Comments on: Blogonomics: Monetizing readers http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: jdanielwright http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12991 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:55:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12991 I agree with your post, Felix. I believe that Blodget is trying to become the Gail Wynand of the internet by building a populistic attention-grabbing tabloid for the lay masses. In the process he will lose me and the rest of his viewers that want informed and well-written articles which will coincide with a decline in the value of his site. But that’s just my opinion.
-JDW

]]>
By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12989 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:49:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12989 Since not long after the advent of desktop publishing and immediately upon the advent of desktop video, I arrived at the conclusion that creative writers and other artists ought to resist the temptation to become their own editors, publishers, ad-sales agents and CPAs. Avoid that situation, always.

There’s a world of difference between the editor-writer-publisher-printer-cook and bottlewasher struggling to put out a weekly community newspaper and the role of a financial commentator whose work may or may not interest people all over the planet; the former making perceptible impact on a known community, the latter having to rely on applied communications science to retain a necessary veneer of savoir faire, nobless oblige, charisma and – this being finance after all – global suspension of reader disbelief throughout the duration of narrative, factual or (present company excepted) fanciful.

In that regard, good blogging’s a bit like theatre: nobody really cares what measure of madness goes on behind the scenes at the actual venue of their delivery. The audience wants a nice show, and some sense of being in good hands. When and if the time is right to break the fourth wall, and timing is everything, only the strong and best-rehearsed performers survive.

I’m saying, let your editor, publisher, agent, manager, CPA or interns handle the dirty work. That’s what they’re for.

It probably isn’t going to take much to upstage Blodget for all time but, for the love of blog, please do it on merit rather than by devaluing the contest to one of dull metrics that nobody seriously gives a click about.

]]>
By: velobabe http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12988 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:09:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12988 “TBI has published 2,547 stories in March to date

i posted on henry blog BI this:
i believe this sentence needs to read like this
“TBI has published 2,547 HEADLINES in March to date

got good ole henry attention with something like he is really getting peed on tonight?

]]>
By: Ghandiolfini http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12983 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:47:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12983 “Journalists are cost centers”: what a longwinded self indulgent load of hogwash. Publishers go for every penny, regardless of source and cost.

I am curious how you guys get paid. In the name of transparency, it would be good governance if you disclose who else you write for, and how many words on any particular day, Rolfe does it on occasion.

A friend of mine resigned from a radio station two weeks ago and had to fire 7 employees before he left, he once told me that every click somehow brings in advertising money.

I much prefer a medium length opinion by Rolf, Bernd and Agnus, than these snippets and ego trips.

The quality of your work has nose-dived in the past month, maybe time to pay attention to the Canadian shareholder again ?

]]>
By: stuntmidget http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12975 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12975 OMG! People PAY to hear what Henry Blodget thinks? Or says he thinks?

]]>
By: marketfolly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12973 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:44:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12973 Felix, I was going to link to that same old post of yours that ‘Sharpie’ just pointed out. In the end, it just comes down to business model. If your revenue is primarily coming from ads, no question you’re aiming for quantity over quality.

I completely understand your points and agree with many of them. I think long-form posts, though, fall more under the niche-content-that-you-charge-for model. Hence the fascinating ongoing business model debate between old media/new media and everywhere in between.

People have no problem putting up with ads because then the information is ‘free’ to them. Paying readers are paying for the value-add. I think in this particular instance, it’s just that Carney’s long-form fits a business model opposite of what TBI has pursued.

Jay
@marketfolly

]]>
By: Wise_Man http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12972 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:26:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12972 Felix, thanks for the post. I agree with your sentiments.

I do, however, want to clarify one thing– you write, “TBI has published 2,547 stories in March to date — all with an editorial staff of 15, plus three interns. Ignoring weekends for the sake of simplicity, that works out at 8.5 posts per person per day”.

This math is actually incorrect since TBI uses links to so many articles written by other sites, such as Reuters, All Things D, Forbes, etc. Additionally, they have a lot of guest bloggers. So the posts per person per day is probably much lower, of which I would say 50% are thoughtful and insightful content and 50% are page-pumping posts. I would love for them to skew 70/30, but as a start-up I will deal.

Thanks for the post.

]]>
By: Sharpie http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12970 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:24:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12970 I’m with you on this debate, Felix. But I was reminded of one of your old posts, so I looked it up. Your thoughts then (July 2009) seem to clash somewhat with your stance today:

“As always, there’s a trade-off between quantity and quality. Should you write more, with lower quality, or less, with higher quality? Fortunately, the blogosphere has been around for long enough that we have a simple empirical answer to this question: given the choice, go for quantity over quality. You might not like it — I certainly don’t — but I defy you to name a really good blogger who doesn’t blog frequently.”

]]>
By: AllanB http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12969 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:19:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12969 Long form or short, I don’t care, just grab my attention and keep it throughout the article, regardless of length. That’s all readers really care about.

Been following the twitter battle between you two because I enjoy a good debate, by intelligent people that are able to keep it civil.

More importantly than enjoying a good debate, I’m learning something.

Thanks for making Twitterville a little more entertaining.

]]>
By: Graubart http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/28/blogonomics-monetizing-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-12968 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:27:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3112#comment-12968 Felix,
Sometimes the long form serves the reader well and I think this post is a good example of that.
The key point in your post is “publishers make money by selling readers, not adspace, and that if he’s going to make money, he’s going to have to do so by getting high-value readers that companies want to reach.”

The challenge today is that even those publishers which cultivate a quality audience are having difficulties monetizing that audience. A high quality niche audience, like the readership of Footnoted or The Big Picture, won’t generate much revenue in today’s economy.

I think that will change in time, as advertisers’ perceptions change. For now, there’s no easy answer. But one thing remains clear: while high quality editorial won’t automatically deliver revenues, low quality editorial has little chance to do so, instead competing with Associated Content, Seed, About.com and Demand Media. And that’s not where most of us want to be.

]]>