I’d like to see something which supplies a small daily dose of established science, but you’d probably need a writer who’s as engaging as Asimov—and even then, not that many people are interested.
The writing at Wikipedia tends not to be engaging. Admittedly, I’m generalizing from one example.
I’m not sure that this is a full-time job for just one person. If nothing else, getting advertising is work.
I think the Philadelphia Weekly is a pretty good free paper, but I read most of the articles and ignore the advertising.
I don’t think the basic idea is bad, but I’d start with a website—lower investment, more flexibility, and better feedback about what people read. It would be a better way to find out what actually engages people.
The problem with website is: how do you make people look at it? Especially those not already interested in topics you want to write about. The competition is huge.
(With free newspaper, the answer is: reading the paper you already have in your hand is easier than reading any other paper.)
You can’t make anyone look at anything. Ok, maybe a bright flashing light, but that’s not a lot of information.
Consent is essential. Look at how people dodge advertisements most of the time.
I suspect that raising the sanity waterline (possibly a bad metaphor, because it leaves out the minds of the people we’re trying to influence) needs to be thought about more clearly—which people are we trying to influence, and what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
What makes you think that your efforts to put a newspaper in my hand will be more successful than those of the local bible study group that occasionally camps out in front of my college library and try to put copies of their Jesus newsletter in my hand?
(With free newspaper, the answer is: reading the paper you already have in your hand is easier than reading any other paper.)
Not reading any paper at all is even easier. (How much easier depends on the distance from the nearest waste bin, and on whether you’re wearing a handbag or something to store it into for later reading while keeping your hands free.)
Through your mailbox. (Oh, do we have a cultural difference here? I can imagine that somewhere putting unwanted papers in other peoples’ mailboxes could be illegal. Actually, I would prefer that.)
In the US, I believe it’s not legal to put anything in a mailbox which hasn’t been mailed. There’s a free hyperlocal newsetter which is left on my doorstep in a plastic bag. I don’t read it. There are at least two local free papers which are left in coffee shops and some stores, and also available from metal boxes on the street.
I’d like to see something which supplies a small daily dose of established science, but you’d probably need a writer who’s as engaging as Asimov—and even then, not that many people are interested.
The writing at Wikipedia tends not to be engaging. Admittedly, I’m generalizing from one example.
I’m not sure that this is a full-time job for just one person. If nothing else, getting advertising is work.
I think the Philadelphia Weekly is a pretty good free paper, but I read most of the articles and ignore the advertising.
I don’t think the basic idea is bad, but I’d start with a website—lower investment, more flexibility, and better feedback about what people read. It would be a better way to find out what actually engages people.
The problem with website is: how do you make people look at it? Especially those not already interested in topics you want to write about. The competition is huge.
(With free newspaper, the answer is: reading the paper you already have in your hand is easier than reading any other paper.)
You can’t make anyone look at anything. Ok, maybe a bright flashing light, but that’s not a lot of information.
Consent is essential. Look at how people dodge advertisements most of the time.
I suspect that raising the sanity waterline (possibly a bad metaphor, because it leaves out the minds of the people we’re trying to influence) needs to be thought about more clearly—which people are we trying to influence, and what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
What makes you think that your efforts to put a newspaper in my hand will be more successful than those of the local bible study group that occasionally camps out in front of my college library and try to put copies of their Jesus newsletter in my hand?
Not reading any paper at all is even easier. (How much easier depends on the distance from the nearest waste bin, and on whether you’re wearing a handbag or something to store it into for later reading while keeping your hands free.)
How does it get into my hand?
Through your mailbox. (Oh, do we have a cultural difference here? I can imagine that somewhere putting unwanted papers in other peoples’ mailboxes could be illegal. Actually, I would prefer that.)
It’s legal here (the UK). I receive a free local newspaper every week. It goes straight in the bin.
Maybe leaving a pile of them in coffee shops would be a more promising way to get readers. But I’m guessing based on a sample of myself.
In the US, I believe it’s not legal to put anything in a mailbox which hasn’t been mailed. There’s a free hyperlocal newsetter which is left on my doorstep in a plastic bag. I don’t read it. There are at least two local free papers which are left in coffee shops and some stores, and also available from metal boxes on the street.
I think there’s something missing after “the” in the penultimate paragraph.
Thanks. The url needed http://.