Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:15 AM
Tue Dec 8
49 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/24/09
This is a good point. I've wondered about this myself. CPMs are generally too low online, unless you are as good as Gawker Media and a few others or you are as big as Google, to support paid content creation. But it also ties in with this:
'You still have to figure out some sort of successful advertising model to complete the picture.'
Which will be higher CPMs for ads behind paywalls because someone has paid to see them (and the content). Which means a successful advertising model. I think it will work. I think people like ads, good ones at least, and no matter how results driven Google's adword system is, the response rate is almost as if people click on them by accident. Doesn't that make them bad ads not good ads? I liked this point:
'IOW: If you punch "Coldwell Banker" into Google, the first thing on the screen is a paid ad and some people will click on it, rather than the first legitimate result that would take you to the same place.'
And because lots of people will still quote and link to a story in the WSJ, it doesn't need Google.
11/24/09
I agree with this, but feel like it misses a larger point. This isn't exactly the full picture of how it worked during the heyday of print journalism, is it? Subscriptions made up a small percentage of revenue, but the rest was comprised mainly of advertising and classifieds. There really is no successful subscription-only media model that has ever worked, as far as I know.
You still have to figure out some sort of successful advertising model to complete the picture.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I think this just says that google is better about running ads then the media companies. Or that people would rather click an ad then click the link to your newspaper...
11/24/09
IOW: If you punch "Coldwell Banker" into Google, the first thing on the screen is a paid ad and some people will click on it, rather than the first legitimate result that would take you to the same place.
Also, news content is a destination, while a search engine is like the road one takes to get there. When I'm driving from Point Reyes to Stinson Beach, I might swing into Bolinas to go to the market. but I'm less likely to go back after I'm there.
11/24/09
It just means that if I'm searching for a Wall Street Journal story I'll just have to first click on some business blog that's linked to it.
11/24/09
11/20/09
More recently, there was this: [en.wikipedia.org]
The purpose of this collaboration is unknown, but it is not new news.
11/20/09
If there is a secret government back door, the hackers will find it. No NSA spook can hide something like that from die hard hackers. They will reverse engineer the entire W7 kernel if they have to.
11/20/09
Corps and end users really don't care where their data will end up -- at least our wonderful government *does*.
This evolutionary move just warms my blackened heart.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
And Evangelists are the assholes who SHOULD be the first to be laid off.. but usually, due to politics and their innate assholier than thou attitudes and exec patronage are the last. #dondodge
11/17/09
I feel like Google is playing a cruel joke on him and at prom he's going to get a bucket of pig's blood dumped on him for all the mean shit he's said while Microsoft gets kicked out of the gym even though it was only trying to protect him. #dondodge