with far less companies advertising and less subscribers to put out and deliver paper pubs.
12-16-2008, 09:41 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tampa, Indian Shores Beach
Posts: 3,300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Isn't Hot Boat owned by LFP Publications?? Larry Flint Publications?? Their is absolutely a value with this company, the question is how much?
Oddly, craigs list is one of the main reasons ADD sales are down, people are using free classifieds, rather than pay for them.
WILL
Oddly, craigs list is one of the main reasons ADD sales are down, people are using free classifieds, rather than pay for them.
WILL
12-16-2008, 09:44 AM
#15
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colorado / Lake Norman, NC
Posts: 999
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charter Member
12-16-2008, 10:32 AM
#17
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all this was true, it wouldn't be for sale on craigslist.
Pesky Varmint
Pesky Varmint
Hot Boat Magaizine for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: [email protected] [?]
Date: 2008-12-12, 8:55AM PST
No this is not a joke.Hot Boat Magaizine and HotBoat.com is looking for a business person to buy 25% to 100%. The business is best fit for a person or business that understands the performance boating world and is interested in reaching medium to high end consumers. The ROI could be 100% to 200% of your investment amount just in advertising value you would gain within one to two years with other key profit advantages.A good business person that understands the current market and wants to go after out-of-the-box advertisers and knows how to use the magazine as a tool to reach these companies. And a person that has a good or better wealth position in life and wants to have fun with the magazine and the possibilities that it brings. Please contact Don or Randy at (951)678-4028 This is truly a great opportunity for the right company/person.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: [email protected] [?]
Date: 2008-12-12, 8:55AM PST
No this is not a joke.Hot Boat Magaizine and HotBoat.com is looking for a business person to buy 25% to 100%. The business is best fit for a person or business that understands the performance boating world and is interested in reaching medium to high end consumers. The ROI could be 100% to 200% of your investment amount just in advertising value you would gain within one to two years with other key profit advantages.A good business person that understands the current market and wants to go after out-of-the-box advertisers and knows how to use the magazine as a tool to reach these companies. And a person that has a good or better wealth position in life and wants to have fun with the magazine and the possibilities that it brings. Please contact Don or Randy at (951)678-4028 This is truly a great opportunity for the right company/person.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
12-16-2008, 11:19 AM
#18
I think you will see many publications faltering soon.Our worthless little local paper here in Naples ain't fairing to well in the ad revenue department these days.
The days of paper publications are near their end.Just to much cost to produce compared to online.It will only make it harder during these hard economic times with far less companies advertising and less subscribers to put out and deliver paper pubs.
The days of paper publications are near their end.Just to much cost to produce compared to online.It will only make it harder during these hard economic times with far less companies advertising and less subscribers to put out and deliver paper pubs.
The Tribune was actually making money, but it is saddled with huge debt that is killing the company. They also own the Baltimore Sun and LA Times.
quote:
The last hope for the newspaper industry to avoid a massacre was the brand value, the cachet, of newspapers. They are (yes, still) power centers in their communities and are trophy assets for the rich players in those places. Those rich folks aren’t so rich anymore and nobody will lend them money to buy a fifty-cent copy of a paper now, much less $500 million for the whole operation.
Think the news has been bad for the industry in the last couple of years? The real blood-letting is about to begin.
Miami Herald is also on the block - no takers.
I wonder if the Naples News is regretting that big, shiny new building they are putting up right now. oops.
12-16-2008, 03:29 PM
#19
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
They might lose the newspapers but the medias are still formidable as a whole....
They got that last guy elected.....Everyone is freezing their azzes off and they pound us with global warming stuff.... It never ends. Pushing their cr@p on the impressionables...
They got that last guy elected.....Everyone is freezing their azzes off and they pound us with global warming stuff.... It never ends. Pushing their cr@p on the impressionables...
12-16-2008, 05:56 PM
#20
Formidable only if they adapt and develop what they have. Some will be successful. Some will not.
This whole subject is fascinating to me. I've always been a news junkie, but having worked with, and for, newspapers and magazines for a long time I was more than aware of the built-in biases of their reportage (especially newspapers). That was a big turn-off and I stopped really paying any attention to them for a long time. Then, along came the intertubes and my dreams of fair and balanced were answered.
This sea-change we're seeing is similar to what has happened to the music business over the last decade. The business model changed overnight, even though it took the entrenched dinosaurs years to admit it and eventually, accept it. Those who adapted and adopted are wildly successful- I read just last week that Apple passed the 5 billionth song sold on itunes.
Here's an interesting take from the economist:
Newspaper economics
Posted by: Economist.com | WASHINGTON
JAMES SUROWIECKI has an entertaining column this week on the business of news, riffing off the recent bankruptcy of the Tribune company. In it he writes, among other things:
People don't use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don't have to pay for it...
For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime--intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on--and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.
Felix Salmon has a very good response to this, which concludes with a nice paragraph:
There's an old saying that you'll never understand newspaper economics until you understand why newspaper vending machines are designed so that you can take as many papers as you like for your quarter. Newspapers are, first and last, devices for delivering ads to readers. It's the ads which account for all the profits, not the cash coming from subscribers or people who buy their paper at the newsstand. Yes, news itself is free, nowadays. But it always has been. What we've been paying for all these years was never news, it was papers.
I liked both pieces, but I think they also miss something about the current market for news, namely, the fact that it's glutted. Technology hasn't just changed the demand for newspapers, it's also changed the supply of information. News used to be an oligopolistic business, now it's just about perfectly competitive. Barriers to entry are minimal, and plenty of suppliers are happy to provide content at next to nothing. That's a recipe for a big drop in price, and any organisation built on market power and rents is sure to fail in such an environment.
Does this mean that news, as a business, is dead? Not necessarily. Some papers will survive by selling things other than news—reputation, say, or exclusivity. Others will hang on until the print market shrinks enough that profitability is possible for a handful (or fewer) of national papers. Survivors in both groups are also likely to capitalise on the demand for news products that remain scarce—especially investigative reporting.
And that indicates one area where some public support for journalism might be absolutely necessary. Good, thorough investigative reporting is a non-excludable public good. If a good reporter digs up a major corruption scandal at City Hall, everyone under the purview of the city government benefits, even though far fewer will actually shell out to read the coverage. There's good reason to think, then, that investigative reporting is undersupplied, particularly in small markets.
I'm content to let many of the nation's newspapers go belly up, but I'm nervous about a world where many cities are entirely without a few seasoned reporters, who make it their business to ask hard questions and keep an eye on those in need of accountability. Some public support for investigative journalism is likely warranted.
This whole subject is fascinating to me. I've always been a news junkie, but having worked with, and for, newspapers and magazines for a long time I was more than aware of the built-in biases of their reportage (especially newspapers). That was a big turn-off and I stopped really paying any attention to them for a long time. Then, along came the intertubes and my dreams of fair and balanced were answered.
This sea-change we're seeing is similar to what has happened to the music business over the last decade. The business model changed overnight, even though it took the entrenched dinosaurs years to admit it and eventually, accept it. Those who adapted and adopted are wildly successful- I read just last week that Apple passed the 5 billionth song sold on itunes.
Here's an interesting take from the economist:
Newspaper economics
Posted by: Economist.com | WASHINGTON
JAMES SUROWIECKI has an entertaining column this week on the business of news, riffing off the recent bankruptcy of the Tribune company. In it he writes, among other things:
People don't use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don't have to pay for it...
For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime--intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on--and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.
Felix Salmon has a very good response to this, which concludes with a nice paragraph:
There's an old saying that you'll never understand newspaper economics until you understand why newspaper vending machines are designed so that you can take as many papers as you like for your quarter. Newspapers are, first and last, devices for delivering ads to readers. It's the ads which account for all the profits, not the cash coming from subscribers or people who buy their paper at the newsstand. Yes, news itself is free, nowadays. But it always has been. What we've been paying for all these years was never news, it was papers.
I liked both pieces, but I think they also miss something about the current market for news, namely, the fact that it's glutted. Technology hasn't just changed the demand for newspapers, it's also changed the supply of information. News used to be an oligopolistic business, now it's just about perfectly competitive. Barriers to entry are minimal, and plenty of suppliers are happy to provide content at next to nothing. That's a recipe for a big drop in price, and any organisation built on market power and rents is sure to fail in such an environment.
Does this mean that news, as a business, is dead? Not necessarily. Some papers will survive by selling things other than news—reputation, say, or exclusivity. Others will hang on until the print market shrinks enough that profitability is possible for a handful (or fewer) of national papers. Survivors in both groups are also likely to capitalise on the demand for news products that remain scarce—especially investigative reporting.
And that indicates one area where some public support for journalism might be absolutely necessary. Good, thorough investigative reporting is a non-excludable public good. If a good reporter digs up a major corruption scandal at City Hall, everyone under the purview of the city government benefits, even though far fewer will actually shell out to read the coverage. There's good reason to think, then, that investigative reporting is undersupplied, particularly in small markets.
I'm content to let many of the nation's newspapers go belly up, but I'm nervous about a world where many cities are entirely without a few seasoned reporters, who make it their business to ask hard questions and keep an eye on those in need of accountability. Some public support for investigative journalism is likely warranted.
