Comments on: “What went wrong” with newspapers wasn’t what went wrong

By: ColeenB

ColeenB — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:18:23 +0000

I think the fact that the media is moving online is a good thing. We still have a market for national, international and local news. We may not need as many papers for the national and international news as we did before because everyone can have access to the few that are out there. It’s easier to start something that is unique and has value now because you can reach a broader audience.

The model of revenue from advertising is still there, it’s just more efficient. It still makes sense to advertise in a publication that is popular locally if you’re a local business.

And the search engines can identify original content and give credit to the person who did the work – with text anyway. Images are a different matter.

There have been numerous times throughout history when something became obsolete and was replaced by something else. It’s a painful transition for those involved, but I can’t imagine not moving forward.

Orange County Summer Camps

By: Links for today | Links para hoje « O Lago | The Lake

Links for today | Links para hoje « O Lago | The Lake — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:22:33 +0000

[...] “What went wrong” with newspapers wasn’t what went wrong, EatSleepPublish [...]

By: Marika

Marika — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:24:51 +0000

I really enjoyed this post – made me think in a different direction. I also resent you for making me think when it’s sunny out.

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:31:45 +0000

Johnathon – maybe, although the world only needs so many T-shirts

By: Johnathon Fitzpatrick

Johnathon Fitzpatrick — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:34:27 +0000

If news is ubiquitous and the price of content in our saturated market is zero, doesn’t that just leave merchandising and grants, or is there truly a reliable revenue model for niche news? Most often news isn’t the source for revenue, it’s advertising. However rock bands make tons more money from their tickets and merch than from their their content, i.e. album sales. Shouldn’t we be following the music artist profit model instead of the RIAA model?

By: Curt M.

Curt M. — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:06:11 +0000

This is like the stories from the 1950s of people who bought Polaroid when it went IPO and saw their stock skyrocket as the popularity of instant photography took off. But now … Polaroid has crashed and burned more than once. There’s no way to know about this stuff.

The response Jeff Taylor got was exactly what I’ve imagined newspaper owners saying as the net took off: Why should we do that? We’re making millions on our print classifieds. Why would we want to give that away?

Again, you just never can know what the best course is.

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:42:22 +0000

Seth – having had many such ideas myself, I’m well aware that it’s a lot harder to “pick the winner” than it seems when you’re looking back at it.

“But it’s obvious! It’s Monster.com! How could it not work?”

“Let me count the ways…”

By: Seth Long

Seth Long — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:35:36 +0000

The Boston/Monster story reminds me of the crazy pitches we were getting during the Web 1.0 bubble. I remember regular pitch meetings with owners of would-be mega-sites that all crashed and burned.