@Ricki-Oh: and you're supposed to get paid by advertisers. Most magazines and newspapers lose money on subscription and newsstand revenue. They just do it to make the advertisers happy that someone had to actually pay for it, and therefore would more likely read it. Online, there's none of that problem because only ads that are viewed are counted.
I like David Carr's idea that newspapers should engage in collusion in order to make this happen. Then only people with money will get the "news". Unused online views could be discarded on park benches as bedding.
The minute Nisenholtz was forced by the powers that be to say that, he quietly went to the men's room, threw up a little and started cutting himself. I love how all these people who say they'll never lurch from one strategy to another, proceed to lurch from one strategy to another as soon as the economic winds are no longer behind the advertising sail. I got a better idea - why don't you cut down on your still bloated staff, cut all your secretaries, and reduce your print circulation instead of expanding it? The ad revenue is never going to make it worthwhile.
Let me see if I follow: So the few newspapers left with a pulse are requiring paid staffers to write blogs that few people read, the very same thing that dead newspapers' unemployed staffers are doing for free... Okayyyyy. What's wrong with this picture?
I'm going to flip what @NewYorkez said a different way:
When you go to Google, you're thinking about the future: I am going to buy a snowblower and want to find information about it. It's easy to target ads at an intention of future action, as you can more easily profit from the result.
With Twitter, you're looking for reactions or information about something that's happening in the present- what do people think about this awards ceremony? Once you've read the tweets, that transaction is over- targeting you for awards ceremony related merchandise is unlikely to pay back.
I think Twitter is going to be more useful as an early warning radar for emerging trends- and that means looking at the data as an aggregate and acting upon that broadly, rather than targeting individual users for actions based on their inputs or searches.
Question is, does Twitter have the patience or the long view to become the Lexis-Nexis of the Zeitgeist?
Whoa, this is almost as huge as that time Flickr added search and totally destroyed Google! And that time Facebook added search and utterly obliterated Google! And that time Blogger added search and thoroughly trounced...
hey, considering that the web is their only hope of ever saving themselves, and unlike the print people, the web people actually still have job prospects, this is a good thing. The Times website has been bleeding talent for a while and it's time they got some incentives to stay.
03/11/09
03/11/09
Where people got the idea that they have a right to consume the work of others without paying for it is beyond me.
Full disclosure, I produce content, and strangely, I expect to get paid to do this.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/03/09
03/03/09
03/03/09
And, good on them. On the surface, there's an elegiac tone to the whole venture, but here's hoping something good comes of it.
03/02/09
03/02/09
When you go to Google, you're thinking about the future: I am going to buy a snowblower and want to find information about it. It's easy to target ads at an intention of future action, as you can more easily profit from the result.
With Twitter, you're looking for reactions or information about something that's happening in the present- what do people think about this awards ceremony? Once you've read the tweets, that transaction is over- targeting you for awards ceremony related merchandise is unlikely to pay back.
I think Twitter is going to be more useful as an early warning radar for emerging trends- and that means looking at the data as an aggregate and acting upon that broadly, rather than targeting individual users for actions based on their inputs or searches.
Question is, does Twitter have the patience or the long view to become the Lexis-Nexis of the Zeitgeist?
03/02/09
03/02/09
01/15/09
01/15/09
01/15/09