"...what readers want is smart, lengthy content with plenty of analysis."
There are decades worth of evidence to prove this is a pile of crap. The Washington Post did a lot of great analysis and long-form journalism and is now a shell of its once-great self. Same with the Los Angeles Times. And the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, while still surviving, have had to make some pretty drastic cuts. And they even have the huge advantage of being in the business, intellectual and cultural hub of the country.
And what do you think attracts readers to the Stranger? Charles Mudede's overwrought thumbsuckers or Savage Love and ads for hunky guys?
This format is called "the New Yorker before Tina Brown became editor". While I and a few others loved it, it did not make money in 1992 and I see no reason to believe it would make money now.
There are decades worth of evidence to prove this is a pile of crap. The Washington Post did a lot of great analysis and long-form journalism and is now a shell of its once-great self. Same with the Los Angeles Times. And the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, while still surviving, have had to make some pretty drastic cuts. And they even have the huge advantage of being in the business, intellectual and cultural hub of the country.
And what do you think attracts readers to the Stranger? Charles Mudede's overwrought thumbsuckers or Savage Love and ads for hunky guys?
And more sex scandals.
That is what has always worked before.