I have published indie monthlies and I'd chalk the Voice's demise up to things like a serious decline in classifieds revenue, trouble getting visibility once they were online only, and the kind of advertising/printing problems that only an indie weekly could experience.
If the sub thirty crowd is that powerful, I'd genuinely love to know.
I consume content voraciously
And how do you expect to read Pulitzer winning journalism among these?
Which is odd considering his high education having attained a Massachusetts in the 30th best school in the nation. You'd think he'd know better than to do that.
Regardless of whether or not he would fall within Village Voice's demographic, the fact that he was never aware of it is telling of nothing. Nothing is ever going to capture 100% of their target demographic. And thanks to wide breadth of the totality of human experiences the world has to offer, that he was not aware of it says nothing except that it never crossed his sphere of awareness.
I mean, I'm not aware of a lot of things myself. Barely aware of a ton. Like I might vaguely remember hearing something possibly about it maybe. Kind of acquainted with some. I'll know the name but not exactly what it is, or kind of know what it is, but not the name. Etc, etc. I don't have time to be intimately familiar with everything. No one does.
Weird.
Well, consuming e.g. Medium posts or Lambda the Ultimate discussions is not the same as consuming the kind of content that gets Pulitzers.
I signed a lease for an apartment after searching google maps for the closest corporate apartment buildings (Bozzuto) near my job.
I bought Verizon internet because that's what the building is wired for.
I bought an LG phone because I impartially reviewed the specs and played with the phones at the closest Walmart to my house.
I bought a bag of onions and some ground chicken from the closest/cheapest super market to my house.
I think you get the point. I don't buy things like RGB keyboards or concert tickets, that require exposure
The reason you know the name "LG" isn't because you somehow heard the name through a complex series of coincidental events... instead, it's because LG spends money in a way that directly or indirectly imprints their brand in your mind.
It being the most "snappy" and "responsive" of the phones in the price range may just be your brain responding positively to the most known brand in that price range. A brand recognition that LG does pay a good deal for.
I mean, it boils down to the old "Pepsi Challenge". In the blind, people will prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola most of the time. But if people know which is which before hand, Coca-Cola is chosen more often as being "better". (Although Pepsi is sweeter than Coca-Cola on average and people respond to sugar, which is what led to "New Coke").
Same things happen with fast food. Taking the exact same food and putting it in familiar branded packaging and people respond more favorably to it. Everything from chicken nuggets to carrot sticks.
And the converse happens. People who have convinced themselves of certain things, can have their perception of an item influenced in particular ways. Say those people who abhor fast food and only buy farm-fresh, local, organic, blah because it "tastes better". You can cut up a McDonald's chicken nugget, present it pleasantly as a local organic whatever and have people compare it to another nugget you present as a McDonald's nugget and people will sit there and tell you how they can taste the difference.
So yes, you might have bought the LG because you felt it was the snappiest phone at that price, but you only felt that way because of advertising.
I wouldn't have paid for it.
It existed to appeal to people, and get ads in front of them. Just like The Onion. At which point, whether the ads worked or not (and just like everywhere else on the internet, people resist and try to ignore ads, and that resistance is a known quantity) advertisers paid to get in front of eyeballs. Mostly, New York concert venues paid for its existence, and you picked up the paper, to see who was playing that week, or what dates upcoming shows were. That's why it was free in New York. It didn't really advertise any events outside of New York.
Additionally, advertisers pay for conversion, not eyeballs. If they aren't noticing an uptick in prospects or revenue, they stop advertising with their current campaigns
I was a paid subscriber to the Village Voice for a year or so when I was living in Minneapolis. 2008/2009, I think ?
So while the cover price was indeed zero, there were indeed people paying to read it.
I'm sad that an alt-news source has died. I would have loved to consume their content, but I wouldn't have paid for it. I don't really buy much stuff either, so ads don't work on me.
RIP