• Profile logout login

#theinternet#lab2

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 7:59 AM
Tue Dec 8
49 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

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 |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of i'm a bottle i'm a bottle
    12/07/09

    In reply to The Twitter Song Is Media Thing of The Year
    "The meta-philosophy of free — we should get rid of this philosophy," said Christoph Keese, Springer’s head of public affairs and an architect of its online strategy. "A highly industrialized world cannot survive on rumors. It needs quality journalism, and that costs money."

    This is a quote from a Bild spokesman, a newspaper that has famously low editorial standards. I don't get his appeal to the public interest here. These people have made a business of publishing irresponsible rumors that appeal to populist sentiment.

    There are German newspapers that are actually doing poorly. These are mainly the broadsheets with high standards. Bild is not having any major financial issues like the broadsheets are having. It's true that its circulation is decreasing, sure, but for a newspaper that has consistently chosen the profit motive as a guiding principle over quality journalism in the public's interest, it's obviously disingenuous of them to justify their price increase as a way to provide better journalism.

    The motivation is so clear here: squeeze as much money out of their readers before the great unwashed migrate away from Bild to equally poor-quality blogs.
     Reply
    Edited by i'm a bottle at 12/07/09 2:11 PM i'm a bottle was starred i'm a bottle was unstarred
    Image of freakshowtime freakshowtime
    12/07/09

    @i'm a bottle: I worked for a short period at Axel Springer. From what I saw, that company has a way of putting douchebags in charge and repressing people who actually have good ideas — even at the online division! But isn't this what the print media business does nowadays, anyway?
     Reply
    i'm a bottle promoted this comment freakshowtime was starred freakshowtime was unstarred
    Image of i'm a bottle i'm a bottle
    12/07/09

    @freakshowtime: The douchebaggery doesn't surprise me at all.

    Also, those douches aren't doing their job. Most of the Bild properties haven't changed their format in years and their online presence is especially a mess.

    They can't expect to just keep doing what they've been doing since the eighties yet hope to preserve or increase their circulation numbers. The major problem I see is that the Bild concept is graphics heavy but commentary light -- a format that's easily supplanted by anybody with an Internet connection and a Wordpress account.
     Reply
    i'm a bottle was starred i'm a bottle was unstarred
    Image of nirreskeya nirreskeya
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    Eternal December.
     Reply
    nirreskeya was starred nirreskeya was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    They are breaking the internet by filling it up with crap

    NOT AOL will be the default google search
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of romulus romulus
    11/30/09

    @If_I_Had_a_Poodle: No kidding. I already have similar problems with about.com and experts-exchange.com. For anyone who is curious how to exclude specific sites from their Google searches, there are a number of blogs that discuss it. I won't endorse one more than any other, so try [www.google.com] to start with.

    Or, as iplaudius points out below, your favorite browser (Firefox) likely offers a host of 3rd-party extensions to exclude unwanted search results.
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle promoted this comment romulus was starred romulus was unstarred
    Image of daveyjonesisdead daveyjonesisdead
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    "There I was, having a quiet day at home, when my crib recalled the day it was put together..."

    Like that? I could do that.
     Reply
    daveyjonesisdead was starred daveyjonesisdead was unstarred
    Image of Penscribe Penscribe
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    Blogs already do this.
     Reply
    Penscribe was starred Penscribe was unstarred
    Image of sweetpickles sweetpickles
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    Did they go to Harvard to get that business plan? FAIL!
     Reply
    sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred
    Image of iplaudius iplaudius
    11/30/09

    In reply to AOL's Big Plan: Robot Traffic Whoring
    I look forward to “block AOL content” features on Firefox, Google, and likely every ISP worth its salt.
     Reply
    iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred
    Image of debatem1 debatem1
    11/25/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Stupid question: Murdoch is railing against the search engines because he thinks they're stealing from him. Ok, so, that explains why he'd delist from Google- but not why he'd list on Bing. What gives?
     Reply
    GlasgowRose promoted this comment Nick Denton approved this comment debatem1 was starred debatem1 was unstarred
    Image of GlasgowRose GlasgowRose
    11/25/09

    @debatem1: Murdoch still wants buzz & word of mouth -- and other media brands reporting on WSJ's scoops -- but wants to keep Google in its place. Bing gives him leverage to wrest a better Google deal...
     Reply
    GlasgowRose was starred GlasgowRose was unstarred
    Image of Alaska Miller Alaska Miller
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    It's like telling a city bus to stop only at Burger King instead of McDonald's and expecting everyone to pay extra for free ice cream.
     Reply
    Alaska Miller was starred Alaska Miller was unstarred
    Image of Mike_Hartley Mike_Hartley
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    'Wait a minute, the sites aren't making enough money off of online ads, but google is getting rich off of... online ads?'

    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.
     Reply
    Aatom promoted this comment Mike_Hartley was starred Mike_Hartley was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What is more interesting than search engines paying for content is that this could ultimately save the news media business. Ignoring the concern to Joe Searchy and having to pick a search engine based on the results being listed for their favorite news, this could potentially allow newspapers to gain income and pay their journalists again. Certainly, there is a potential dark cloud with this concept, but there is a bright and shiny one as well The news media could survive based on search engines having to pay for access to content solving their diminishing revenue stream. Hard to say whether this is a short term or long term solution to that issue, but it certainly has potential and I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Monty: Paying journalists is a good thing and new revenue streams are vital for news organizations to pay for their current overhead. But the problem with the rosy scenario of search engines funding journalism is that the people who go to search engines looking for news are the ones who care the least about news brands. They're more likely to click on rocketnews.com or whatever it is as they are the WSJ.com. Which is exactly what infuriates newspaper owners like Murdoch. The folks who have favorite news sources are the ones who will go straight to those favorite news sources in the first place.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Monty: In this video of Calacanis' original suggestion (or at least the first place, I heard it), he spends a lot of the time proposing sort of a bidding war to get content from the largest media companies, but its success would hinge a great deal on Microsoft's willingness to use exclusivity as a selling point.

    IOW: The content companies would get a revenue stream, but as I hear him, Bing would be the primary beneficiary in the short run.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 6:15 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Agreed. "Bing: The Only Place to Find the Wall Street Journal" would make a catchy tag line. And Microsoft probably like to lure in some other big-name brands. But I can't see them extending the same offer to smaller, lesser-known news orgs. McClatchy anyone?
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I think we are all in agreement. It is hard to know whether this agreement will ultimately be a winner for the news media or not. Will it even work for News Corp, let alone for small newspapers around the country? Why would Bing pay for content from the Eugene, Oregon Register Guard? Hard to imagine. That said, it is interesting to see this unfold - and I admit that I doubt either the rosy outlook nor the doom and gloom one will come to be. Usually truth falls somewhere in the middle, which in this case means it will not matter much.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I don't know how far down Microsoft would like to go, but McClatchy owns a lot of big local papers. For instance in North Carolina, they own the two largest in the state, so maybe they could do some print trading and a couple of television ads saying something like "Bing: The exclusive index for the Charlotte Observer".

    Murdoch might be the one to pioneer this and he might get some quick income, but if Microsoft is willing to pay and if they're willing to negotiate something with the other players, Google could easily lose market share over the long run.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What happens when you look for a foreign or local story? I assume the Fox O&Os will be part of the equation, as will their Australian and UK papers.

    Though the biggest difference for the average American Google user will probably be the inability to read WSJ stories without paying a subscription.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:45 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of sweetpickles sweetpickles
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Yes. You'll find the same news at other sites by searching through Google. This isn't only about Murdoch walling off his sites, though. This is about Microsoft and News Corp. making a move to bring the internet closer to the cable television model. Search is going to become less about algorhythms and more about marketing dollars. Bing could become a curated search destination, built on the brands of established media companies. You might one day pay for a Bing app. to bring you its content resources. I don't think it's far fetched. The phone company and cable have been doing the same thing for decades: Providing a premium utility. You remember the White Pages, right?
     Reply
    sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    I think this is really audience-specific. I work for a bank, so if I had to choose between Google + no WSJ and some other search engine that is 97% as good as Google + WSJ, I would have to choose the latter. I imagine that old people, conservatives, and many other smaller groups of people might feel the same way. Add all these pieces up, and it could sum to a non-negligible percentage of market share.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I work at a private bank and I completely agree. The problem is you and I and the old fogeys don't really represent a vast majority of Google's search audience.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus promoted this comment Gabriel Snyder approved this comment NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I would be very interested in having a conversation with the (according to the stereotypes) conservative fans of Fox News who are ok with one company strong-arming them into using their product through backroom deals, rather than by improving the quality of their products. Free market!

    Wait, scratch that. What am I talking about? I do not want to have to wade through that conversation.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Nick Nick
    11/24/09

    @OCEntertainment: i also work at a bank. i use Google Finance for a lot and hate the Fox Business site. if i need something Fox News related (which i do like) i go straight to them. i also use Bloomberg. i am just typing my opinion because i like the sight of my own words.
     Reply
    Nick was starred Nick was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I'm pretty sure you could include that last sentence with any comment posted in any comment thread on the internet and still be properly poking fun at the commenter/article you're responding to (as well as yourself).

    Thanks for the perspective. I'm logging off early tonight.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @NorwoodIsMyHero: But what % are these people (bankers, business people and old fogeys)? 10%? More? To a casual Google user, that's not much. To Google, that's 10% of their business.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I don't care about Fox News, and I suspect that many people don't really, other than for the entertainment value. I care about the WSJ only, out of News Corp's publications. Unfortunately, the WSJ is a very important publication in finance. Since not missing finance news is part of my livelihood, I might be forced to use Bing if News Corp drops Google.

    I disapprove of these business practices that artificially entice people to use specific search engines. However, this does not make me immune to the effects.
     Reply
    Edited by Hello Mister Walrus at 11/24/09 5:55 PM Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/25/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I don't think we'd completely stop using Google though. At work and in news searches, I certainly would be using Bing, but at home I'd probably still use Google by default, and only if I specifically was looking for news would I switch, which when I'm home is basically never as I get plenty of it throughout the workday.
     Reply
    NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    And notice in that first search that while News Corp. is saying it can live without Google, it's also buying up ad keywords like "lieberman public option" to send people to WSJ.com.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I haven't read the WSJ's affiliate agreement and am too lazy to look for it now, but does it preclude people from buying keywords and coding them with their number?
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:54 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Good point. The ad isn't being served to me any more, so I can't see what the affiliate code was.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: The same, here. I went to look before making the suggestion, but the ads were gone (maybe they're on restricted hours) and Hamilton's post had made it onto the front page.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.