Just got a press release announcing another newspaper network starting: The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun will share content. Smart. (Link later.)
: I was on my iPhone before. Here’s the link.
So now there are similar networks in Ohio, New York/New Jersey and D.C./Maryland. Might as well make a national network and marketplace for original journalism.
: Later: In the comments, Bob Wyman says – and I agree:
Content should be shared WITH advertising revenue. Otherwise, these content sharing arrangements are simply cost-saving measures — not primarily revenue generating. Money is being left on the table…The newspapers need to start seeing that their content has value. But, I think papers have been too long with the AP model of giving up your content for free and then paying to get content from others as a way to reduce costs. That made sense in the old paper and geography based world of newspapers but doesn’t make sense in the online world. Gatehouse and Boston.com might think about this… Would Gatehouse be as upset as they are now if they got ad revenue when their content appeared on other sites?
The pioneer in this reverse syndication model: Politico, a new company.
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122301161.html
Sharing content is good, but its not enough. They should be sharing revenue as well. The exclusion of University of Maryland sports coverage seems to hint at this. I assume this exclusion is because that’s popular, revenue generating content. My guess is that the Post would be less likely to exclude such coverage if they knew that they would get ad revenue when their stories were read within the Baltimore Sun. Also, it is possible that ad revenues for Post material read within the Sun would be higher since the Sun would be able to sell more locally relevant, better targeted ads against that content. (An ad for a D.C. store is not useful to someone in Baltimore…)
Content should be shared WITH advertising revenue. Otherwise, these content sharing arrangements are simply cost-saving measures — not primarily revenue generating. Money is being left on the table…
The newspapers need to start seeing that their content has value. But, I think papers have been too long with the AP model of giving up your content for free and then paying to get content from others as a way to reduce costs. That made sense in the old paper and geography based world of newspapers but doesn’t make sense in the online world. Gatehouse and Boston.com might think about this… Would Gatehouse be as upset as they are now if they got ad revenue when their content appeared on other sites?
bob wyman
[...] Networks grow [...]
[...] Over at Buzzmachine, Jeff Jarvis says, pointing to similar plans elsewhere, “make a national network and marketplace for original journalism,” and Bob Wyman notes that “content should be shared WITH advertising revenue. Otherwise, these content sharing arrangements are simply cost-saving measures — not primarily revenue generating.” [...]
Jeff – it’s clear that the current web-based journalism model, which relies on inexpensive display ads and no collection of valuable demographics, is bound to fail. In fact it is already failing since everyone is getting news and getting it for free. Meanwhile, all the newspapers are tanking. See my article on MediaPost from a couple of weeks ago: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=96229
At Datran Media we are busy working on this problem. Feel free to contact us.
Dave Hendricks