An interesting point, but you shouldn't be so sweeping with your generalization.
A perfect counterpoint is The Economist magazine, which has increased print circulation 50% (from 1 million to 1.5 million weekly) over the past decade and is among the few "old" media institutions that is thriving in the new media world - its digital-only sales (for tablets/PCs) recently passed 100,000 weekly.
Counter to your argument, there is not a single byline in any of the Economist's articles, and even its columnists write with historical pseudonyms like "Bagehot" and "Lexington." Its publisher hasn't been named in print since 2006.
The Economist has proved that quality content and a consistent/branded voice can still work in today's media world. It's not just about the individual, as much as bloggers and social media mavens wish it were.
A perfect counterpoint is The Economist magazine, which has increased print circulation 50% (from 1 million to 1.5 million weekly) over the past decade and is among the few "old" media institutions that is thriving in the new media world - its digital-only sales (for tablets/PCs) recently passed 100,000 weekly.
Counter to your argument, there is not a single byline in any of the Economist's articles, and even its columnists write with historical pseudonyms like "Bagehot" and "Lexington." Its publisher hasn't been named in print since 2006.
The Economist has proved that quality content and a consistent/branded voice can still work in today's media world. It's not just about the individual, as much as bloggers and social media mavens wish it were.