Disqus - Friends of sidmarks

Re: When a blog beats a NYT story

mathewi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:15:50 -0000

Yes that's a good point, Scott. I find it hard to understand why there
wasn't even a simple pointer to the blog though.

Re: When a blog beats a NYT story

mathewi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:17:46 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Dave. I agree that it shouldn't have been either/or
-- why would the NYT not package the two together as a feature, or at the
very least include a link to the blog? I just don't understand that. In
any case, congrats to you and to Lindsay on a job well done.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:41:22 -0000

So newspapers fail to convert readers who come in through search. Is
that Google's fault, or the Internet's fault, or is it the fault of
the newspaper for not knowing (or caring) how to engage and convert
and retain readers? Better to focus on charging an ever-shrinking
number of devoted readers ever-increasing sums for the same old
content. Great strategy.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:18:28 -0000

Obviously he still has promotional power -- all kinds of it. So I'll be interested to see what happens to his business when he removes Google and virtually all of social media from that equation. Should be a fascinating test case.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:36:03 -0000

Yes, I can see how Rupert would see things that way -- and so he is willing
to potentially endanger the long-term online growth (if not survival) of
some of his key media properties because he wants to take down Google so
they don't someday decide to compete with him. Classic.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:27 -0000

I didn't say that's all they should care about, Mark -- I said that when it
comes to search, all they should care about is that readers can find their
content, not whether Google or Microsoft or Yahoo is on top.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:14:01 -0000

I don't see how it's a net benefit to News Corp. -- or any other major media
outlet, for that matter -- if they all pull out of Google and no one
benefits directly, but Google is somehow negatively impacted. The only
companies I can think of that benefit in that scenario are Microsoft and
Yahoo, but why should Murdoch or anyone else celebrate that? All they care
about (or should care about) is that people can find their content. So my
two things would be:

1. News Corp. pulls out of the index and nothing happens, in which case why
did they bother?

2. they pull out of the index and they lose all kinds of traffic and
mind-share and attention and promotional value through link-sharing, blogs,
etc. -- but they don't notice until it's too late, and by that point
re-entering the index doesn't help.

That sounds like a sucker bet to me.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:03:48 -0000

Strikes me as a great approach, George -- the same way many blogs have
"landing page" boxes that promote their RSS feed, related posts, etc.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:41:56 -0000

Fair enough, Mark -- although I think that the theoretical Fox News audience is more fungible than either you or Ian (or Rupert) want to admit. In any case, what you have described is a recipe for maintaining a certain audience, not increasing it.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:36:47 -0000

I think news is more of a commodity than either you or Rupert wants to admit, Ian.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:53:18 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Mark; always a pleasure to hear from you.
Don't read too much into the "crusty old billionaire" crack -- I was
just yanking your chain a little :-)

As far as the whole business model thing is concerned, please read my
response to Ian -- I am not some kind of business naïf, or Internet
triumphalist. And I don't think advertising is the key to making
content pay online, in part because of the factors you describe.

But the fact remains that in order to prove value, or even
successfully create it, we have to use tools like Twitter and Facebook
and yes, even Google -- not cut them off and put roadblocks in their
way. People sharing our content is one of the best marketing tools we
have available; why would we make that even harder than we do already?

You should be thanking me for saying that you're right about the power
of Twitter etc. But you don't explain how that jibes with Rupert's
Google-blocking and pay-walling - which is understandable, because it
doesn't.

Go Mavs!

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:52:13 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Ian. I get the monetization piece -- that's
obviously where the "economy" part of "attention economy" come in. I'm not
some kind of Internet utopian who thinks money will magically fall from the
sky. But how do people know that your content is valuable to them if they
can't see it or read it or share it with others? That's part of what
generates the value in the first place.

Like the commenter on my Nieman post, I find it intensely frustrating not to
be able to share a link with someone because of a pay wall. So not only
does that frustrate me, a dedicated user or customer of that content site,
but it frustrates every *potential* user or customer as well. How is that a
good strategy?

My point is that social recommendation networks and other tools of "social
media" are a crucial part of how media entities gain attention -- which is a
pretty scarce commodity. To use your store analogy, how are people supposed
to know that they want to buy your content or services if your windows are
boarded up and you don't let anyone inside the store without charging them?

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:39:52 -0000

No worries, Daniel -- I think your focus on data and measurement is a
valuable one, and you are quite right that there are arguments on both sides
that are not bolstered by any data whatsoever. But how does one measure
serendipity or the lack thereof? It seems to me that the whole concept is
so abstruse and indefinable that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:25:44 -0000

No data, Daniel -- just my perceptions :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:02:42 -0000

I think that's a great point, Mark. So many newspaper websites -- ours
included -- simply copy the format and structure that worked in print,
rather than taking advantage of this new medium and the way people consume
and understand content online. Hopefully we are all learning quickly :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:50:47 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve. Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that
there is a much broader range of serendipitous content that we get exposed
to on the Web and through social media. I rely on that and enjoy it
immensely. But I still think (maybe just nostalgiically) that there is
value in the particular blend of curation and aggregation that newspapers
provide -- not all of it, but certainly some of it.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:37:52 -0000

Thanks, Raul -- I just finished reading Todd's piece, which is excellent,
and posted a link to it on Twitter. I think he is dead on target with his
overview of the five "werewolves" and what they are doing to the industry.
I particularly liked his observation about how newspapers appealed to an
"accidental public," some of whom were interested in informing themselves
about issues and some of whom just wanted to be entertained or amused. That
is one of the central dilemmas of any form of publishing, in paper or online
-- how much should you appeal to the former and how much to the latter?

Re: Be an agent of change in the newsroom

mathewi — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:58:19 -0000

Thanks, Parker -- looking forward to that presentation.

Re: Go Home Lake

mathewi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:52:58 -0000

What a coincidence -- your dad's book is sitting on the table in the living room of my friend's cottage :-)

Re: meshmarketing is live

mathewi — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:22:49 -0000

Thanks, Mitch -- I'm looking forward to it too. :-)

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:16 -0000

Thanks, Gina :-)

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:07:03 -0000

Yes, I think that's a fair point Ryan. But the same could be said of any site -- or any publication for that matter -- that specializes in commentary, analysis, satire etc.

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:55:17 -0000

Yes, I agree that "via" links are not sufficient -- and I agree Gawker could have done better on the attribution front.

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:37:34 -0000

Thanks, Rohan -- I got the cat to do the last part because my thumbs were tired :-)

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:37 -0000

Thanks.