• Advertising Age, Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:30 AM

This week New York Times writer Frank Rich became the latest to argue that cable- and satellite-TV subscriptions should give hope to the newspaper industry. But cable and satellite subscriptions really aren't a very good model for newspapers, writes Nat Ives.

The main reason is that cable and TV offers something better than broadcast TV. Their packages include perfect reception, programming you couldn't get otherwise and many channels that are mostly unavailable any other way. Newspapers, on the other hand, are trying to take back content that people already view on the Web for free. International news, sports coverage and city council meetings are not necessarily comparable to "The Sopranos," live out-of-town sports, recently released movies and nudity.

Plus, cable companies are far from safe. They are freaked out that many people may drop their cable and satellite subscriptions because they can watch many shows free online. Cable's still got a shot at importing cable subscriptions to the Web, but newspapers are still looking for the hit they can charge for.

Read the whole story at Advertising Age »