If the situation were such that the cheap medium has less reach into the target demographic and the more expensive one have a greater reach, then yes, the latter is the better choice.

In the end, this story was about my particular case, which was that Craigslist was the better-performing advertising vehicle. It’s not about being cheap, it’s about getting the most bang for my buck.

People who use craiglist are also using the paper also.

The older the generation, the higher the tendency to not to use the internet. Its demographics, and factual!!

I think, the smartest strategy (depending on the time constraints you have to rent/sell) you should always cover both bases, to reduce risk.

I have just had different responses for both.
My car didn’t sell in craigslist but sold in the Star.
I have rented out a few rental units faster on craigslist then the star (But rented the more pricier ones quicker on the star).

In the end it depends on the demographic, the market and the particular offering at the time.

So - why not just to both? Have we gotten that cheap?

like http://toronto.khrido.com and many more ….

• The effectiveness of the local newspaper. The odds are that the newspaper’s classifieds section will be stronger if it’s not part of a chain and running a lot of syndicated material, but instead has a strong local feel.
• The concentration of university/college/community college students in the area. These are the typical Craigslist “early adopters”.

Ryan

-OE