Am I the only one to see the irony? March 31st New York Times post “The Rising Stars of Gossip Blogs” begins with a story about “a 25-year-old Village Voice gossip blogger and University of Utah dropout named Foster Kamer” breaking a big scoop about Business Insider: Fallen dot-com Wall Street analyst and risen dot-com media mogul Henry Blodget had fired John Carney, managing editor of the Clusterstock blog.
The ‘media’ is a freakin’ train wreck these days. You’re all a bunch of desperate panhandlers willing to sensationalize crack lint if you thought it would advance your readership. Commenter aduffbrew How could I disagree?
News has gone social, claims Pew Internet. LOL, tell me something I don’t know. 🙂 Pew’s report, “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer,” is an informational treasure trove for journalists or would-be journalist bloggers. But it would be much better had Pew surveyed Americans under 18. Instead, the organization surveyed 2,259 US adults, ages 18 or older, between Dec. 28, 2009 and Jan. 19, 2010. Crucial demographic “Internet users” is 1,675. Why did Pew ignore the most important socially active demographic group? Teenagers?
There’s something dirty feeling about watching Michael Arrington’s interview of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. I don’t mean that as criticism of Michael; plenty of other folks have done that all too well. It’s this new media thing, where you sleep with the people you write about. You do business with them and for them.
Who am I to criticize? The new media thing is working out rather well for TechCrunch, which makes oodles of money, commands huge traffic and pageview numbers and mingles with Silicon Valley’s dealers and stealers.
Would you pay a buck to read New York Times story, “A Cul-de-Sac of Lost Dreams, and New Ones,” online? I would. The quality of reporting—over many months—and presentation, which includes photos and video, simply isn’t easily reproducible by most free-content, commercial blogsites. Perhaps in an alternate universe, the Times charges online for this story, which I saw yesterday on iPhone 3GS and my wife today in the newspaper. We subscribe to the Sunday Times.
If you went down to our cafeteria, [this bagel] costs like $1.25. That’s what people pay for stuff like this, so you mean to tell me I can’t get them to pay that for online […]
IDG laid off my buddy Jim Dalrymple about the time I got the boot from eWEEK. Jim wasted no time starting a new enterprise, and at the right place: The brand. Jim brilliantly rebranded himself, and what he did should be lesson to any person or company looking to launch a new product or service.
It’s easy to dismiss Jim, because of “the beard.” You wouldn’t think he’s all that bright, because of the shag, which gets more in your face than his. Jim is so small town he doesn’t live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, but just outside the city. Most Americans would respond “Where?” if asked about Halifax. Hehe, that could be a “Jeopardy” answer. But greater Halifax, the largest city north of Boston and east of Montreal, is home to about 360,000 people.
The pundits opining about Rupert Murdoch’s plans to charge for his media conglomerate’s online content miss the forest for the trees. The majority spout conjecture about whether or not people would pay and in that context whether or not anyone should charge, considering the abundance of alternative online informational sources. What everyone should ask: Can you put content behind a paywall, even just require registration, and fully participate in the Google economy?
Can we be honest, here? If your business is content and selling online advertising around it, you must pay homage to the great Google algorithm. As was with previous age’s deities, the minions must make sacrifices before the great Google god. To receive its blessings, they must do Google’s bidding—quite literally on keywords—and give away all their worldly possessions (e.g., content, for free). But can they give to Lord Google and keep something for themselves, too?
I spent the last two days at Comic-Con 2009 here in San Diego. I sacrificed Day 1, and not happily, to cover Microsoft’s fiscal fourth-quarter and year-end earnings. Several big Microsoft stories broke on Friday, but I refused to give up another day at Comic-Con; it’s the 40th show. Comic-Con is fun and chaotic. More importantly, for a journalist, people are willing to talk—and why not? They’re playing a role and ready to perform.
Well, it’s official: with Walter Cronkite gone, Jon Stewart is America’s “most trusted newscaster.” At least that’s the result of this TIME poll that pits him against the anchors of the nightly news shows for CBS, […]
One of things you rarely hear spoken about in internet business is traffic. I don’t mean traffic numbers—those are everywhere. I mean traffic itself. What it is, what it means, what constitutes value, etc. You don’t see blog posts talking about how page views can be (and very much are) gamed to create the appearance of more page views. Or, that one million uniques means little if the length of time visitors are on the site (aka, session time) is less than one minute without their returning back to visit. That’s like a million people driving by McDonald’s but never actually going into the restaurant. I won’t even get started on flawed analytics services. Unfortunately, the market as a whole hasn’t evolved to where it’s begun to notice things like this. Blogs and media still cite flawed analytics sources in articles, and few ever reference important stats like session times and repeat visitors. That says a lot about the place the market is in.
On July 17, I posted, “The Michael Arrington Matter,” where I came down hard on the TechCrunch cofounder for publishing stolen, internal Twitter documents. I wouldn’t have done it.
But in fairness, TechCrunch is successful—and for a reason. TechCrunch publishes lots of original content, as much in the comments as the stories. Readers participate in the process.