Comments on: The real sin: not running businesses http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:00:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Current trends in new news models « Furture of News http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-401596 Current trends in new news models « Furture of News Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:38:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-401596 [...] if we’re looking for an original sin in this saga, I’ll confess that mine has been viewing news from the perspective of the old [...] [...] if we’re looking for an original sin in this saga, I’ll confess that mine has been viewing news from the perspective of the old [...]

]]> By: This week in media musings: Dividing and conquering, and two news models | Mark Coddington http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-401037 This week in media musings: Dividing and conquering, and two news models | Mark Coddington Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:03:52 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-401037 [...] a couple of days, the responses were in. Jeff Jarvis agreed wholeheartedly, saying the original sin “was not running a business.” Buttry [...] [...] a couple of days, the responses were in. Jeff Jarvis agreed wholeheartedly, saying the original sin “was not running a business.” Buttry [...]

]]> By: lectroid.net » Newspaper sins through the kaleidoscope of time http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400816 lectroid.net » Newspaper sins through the kaleidoscope of time Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:38:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400816 [...] sin” (see: Alan Mutter, Steve Buttry, Howard Owens, Steve Yelvington and lets not forget Jeff Jarvis for starters) got me thinking about those pre-historic online newspaper days. In looking back, I [...] [...] sin” (see: Alan Mutter, Steve Buttry, Howard Owens, Steve Yelvington and lets not forget Jeff Jarvis for starters) got me thinking about those pre-historic online newspaper days. In looking back, I [...]

]]> By: Sanest thing I’ve read about the newspaper industry in forever | Les Jones http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400735 Sanest thing I’ve read about the newspaper industry in forever | Les Jones Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:05:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400735 [...] Jeff Jarvis via Jack Lail on Facebook. What, you thought I read about this in a [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis via Jack Lail on Facebook. What, you thought I read about this in a [...]

]]> By: Future seekers need better rear-view mirrors « Charlotte-Anne Lucas http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400689 Future seekers need better rear-view mirrors « Charlotte-Anne Lucas Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:58:20 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400689 [...] Jeff Jarvis offered a variation on a theme by Owens, saying the real sin was not running the online unit as a business. [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis offered a variation on a theme by Owens, saying the real sin was not running the online unit as a business. [...]

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400640 Andy Freeman Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:27:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400640 > I find it interesting that many newspapers would rather shut down than change their model. Why is it interesting when organizations of people behave like people? ("would rather die than change" is the reason for many suicides.) > I find it interesting that many newspapers would rather shut down than change their model.

Why is it interesting when organizations of people behave like people? (“would rather die than change” is the reason for many suicides.)

]]> By: Brian Carr http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400630 Brian Carr Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:19:25 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400630 Jeff -- Agree that the real sin is not running a P&L. However, this doesn't seem to square with your consulting work on the newly re-launched AnnArbor.com How can a local blog P&L survive with a staff of 54 people, including two secretaries? Seems well overblown to be profitable, even if 50% are volunteers. Jeff —
Agree that the real sin is not running a P&L. However, this doesn’t seem to square with your consulting work on the newly re-launched AnnArbor.com
How can a local blog P&L survive with a staff of 54 people, including two secretaries? Seems well overblown to be profitable, even if 50% are volunteers.

]]> By: links for 2009-08-31 « Glenna DeRoy http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400609 links for 2009-08-31 « Glenna DeRoy Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:05:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400609 [...] The real sin: not running businesses « BuzzMachine (tags: onlinejournalism businessmodels agreed) [...] [...] The real sin: not running businesses « BuzzMachine (tags: onlinejournalism businessmodels agreed) [...]

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400599 Jeff Jarvis Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:07:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400599 Precisely. Precisely.

]]> By: Terry Heaton http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400595 Terry Heaton Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:35:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400595 Bob. I'm not challenging your credentials. I just think you're wrong about even the perception of a "fold," and I think that Web design based on such a perception is one of the big problems for media companies today. If the real value is "above the fold," then we need to produce lots of pages, so that we have enough "above the fold" inventory to sell. The empirical fact that more people see a page prior to scrolling (which is what you're really saying) is much more a factor of design than the willingness of people to scroll, as witnessed by the success of blog software in the display of sites like tmz.com. Of course, Jakob Nielsen argues that nobody sees banners above or below the fold, so what difference does it make? Bob. I’m not challenging your credentials. I just think you’re wrong about even the perception of a “fold,” and I think that Web design based on such a perception is one of the big problems for media companies today. If the real value is “above the fold,” then we need to produce lots of pages, so that we have enough “above the fold” inventory to sell. The empirical fact that more people see a page prior to scrolling (which is what you’re really saying) is much more a factor of design than the willingness of people to scroll, as witnessed by the success of blog software in the display of sites like tmz.com. Of course, Jakob Nielsen argues that nobody sees banners above or below the fold, so what difference does it make?

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400589 Bob Wyman Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:57:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400589 Terry. Back in the 90's I personally did empirical studies in this area and I've seen many since that confirm what I found. I've headed engineering in two "web traffic analysis" companies, each of which once had leadership market positions, and I currently work for a company that spends vast quantities of money analyzing the effect of "position" on user behavior... I'm not an amateur in this space... The "fold" when applied to web pages is an analogy. It refers to the line that separates parts of the page visible to the user when it is first displayed from parts of the page that the user must scroll to in order to see. There is no question that content that cannot be seen without scrolling the page is less likely to be seen than content that is displayed without scrolling. Yes, there is a "fold." (At the thing that we call a "fold" is there...) It may be different on every screen (depending on screen size, resolution, user settings, etc.) but it is there and it has to do with the geometry of the display area, not the content which is displayed. bob wyman Terry. Back in the 90’s I personally did empirical studies in this area and I’ve seen many since that confirm what I found. I’ve headed engineering in two “web traffic analysis” companies, each of which once had leadership market positions, and I currently work for a company that spends vast quantities of money analyzing the effect of “position” on user behavior… I’m not an amateur in this space…

The “fold” when applied to web pages is an analogy. It refers to the line that separates parts of the page visible to the user when it is first displayed from parts of the page that the user must scroll to in order to see. There is no question that content that cannot be seen without scrolling the page is less likely to be seen than content that is displayed without scrolling.

Yes, there is a “fold.” (At the thing that we call a “fold” is there…) It may be different on every screen (depending on screen size, resolution, user settings, etc.) but it is there and it has to do with the geometry of the display area, not the content which is displayed.

bob wyman

]]> By: Marc http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400587 Marc Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:29:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400587 Actually, if newspaper web operations were focused solely on profits in the early days then there would be no newspaper websites today (or at least none without some "page 3" T&A). What they should have done is focused on *product* (which is the true business of business, just ask GM). Actually, if newspaper web operations were focused solely on profits in the early days then there would be no newspaper websites today (or at least none without some “page 3″ T&A).

What they should have done is focused on *product* (which is the true business of business, just ask GM).

]]> By: Terry Heaton http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400584 Terry Heaton Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:53:41 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400584 Bob, I love you, but tossing in "empirical studies" to justify falsehood doesn't make it real. There is no fold, so there is no "reality" of the fold or any effect other than the wishful thinking of a community that wants one to be there to validate ad rate differences based on location (a newspaper model). Even if you can make the case that more people <strike>see</strike> are exposed to an ad at the top of a page than one further down the page, it says more about the content up top than the position of the ad. But even if I'm completely full of it, there still is no "fold," and our insistence that there is devalues the entire document. Bob, I love you, but tossing in “empirical studies” to justify falsehood doesn’t make it real. There is no fold, so there is no “reality” of the fold or any effect other than the wishful thinking of a community that wants one to be there to validate ad rate differences based on location (a newspaper model). Even if you can make the case that more people see are exposed to an ad at the top of a page than one further down the page, it says more about the content up top than the position of the ad. But even if I’m completely full of it, there still is no “fold,” and our insistence that there is devalues the entire document.

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400583 Bob Wyman Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:21:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400583 Marc wrote: "I believe newspapers were far too focused on revenue in the early days..." This simply supports the point that Jeff was making. You are agreeing with him! The business of business is profit -- not revenue. An excessive focus on revenue rather than profit has prevented many newspapers from seeing that by adopting lower cost distribution methods and other "innovations," they may be able to increase profits even though gross revenues are grossly reduced. bob wyman Marc wrote: “I believe newspapers were far too focused on revenue in the early days…”
This simply supports the point that Jeff was making. You are agreeing with him!

The business of business is profit — not revenue.

An excessive focus on revenue rather than profit has prevented many newspapers from seeing that by adopting lower cost distribution methods and other “innovations,” they may be able to increase profits even though gross revenues are grossly reduced.

bob wyman

]]> By: Marc http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400580 Marc Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:04:35 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400580 Jeff, I would argue the opposite, I believe newspapers were far too focused on revenue in the early days (and are still today) and because of that stifled any real chance they had to carve out a long-term niche. I can't tell you the number of good ideas that were killed in the crib, never allowed to blossom, because their traffic numbers didn't stack up to some imaginary target in a 6 month window. Look at Flickr, how long did it take them to host 1 billion images? Years, right? And 2 billion? It was months. 3? 4? (What are they up to now, anyway?) My point with Flickr is what started as a labor of love grew slowly and only when it started really rolling along did they looked at ways to monetize it. Had Flickr been launched by a newspaper chain, they'd have pulled the plug in the first 6 months for lack of interest. Jeff, I would argue the opposite, I believe newspapers were far too focused on revenue in the early days (and are still today) and because of that stifled any real chance they had to carve out a long-term niche.

I can’t tell you the number of good ideas that were killed in the crib, never allowed to blossom, because their traffic numbers didn’t stack up to some imaginary target in a 6 month window.

Look at Flickr, how long did it take them to host 1 billion images? Years, right? And 2 billion? It was months. 3? 4? (What are they up to now, anyway?)

My point with Flickr is what started as a labor of love grew slowly and only when it started really rolling along did they looked at ways to monetize it. Had Flickr been launched by a newspaper chain, they’d have pulled the plug in the first 6 months for lack of interest.

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400573 Bob Wyman Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:21:16 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400573 Terry Heaton wrote: "silliness is the notion that there’s a “fold” on web documents." Talk of the "fold" of web pages did not originate with newspapers. The reality of the "fold" and its effect was well established by empirical studies outside the newspaper business. bob wyman Terry Heaton wrote: “silliness is the notion that there’s a “fold” on web documents.”

Talk of the “fold” of web pages did not originate with newspapers. The reality of the “fold” and its effect was well established by empirical studies outside the newspaper business.

bob wyman

]]> By: What crisis? « BuzzMachine http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400572 What crisis? « BuzzMachine Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:21:02 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400572 [...] « The real sin: not running businesses [...] [...] « The real sin: not running businesses [...]

]]> By: Dave http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400570 Dave Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:10:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400570 Water water everywhere –– and not a drop to charge for A PR person once said to me, "Journalists are so arrogant. They think they own the news." At the time, it bothered me a just a bit because I worked hard to get the work out there and share it with readers/viewers. But it grew on me because she was right. My bosses were arrogant, and getting things right took a back seat to getting them "out" and being first. Facts were overlooked, apples were compared to oranges, and we went for the fast dollar where we could see it. The brand was getting diluted for the quick buck. That's when I said "enough" and left. Now I think of news as water. We all must have it, and some will pay for it in special cases (niche), but the majority of us can get it ourselves when we need it. And we can share it with those close to us (hyper-local). As I have read here before, "if news is important enough, it will reach me." Water will break the dam, leak through the pay walls, and find a way to trickle or flow to people. So much of the water (news) out there is polluted or tainted –– and only an ignorant few will pony up for that. I am sure many of those who tout this type of water do not drink it. No, they have access to clean water, then taint it themselves. Then they say people must pay for their sludge. When people are forced to pay, they will look for a better, cleaner (accurate) source of water, where they can be assured they are getting real substance (facts). Do they really think people will pay for dirty water? Trust me, it will leave them all wet. Water water everywhere –– and not a drop to charge for

A PR person once said to me, “Journalists are so arrogant. They think they own the news.”

At the time, it bothered me a just a bit because I worked hard to get the work out there and share it with readers/viewers. But it grew on me because she was right. My bosses were arrogant, and getting things right took a back seat to getting them “out” and being first. Facts were overlooked, apples were compared to oranges, and we went for the fast dollar where we could see it. The brand was getting diluted for the quick buck. That’s when I said “enough” and left.

Now I think of news as water. We all must have it, and some will pay for it in special cases (niche), but the majority of us can get it ourselves when we need it. And we can share it with those close to us (hyper-local). As I have read here before, “if news is important enough, it will reach me.” Water will break the dam, leak through the pay walls, and find a way to trickle or flow to people.

So much of the water (news) out there is polluted or tainted –– and only an ignorant few will pony up for that. I am sure many of those who tout this type of water do not drink it. No, they have access to clean water, then taint it themselves. Then they say people must pay for their sludge.

When people are forced to pay, they will look for a better, cleaner (accurate) source of water, where they can be assured they are getting real substance (facts).

Do they really think people will pay for dirty water?

Trust me, it will leave them all wet.

]]> By: Steve http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400569 Steve Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:55:52 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400569 I quote myself: "Talking about the future of news is interesting; talking about the future of newspapers is a waste of time. It's over." No one ran a newspaper group more like a business and less like a journalistic endeavor than Tony Ridder. He supported (albeit unenthusiastically) many innovations, was ruthless in terms of cost-cutting (Darth Ridder) and loved the business. But it is impossible to achieve enthusiasm (employee, investor, stakeholder) for any high-margin business that suddenly turns into a low-margin business. And Craigs List did that to newspapers. Tony's mistake was making his company a pure newspaper play when it was on the road to being a diversified media company, with print, broadcast, cable and business information assets. I quote myself: “Talking about the future of news is interesting; talking about the future of newspapers is a waste of time. It’s over.” No one ran a newspaper group more like a business and less like a journalistic endeavor than Tony Ridder. He supported (albeit unenthusiastically) many innovations, was ruthless in terms of cost-cutting (Darth Ridder) and loved the business. But it is impossible to achieve enthusiasm (employee, investor, stakeholder) for any high-margin business that suddenly turns into a low-margin business. And Craigs List did that to newspapers.
Tony’s mistake was making his company a pure newspaper play when it was on the road to being a diversified media company, with print, broadcast, cable and business information assets.

]]> By: News companies need to help local businesses pursue mobile opportunities « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400568 News companies need to help local businesses pursue mobile opportunities « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:51:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400568 [...] sins of newspapers in the early days of the Internet. (Alan Mutter, Howard Owens, Steve Yelvington, Jeff Jarvis and I have all written our own views of the Original Sin of newspapers in the Internet age. [...] [...] sins of newspapers in the early days of the Internet. (Alan Mutter, Howard Owens, Steve Yelvington, Jeff Jarvis and I have all written our own views of the Original Sin of newspapers in the Internet age. [...]

]]> By: Katherine Warman Kern http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400567 Katherine Warman Kern Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:30:47 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400567 Mr. Jarvis, I read this and wonder why. The theory driving decisions seems to be that losing money to achieve big popularity leads to money. I am struggling to think of a single example of when this has worked. And why the myth is perpetuated. The fact is that Starbucks and Amazon are the most successful (read:profitable and enduring) brands launched in today's highly competitive and fragmented marketplace. Both built their businesses from the bottom up. That's what I thought "scalable" meant. (here's my post about the two meanings of scalable http://bit.ly/D1bqW) But many seem to think it means prove you have big popularity first, then we'll figure out how to make money. Mr. Jarvis,

I read this and wonder why. The theory driving decisions seems to be that losing money to achieve big popularity leads to money. I am struggling to think of a single example of when this has worked. And why the myth is perpetuated.

The fact is that Starbucks and Amazon are the most successful (read:profitable and enduring) brands launched in today’s highly competitive and fragmented marketplace. Both built their businesses from the bottom up.

That’s what I thought “scalable” meant. (here’s my post about the two meanings of scalable http://bit.ly/D1bqW) But many seem to think it means prove you have big popularity first, then we’ll figure out how to make money.

]]> By: John Newby http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400563 John Newby Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:29:34 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400563 I'm sure a few have been thinking about how to build a newsroom model that will be sustained by a realistic and lower revenue model; the problem arises that unless one has the buy-in all the way to the top, they will have their feet cut out from underneath them. There are newsroom models that will work in the new revenue model, but most will never find it. I find it interesting that many newspapers would rather shut down than change their model. I’m sure a few have been thinking about how to build a newsroom model that will be sustained by a realistic and lower revenue model; the problem arises that unless one has the buy-in all the way to the top, they will have their feet cut out from underneath them.

There are newsroom models that will work in the new revenue model, but most will never find it. I find it interesting that many newspapers would rather shut down than change their model.

]]> By: Terry Heaton http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400562 Terry Heaton Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:58:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400562 The original sin was vanity, the belief that the business model of print (display advertising) would translate to the Web. Just one piece of this silliness is the notion that there's a "fold" on web documents. The Web excels at direct marketing, yet everything about the online newspaper model is based in mass marketing. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. The original sin was vanity, the belief that the business model of print (display advertising) would translate to the Web. Just one piece of this silliness is the notion that there’s a “fold” on web documents. The Web excels at direct marketing, yet everything about the online newspaper model is based in mass marketing. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

]]> By: Eric Gauvin » Blog Archive » The Goose that Laid the Golden Link (or a wild goose chase for “the link economy”) http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400561 Eric Gauvin » Blog Archive » The Goose that Laid the Golden Link (or a wild goose chase for “the link economy”) Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:14:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400561 [...] Jarvis writes a let’s-get-down-to-business post in his blog, yet he never mentions “the link economy.” Instead, he appears to have substituted a less revolutionary sounding term that’s still vague: “new business realities.” UPDATE: As a reminder, Jarvis promised to hold a symposium on “the link economy” in October where he’ll talk some more about his CUNY project and how it presumably relates to “the link economy.” He also set up a discussion forum for “the link economy,” but there aren’t any comments yet. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/ [...] [...] Jarvis writes a let’s-get-down-to-business post in his blog, yet he never mentions “the link economy.” Instead, he appears to have substituted a less revolutionary sounding term that’s still vague: “new business realities.” UPDATE: As a reminder, Jarvis promised to hold a symposium on “the link economy” in October where he’ll talk some more about his CUNY project and how it presumably relates to “the link economy.” He also set up a discussion forum for “the link economy,” but there aren’t any comments yet. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/ [...]

]]> By: Digitale medier, håb & falliterklæringer – Velkommen til markedet http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/#comment-400553 Digitale medier, håb & falliterklæringer – Velkommen til markedet Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:25:33 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5191#comment-400553 [...] Egentlig er det tankevækkende, at hver eneste gang vi snakker om mediehuse som en forretning her i landet, snakker vi om, hvor mange penge, der skal til i reklameindtægter eller - uha - statsstøtte for at få det hele til at løbe rundt. Hvorfor snakker vi ikke i stedet om, hvor mange penge vi realistisk set tror på, vi kan tjene, og så definerer vores omkostningsstruktur ud fra det? Det virker umiddelbart en anelse mere kløgtigt. Ganske som Jeff Jarvis foreslår. [...] [...] Egentlig er det tankevækkende, at hver eneste gang vi snakker om mediehuse som en forretning her i landet, snakker vi om, hvor mange penge, der skal til i reklameindtægter eller – uha – statsstøtte for at få det hele til at løbe rundt. Hvorfor snakker vi ikke i stedet om, hvor mange penge vi realistisk set tror på, vi kan tjene, og så definerer vores omkostningsstruktur ud fra det? Det virker umiddelbart en anelse mere kløgtigt. Ganske som Jeff Jarvis foreslår. [...]

]]>