April 22, 2011
February 2, 2010
January 22, 2010
This blog suffers from bad blogging practices according to ‘the experts’ – - not posting enough. But have been a bit bored with the subject at hand.
Other sources are keeping much better track of the details of the decline. And I’m still watching the different ideas bubbling up about what the future media world might bring.
The old media business models are still in decline. Most have been participating, but are struggling, in the free web content model supported by advertising.
The ad revenue generated by the same content on the web is one tenth of what old media makes by the print version. There’s only so much ad money available, and there’s an abundance of choices for advertisers.
Some are combining advertising with subscriptions for premium members in varing doses.
And then there’s Google, who considers itself a media company, and generates lots of money from advertising.
There are those like Rupert Murdock who think there is a need for a stronger subscription model and less reliance on advertising. He doesn’t like the idea that Google has access to his news company’s content and can serve it up on their search pages with their own advertising.
And the New York Times web site is considering going behind a ‘wall’ of paid subscriptions. In an era of abundance, they’re considering scarcity.
Old media used to own the talent and the spigot to their audience and could charge a fee for access. As well as charging a fee to advertisers for access to their audience.
Now there is no more spigot. The audience is not captured nor is the talent. They have both been set free and the flood gates are open.
October 2, 2009
April 9, 2009
KRON in San Fransicso reported on a new idea bubbling up at the San Francisco Chronicle — reading your newspaper on your computer. Imagine such a thing!
They called it the ‘telepaper’ and didn’t think they would make money. But they also thought they ‘wouldn’t loose a lot either.’ Good reporting KRON! — who now covers news on the internet itself.
Stephan Rothman who writes the blog Steve’s Social Media Soapbox Twittered a link to this video. Thanks Steve!
It there a circle forming here?
October 27, 2008
I have a question.
The citizens of the United States own the air waves. We ‘lease’ the rights to them to the broadcast companies. The candidates have to buy air time from these companies. To pay the bill they have to ask for lots of money from contributors — could be a problem here.
Our politicians need to reach the citizens with their ideas, promises, plans, etc. And voters need to fully understand the consequences of their votes.
Why don’t we give better access to our presidential candidates? Why do we depend on the press to monitor the access? Why don’t we just let them talk to us directly? I know they have websites, but they’re mostly geared up to get donations, and it takes lots of work to actually compare the two.
For instance each presidential candidate could have access to 15 minutes of prime time for each of the last four weeks of the campaign to outline their plans. Am surprised CSPAN doesn’t do this. Maybe they do and I’m clueless.
I haven’t spoken to anyone who can tell me what the actual differences are between the candidates health care programs, tax proposals, economic philosophies, etc. But they definitely have intense emotional opinions about the different personalities.
Can more access with more relevant information make a difference?
Or am I just naive? –Bingo!
September 4, 2008
Go to the sites and see for yourself.
CNET wasn’t perfect, but it had a certain warm ‘yellow’ personality that came along with it’s relevant content. It added a bit of the flavor of the historic SF techie scene. Especially for it’s readers that have been reading it for a very long time.
Now it feels like a silvery highrise in Manhattan. Wonder if the content will absorb that same metalic taste. To be fair, as you go through the site, it’s clear that more work is to be done in the integration. I just thought that CBS would want to bask in that golden glow for a bit longer.
It’s apparent that CBS didn’t pay $1.8 billion for the ‘brand’s personality.’ Let’s see if they continue to like the content.
It’s puzzling that anyone would buy an online company (new media) for it’s online audience, etc. and then quickly transform it into broadcast (old media) format and image? Again, that was $1.8 billion they paid. The answer must lie deep in the deck of research that was most certainly conducted.
Has anyone else noticed how many sites are starting to look like these two? Is it the influence of Flex, Ajax, etc.?