Comments on: Networks grow http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:43:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dave Hendricks http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-388150 Dave Hendricks Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:43:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-388150 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 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

]]> By: National Ad Networks and Saving Journalism » Adotas http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-388018 National Ad Networks and Saving Journalism » Adotas Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:46:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-388018 [...] 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.” [...] [...] 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.” [...]

]]> By: jardenberg kommenterar - 2008-12-24 | jardenberg unedited http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387976 jardenberg kommenterar - 2008-12-24 | jardenberg unedited Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:00:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387976 [...] Networks grow [...] [...] Networks grow [...]

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387953 Bob Wyman Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:04:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387953 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 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

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387949 Bob Wyman Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:34:57 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/networks-grow/#comment-387949 From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122301161.html From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122301161.html

]]>