Comments on: What’s Journalism Online’s real intent? http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/ Journalist, consultant, entrepreneur ... Musings on digital media, Web 2.0/3.0, & news in the Internet era Wed, 02 May 2012 20:38:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ViewPass has potential for data, revenue « Transforming the Gaz http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-26247 ViewPass has potential for data, revenue « Transforming the Gaz Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:56:27 +0000 http://steveouting.com/?p=694#comment-26247 [...] could argue, as Steve (Brill of Journalism Online) does, that some newspapers are doing a poor job of selling their existing online inventory. But [...] [...] could argue, as Steve (Brill of Journalism Online) does, that some newspapers are doing a poor job of selling their existing online inventory. But [...]

]]> By: diesel mcfadden http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-26172 diesel mcfadden Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:51:26 +0000 http://steveouting.com/?p=694#comment-26172 The fact is there is tons of general news supply and until it goes away, no one will have pricing power. What should become obvious fairly quickly is how much redundant reporting there is and how few of the newspapers are reporting unique information. Even if they aggregate, it's not clear the little guys will get any traffic at all for general stories. Plus each one that splinters off will get proportionally more traffic from the Google traffic that remains. If they don't aggregate, Google atomizes their market power and continues business as usual. "obama cairo" returns 8700 news articles in Google News. It's not clear to me the effect is any different if it returned 4300, or 2400, or 1200, or 800 for that matter. The fact is there is tons of general news supply and until it goes away, no one will have pricing power.

What should become obvious fairly quickly is how much redundant reporting there is and how few of the newspapers are reporting unique information.

Even if they aggregate, it’s not clear the little guys will get any traffic at all for general stories. Plus each one that splinters off will get proportionally more traffic from the Google traffic that remains.

If they don’t aggregate, Google atomizes their market power and continues business as usual.

“obama cairo” returns 8700 news articles in Google News.
It’s not clear to me the effect is any different if it returned 4300, or 2400, or 1200, or 800 for that matter.

]]> By: Thinking outside the paid content box « Mediascaper http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-26144 Thinking outside the paid content box « Mediascaper Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:19:32 +0000 http://steveouting.com/?p=694#comment-26144 [...] 4, 2009 · No Comments In his recent post about Journalism Online’s intent in proposing a system for news sites to charge for their online content, Steve Outing notes the [...] [...] 4, 2009 · No Comments In his recent post about Journalism Online’s intent in proposing a system for news sites to charge for their online content, Steve Outing notes the [...]

]]> By: Maria Korolov http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-26087 Maria Korolov Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:05:58 +0000 http://steveouting.com/?p=694#comment-26087 This has been said before, but people seem to forget it each time this discussion comes up: paying for content is not necessarily the default state of a particular media channel. Radio has been around for decades -- and most of STILL aren't paying for it, except for a few NPR donors and long-haul truckers with their satellite radio. Television has been around for almost as long, and broadcast TV is still free. And it took a while before people switched over to cable -- and that was only because they could get something they couldn't get over the air: more channels, and better quality. And according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, only 51% of households have cable. And that's given the huge benefits that cable offers over broadcast TV. What benefits can a paid website over a free website? Unless you have information that nobody else has, and information that your readers absolutely must have -- not much. -- Maria This has been said before, but people seem to forget it each time this discussion comes up: paying for content is not necessarily the default state of a particular media channel. Radio has been around for decades — and most of STILL aren’t paying for it, except for a few NPR donors and long-haul truckers with their satellite radio.

Television has been around for almost as long, and broadcast TV is still free. And it took a while before people switched over to cable — and that was only because they could get something they couldn’t get over the air: more channels, and better quality. And according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, only 51% of households have cable.

And that’s given the huge benefits that cable offers over broadcast TV.

What benefits can a paid website over a free website? Unless you have information that nobody else has, and information that your readers absolutely must have — not much.

– Maria

]]> By: Shafqat http://steveouting.com/2009/06/03/whats-journalism-onlines-real-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-26053 Shafqat Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:25:36 +0000 http://steveouting.com/?p=694#comment-26053 Wow, fantastic stuff. Amongst your key points, the first one is where I think these publishers are really missing the point. People consume news *whereever* they can find it. In a lot of cases, the news comes to them. Assuming that news readers still go to Tribune.com to get their news is not only short-sighted, but wrong. Just because we pick up a 'newspaper' in the real world doesn't mean we go to a single website online. The analogy doesn't work. Imagine if some guy on the street corner was selling a physical newspaper that was beautifully laid out and consisted of the best articles from all the major newspapers from around the country, and some smaller, niches ones as well. I would bet most would grab that 'aggregated' newspaper than buy a copy of the Times. Wow, fantastic stuff. Amongst your key points, the first one is where I think these publishers are really missing the point. People consume news *whereever* they can find it. In a lot of cases, the news comes to them. Assuming that news readers still go to Tribune.com to get their news is not only short-sighted, but wrong.

Just because we pick up a ‘newspaper’ in the real world doesn’t mean we go to a single website online. The analogy doesn’t work. Imagine if some guy on the street corner was selling a physical newspaper that was beautifully laid out and consisted of the best articles from all the major newspapers from around the country, and some smaller, niches ones as well. I would bet most would grab that ‘aggregated’ newspaper than buy a copy of the Times.

]]>