Forbes.com: on Times/About.com
Forbes.com: Stopping The Presses
Good discussion of the business model and the impact of the Net
Excerpts:
"NEW YORK - A decade or so ago, pre-Internet, a McKinsey consultant told me that the future for serious newspapers wouldn't be to sell hundreds of thousands of copies for 50 cents each but to have their journalists talking on the phone to readers for $500 an hour.
This reductio ad absurdum of personalization sounded nuts at the time.
Almost ten years into the Internet revolution, it doesn't seem so daft, though not for the reasons originally advanced. Online news sites (including our own), free from print's constraints of time and space, are using the medium to aggregate and deliver information tailored to each user in a way a newspaper never can.
Where does that leave the printed word?"
Circulation continues to drop, eBay has ripped the guts out of classified (the real money maker) and readers want access to news online.
"Publishers have long gained from the economic inefficiency of the advertising market. As Lord Leverhulme, the soap baron, is reputed to have said, "I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
Not so on the Internet. Advertisers can be sure every ad they buy is seen and track its effectiveness. The measurability of Internet advertising keeps money firmly in the pockets of advertisers that in the past went to publishers and supported shareholder profits or good journalism."
Where does this all lead?
Continuing the trend towards "voice" media, or as Forbes put's it "Television news' answer can be summed up as: Comment is cheap, but fact is expensive. So it has gone the low-cost route."
Hello Fox, etc.
Good discussion of the business model and the impact of the Net
Excerpts:
"NEW YORK - A decade or so ago, pre-Internet, a McKinsey consultant told me that the future for serious newspapers wouldn't be to sell hundreds of thousands of copies for 50 cents each but to have their journalists talking on the phone to readers for $500 an hour.
This reductio ad absurdum of personalization sounded nuts at the time.
Almost ten years into the Internet revolution, it doesn't seem so daft, though not for the reasons originally advanced. Online news sites (including our own), free from print's constraints of time and space, are using the medium to aggregate and deliver information tailored to each user in a way a newspaper never can.
Where does that leave the printed word?"
Circulation continues to drop, eBay has ripped the guts out of classified (the real money maker) and readers want access to news online.
"Publishers have long gained from the economic inefficiency of the advertising market. As Lord Leverhulme, the soap baron, is reputed to have said, "I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
Not so on the Internet. Advertisers can be sure every ad they buy is seen and track its effectiveness. The measurability of Internet advertising keeps money firmly in the pockets of advertisers that in the past went to publishers and supported shareholder profits or good journalism."
Where does this all lead?
Continuing the trend towards "voice" media, or as Forbes put's it "Television news' answer can be summed up as: Comment is cheap, but fact is expensive. So it has gone the low-cost route."
Hello Fox, etc.
posted by JTH at 7:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home