Well, Rolling Stone certainly got my attention when I saw this cover headline in the checkout line at Earth Fare yesterday:
THE INSIDE STORY
So I immediately resolved to look up the piece and read it when I got to my laptop.
But I couldn’t, because they didn’t post the actual article. Oh, they posted all sorts of teasers and promotional material, such as the “story behind the story,” and gallery after gallery of fab pics of the lads back in the day.
But not the actual story.
We can debate from now until the last newspaper closes the relative wisdom of posting one’s precious content online for free. Maybe Rolling Stone’s got it going on teasing us to distraction this way. But I wonder: Which approach sells more magazines — this, or the Vogue approach? No, I didn’t go out and buy a copy of the Vogue with the Jenny Sanford piece; I was satisfied with what I found online. But I’ll bet the fact that bloggers were able to read, and then tout, the contents did lead to at least some people who are more in Vogue‘s demographic to go out and buy the slick dead-tree version.
I don’t know. But I know I’m not shelling out $4.99 to read the piece about the fall of The Beatles. Hey, I lived through the time, and I know why The Beatles broke up — because the ’60s ended. Duh.
Now there was a time when I would have shelled out the money. But not anymore. I guess that shows how old I am. And that the ’60s really are over…