In article <1993Jan21.005517.9787@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, joy@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chien-Chung Chen) writes:
|> In article <1jknkiINNpm5@pollux.usc.edu> mcyang@pollux.usc.edu (Bien-Chao Iunn) writes:
|> >Yes, the ban was lifted after 40 years. But, don't tell me it is a fair
|> >game today. One of the major reasons which brought the Capital Daily into
|> >bankruptcy was that the KMT United News threatened those news stands that
|> >if they keep selling newspapers for the Capital Daily, the United Daily
|> >will revoke their dealerships.
|>
|> Interesting story. Looks like an unfair competition to me. Could you
|> tell us whether this kind of boycott from the United Daily is lawful in
|> Taiwan? Has the Capital Daily issued a lawsuit against the United Daily?
|> If yes, how is the verdict? If no, why?
|>
|> Conflicts and unfairness happen everyday. There should be a way to bring
|> up justice, which should be determined by the judicial system, not by you
|> or me.
|>
|> -- Chien-Chung Chen
That is not the reason of bankruptcy. In News paper bussiness, just like the TV, advertisement revenue is the major source of the income. Readers of Capital Daily are those who are interested in politics news. They represent, unfortunately, minority. I doubt Capital Daily had any reasonable coverage on Sports, Bussiness, Life, Entertainment etc. Capital Daily can find no sponsor to put ADs on. Do you think Ford car dealers or Sogo Department store owners even consider to put the ADs on Capital Daily ?
Those who are interested in politics also prefer to subscribe magazines such as
New News for the indepth report.
If it is KMT's trick , then tell me why Indepent Daily is doing well ?