I was wondering this the other day, believe it or not. Yes - I should get out more often. But I was particularly curious about how the pageviews are holding up if compared with the old figures for Gawker Media, when Defamer and Valleywag were separate entities and GM figures combined results from all sites.
Sincere question (yes, really - doesn't happen often - don't get used to it) - Are the figures for 2008 you give in the chart for Gawker Media, or just Gawker.com? If the latter, do you attribute the jump in pageviews to readers switching from Defamer and Valleywag to Gawker.com?
@DevilsAvocado: The figures in the chart are just for Gawker.com. We brought in Valleywag in mid-December and then Defamer at the end of February. In November, the last full month when all three sites were separate, the combined page views were by my count about 27 million. So considering that the Gawker staff is about half the size of the three sites combined at that point, we're doing pretty well to get back to even. Unique visitors, which is the more important measure these days, is a little bit trickier to compare pre- and post-merger because there were a lot of overalapping readers, especially with Gawker and Defamer. So you can't just combine uniques for all three sites and compare them to the current number.
Thanks for that, Gabriel. It's all quite intriguing. And - yes - getting pageviews up to a level that's comparable to the combined figures in November after the reduction in staffing and infrastructure is, indeed, impressive. Kudos. It would be interesting to see how the unique visitor figures compare before and after the merger, though.
@Wonderland: EXACTLY. In the new world order of WEB 3.0, "fair use" is going to be redefined dramatically to kill the Huffington Post and every other blogger that thinks it's legal to cut and paste someone's work (but only part of the work) and slap some snarky comment at the end, with a link.
Guess what? A written work is a piece of intellectual property and sites like Gawker have been stealing it without compensation for YEARS.
The AP has just fired the first shot in this new world order:
NEW YORK - The Associated Press Board of Directors today announced it would launch an industry initiative to protect news content from misappropriation online.
AP Chairman Dean Singleton said the news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content - and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don't.
"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," Singleton said at the AP annual meeting, in San Diego.
1) Web 3.0 has nothing to do with fair use...the pretty standard understanding is that Web 3.0 will take social networks and the like mobile. See: Twitter, Foursquare, Google Latitude, etc.
2) A written work is absolutely intellectual property, but the ideas ARE NOT. Copyright protects another person's actual written content from being distributed verbatim for profit, but it does not protect another entity from using that information, especially in cases of fair use when the content is considered "newsworthy." You don't think newspapers rip each other off all the time?? If the NYP could only report on stories that they researched and dug up, they'd be a much slimmer, stupider read than it already is.
3) The AP can huff and puff all they want about their legal high ground (which they do have in some instances), but to think that they can squash any other publisher from sourcing their reporter's work for their own story is a gross distortion of the concept of fair use, which was created for public benefit. Again, copyright protects the written word, but not the ideas or facts within them.
Plus there's a reason people read Huffpo or Gawker...if we were just copying other sources, wouldn't people go there instead?
Plus there's a reason people read Huffpo or Gawker...if we were just copying other sources, wouldn't people go there instead?
No - they wouldn't. Readers online have ADD and are inherently lazy. They like information to be aggregated. Unfortunately, this means that the source loses (barring AP - they are totally different and need to rethink their strategy as a whole).
@Wonderland: If your issue is with aggregation, then all news sources are to blame. CNN, NYT, etc...they all do their fair share of news aggregation. They obviously do lots of their own reporting as well, however their infrastructure is such that they can support that.
Gawker is trying to get to that point too...the recent hiring of John Cook, not to mention the slew of stories we broke last year (Tom Cruise, Montauk Monster, Palin emails, Craigslist Cash Fan, MTV layoffs) and of course the steady stream of tips we get from crumbling media empires.
But in short, we are producing content, and when we use the facts from someone else's content we always source them. Nothing wrong with that.
04/07/09
I don't care what anyone says, Gabe, I think your sense of irony runs deep.
04/07/09
1. "Obama is a terrorist blah blah blah..."
2. "Richard, you're should be shamed to call yourself a journalist blah blah blah..."
Each results in about 50 responses.
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
It isn't, but perhaps it should be... as in: slow + down = slown.
Sloan, as in 'sloan ranger' - a term for a British yuppie used in the 80s, is a colloquial word, however.
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
Sincere question (yes, really - doesn't happen often - don't get used to it) - Are the figures for 2008 you give in the chart for Gawker Media, or just Gawker.com? If the latter, do you attribute the jump in pageviews to readers switching from Defamer and Valleywag to Gawker.com?
04/07/09
04/07/09
Thanks for that, Gabriel. It's all quite intriguing. And - yes - getting pageviews up to a level that's comparable to the combined figures in November after the reduction in staffing and infrastructure is, indeed, impressive. Kudos. It would be interesting to see how the unique visitor figures compare before and after the merger, though.
04/07/09
04/07/09
Guess what? A written work is a piece of intellectual property and sites like Gawker have been stealing it without compensation for YEARS.
The AP has just fired the first shot in this new world order:
[associatedpress.com]
NEW YORK - The Associated Press Board of Directors today announced it would launch an industry initiative to protect news content from misappropriation online.
AP Chairman Dean Singleton said the news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content - and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don't.
"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," Singleton said at the AP annual meeting, in San Diego.
04/08/09
1) Web 3.0 has nothing to do with fair use...the pretty standard understanding is that Web 3.0 will take social networks and the like mobile. See: Twitter, Foursquare, Google Latitude, etc.
2) A written work is absolutely intellectual property, but the ideas ARE NOT. Copyright protects another person's actual written content from being distributed verbatim for profit, but it does not protect another entity from using that information, especially in cases of fair use when the content is considered "newsworthy." You don't think newspapers rip each other off all the time?? If the NYP could only report on stories that they researched and dug up, they'd be a much slimmer, stupider read than it already is.
3) The AP can huff and puff all they want about their legal high ground (which they do have in some instances), but to think that they can squash any other publisher from sourcing their reporter's work for their own story is a gross distortion of the concept of fair use, which was created for public benefit. Again, copyright protects the written word, but not the ideas or facts within them.
Plus there's a reason people read Huffpo or Gawker...if we were just copying other sources, wouldn't people go there instead?
04/08/09
Plus there's a reason people read Huffpo or Gawker...if we were just copying other sources, wouldn't people go there instead?
No - they wouldn't. Readers online have ADD and are inherently lazy. They like information to be aggregated. Unfortunately, this means that the source loses (barring AP - they are totally different and need to rethink their strategy as a whole).
04/08/09
Gawker is trying to get to that point too...the recent hiring of John Cook, not to mention the slew of stories we broke last year (Tom Cruise, Montauk Monster, Palin emails, Craigslist Cash Fan, MTV layoffs) and of course the steady stream of tips we get from crumbling media empires.
But in short, we are producing content, and when we use the facts from someone else's content we always source them. Nothing wrong with that.