Bandwidth » Social Media/Web 2.0 http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth Insights from H&K Canada's social media strategy team Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:05:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 Future of Newspapers – Debate Rages (?) http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/08/14/future-of-newspapers-debate-rages/ http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/08/14/future-of-newspapers-debate-rages/#comments Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:05:54 +0000 Boyd Neil tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d94369e20120a4f5787c970b Debate about the future of newspapers won’t die for some time yet I think . . . at least among journalists, news media watchers, some bloggers and Clay Shirky.

Roy Greenslade on Greenslade Blog wrote this week on newspapers and magazines charging for their online content. Greenslade’s title alone raises the key question: "Paid content is all the rage with US publishers – but where’s the proof that anyone will pay?"

I chuckled over the comment from Steven Brill, founder of Journalism Online, in the piece that JO "has helped shift the debate over charging for online news from ‘if’ to ‘when and how’" because beleaguered publishers have moved past the "abstract debate" to agree that paid content is the way ahead." (JO’s goal is to help them get there.)

Now there’s a shock right? Publishers think the solution to declining print revenues is to charge people for accessing onlne content.

Megan McArdlein The Atlantic online framed the debate marvellously this way "The problem besetting newspapers is not that there are hordes of bloggers giving it away for free . . . Even if every newspaper and magazine in the country entered into a binding cartel agreement not to put more than a smidgen of free content on their websites, newspapers would still be losing money, and closing by the dozens.  It’s the economics, stupid . . . We’re witnessing the death of a business model."

So how exactly is pushing people to pay for online content recognizing, as people like Shirky and McArdle (and dozens of others) have been rightly trying to point out, that the paid online content model which has been tried many times before will not revive the fortunes of "old" media.

]]>
http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/08/14/future-of-newspapers-debate-rages/feed/ 0
TechCrunch-Twitter Dust-Up http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/07/17/techcrunch-twitter-dust-up-2/ http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/07/17/techcrunch-twitter-dust-up-2/#comments Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:33:02 +0000 tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d94369e2011572137413970b Some bickering broke out this week between Michael Arrington at TechCrunch and the folks at Twitter about some documents leaked to Mr. Arrington and then published in a column/post. I haven’t been following the chatter about it, but there is a good summary at Social Media Today.

What caught my eye from Amy Mengel’s report was this comment:

"But, let’s all remember that bloggers, like Arrington, aren’t journalists.
They don’t operate under a professional code of ethics. they don’t report to an
editor or publisher who tells them what to write about or what they can or can’t
reveal. Many of them are ethical, many of them are former journalists, many of
them would have chosen not to publish the documents."

Separate from the facts or otherwise of the particular events (now heading to the courts apparently), the question in my mind is this: When does a blogger who writes for a group-edited blog become de facto a journalist and perhaps subject to the same standards of ethical conduct to which journalists are expected to adhere (to the extent that they do in reality anyway)?

Wikipedia describes Mr. Arrington — a lawyer — as a "founder/co-editor" of TechCrunch. Many think of TechCrunch as an online news source. So, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . ?

]]>
http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/bandwidth/2009/07/17/techcrunch-twitter-dust-up-2/feed/ 0