On the other side of the reasonableness equation, Jacobsen presented no evidence at trial of the impact that selling
Solo RFD in the gift shop would have on its sales and circulation in the Airport terminal. All we have on this issue is Jacobsen's unsupported assertion: “The only thing that we found that works in a consistent basis and is economically feasible is basic newsrack sales.” And that testimony was directed at
Solo RFD distribution generally. Jacobsen did not claim that he has unsuccessfully tried distributing at a small airport's exclusive gift shop—where one seller serves a geographically captive market. Nor did he present data comparing
Solo RFD sales through gift shops versus newsracks in locations comparable to the Rapid City Airport terminal. The gift shop concessionaire testified that he was willing to sell
Solo RFD in the gift shop, which is open fifteen of the sixteen hours per day that the Airport is open to the public. On this record, the district court's finding that the gift shop is not a “viable alternative channel[ ] for the sale of Jacobsen's newspapers” was speculation, unsupported by the evidence, and based primarily on the court's mistaken view that the City is not entitled to “profit” from newspaper sales.