Comments on: The smarter way http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:16:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: sac http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12910 sac Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:46:18 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12910 The transitory nature of a lot of blogs makes the Yahoo approach seem a lot smarter. Keep reknewable relationships with blogs, and then when one begins to fade, move to another. The transitory nature of a lot of blogs makes the Yahoo approach seem a lot smarter. Keep reknewable relationships with blogs, and then when one begins to fade, move to another.

]]> By: Jason http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12821 Jason Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:05:09 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12821 I agree that you can't own all the blogs out there--and shouldn't try. However, our blogs are very large media brands, not personl blogs. They are blogs that get 50k-1M+ page views a day (most personal blogs get a couple dozen or hundred blog posts a day). Our blogs generate millions of dollars a year in advertising... so that's why they should be part of a bigger company that can continue to scale them. I agree that you can’t own all the blogs out there–and shouldn’t try.

However, our blogs are very large media brands, not personl blogs.

They are blogs that get 50k-1M+ page views a day (most personal blogs get a couple dozen or hundred blog posts a day). Our blogs generate millions of dollars a year in advertising… so that’s why they should be part of a bigger company that can continue to scale them.

]]> By: Noel Guinane http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12810 Noel Guinane Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:12 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12810 I agree that on the surface you could make a plausible case for wanting to 'partner' with as many blogs as possible, but as with any business, if something looks good enough and you've got an interest in the industry and deep pockets to indulge that interest, you either buy it or invest in it, neither of which Yahoo is apparently willing to do with Gawker. When a business says "we're not looking to acquire, just looking to work with" what they mean is they haven't come across anything worth investing in. Wonder why Yahoo are rating Gawker on a par with any other blog they'd prefer to "work with." I agree that on the surface you could make a plausible case for wanting to ‘partner’ with as many blogs as possible, but as with any business, if something looks good enough and you’ve got an interest in the industry and deep pockets to indulge that interest, you either buy it or invest in it, neither of which Yahoo is apparently willing to do with Gawker.

When a business says “we’re not looking to acquire, just looking to work with” what they mean is they haven’t come across anything worth investing in.

Wonder why Yahoo are rating Gawker on a par with any other blog they’d prefer to “work with.”

]]> By: Mathew Ingram http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12798 Mathew Ingram Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:47:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/11/16/the-smarter-way/#comment-12798 I think you're quite right, Jeff -- as I posted on <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work" rel="nofollow">my blog</a> not long ago. I think partnering makes way more sense, although it doesn't have the benefit of a juicy short-term payoff. Or did Nick do it just to be different from Jason? :-) I think you’re quite right, Jeff — as I posted on my blog not long ago. I think partnering makes way more sense, although it doesn’t have the benefit of a juicy short-term payoff. Or did Nick do it just to be different from Jason? :-)

]]>