|WikiProject Journalism||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
The section on cannibalisation gets it wrong. Cannibalisation happens when a company releases a new product that eats into the market of one of its existing product. This would happen if a newspaper company launches a new free news daily that eats marketshare of its paid version. But, that is not the case in here. Free newspapers and paid newspapers have different publishers and hence there is no cannibalisation. It would be appropriate some one remove that section.
- The section on cannibalization was over-stated, but is not flat-out wrong. In several markets -- the article correctly mentions New York, Chicago, D.C. and London -- the threat of cannibalization does exist, becuase free dailies are being published by the same companies as established paid dailies. I edited the section, retitled it "Competition and cannibalization", and re-added it. ``` W i k i W i s t a h W a s s a p ``` 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be US-centric. I realise that all editors can make contributions, but the majority of the text seems to relate to the US. Does this mean that only US-Americans have an interest in making edits relating to free daily newspapers? Or that the urban US is a hotbed of free daily newspapers? I've spent much time in the US, but have never seen a free daily newspaper other than "shoppers" newspapers. On the other hand, I have seen numerious examples in Europe and in London.--TGC55 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seemed rather a mess. Just to take one example: "Local publishers are now responsible for almost half of the total circulation of free daily newspapers. They have a monopoly in Belgium, the UK..." What does this mean? There are two evening frees distributed in London (in addition to a free morning and other free weeklies). The two evening papers are both owned by major (competitive) national newspaper groups. The statement in the article just seems very odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not entirely sure about that, but this seems strange to me. Can someone confirm?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free newspaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928125924/http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2001/08aug/010815birm.shtml to http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2001/08aug/010815birm.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.