Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Has AOL Lost Its Sex Drive?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the somewhere-between-the-cdrom-and-the-floppy dept.

TheViewFromTheGround writes "Why have the years since the merger with Time Warner been so hard on America Online? Michael Wolff, a consultant who advised Time Warner not to buy AOL in the early 90's, says that the the big problem is Time Warner's denial of AOL's core value: a monopoly on dirty chat. The argument says that AOL was successful because they had a critical mass of people and that it skillfully marketed talking dirty by appearing to be family friendly. Now, the old media bedfellow is pushing AOL to stop its pimping ways."

3 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Waitaminnit by JPelorat · · Score: 1, Troll

    This isn't a dupe! We're overdue for one... damn, you guys can't even get your screwups right.

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  2. Actually ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Troll
    the only good thing about AOL.

    What else was there, ever?

  3. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0, Troll

    " I like the New York Times. But the Chicago Tribune is a fucking joke. There's *nothing* to read in the Tribune. It's like some goddamn newspaper for fifth graders."

    To keep with the tone of your post ...well, you are fucking snob.
    There is absolutely nothing to read in NYT beyond the usual leftist nonsense on the editorial page.
    Chicago Tribune is not as good as say WSJ but they are truly local paper with some national commentary as opposed to trying to be national paper for snobs and people who like to think they are "getting it".