Comments on: Guest post: National Times offers nothing new

By: Dave Earley

Dave Earley — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:32:08 +0000

@Jason – I was going to make this comment Monday when the post went up, but didn’t feel witty enough at the time. I still don’t, but will push on regardless….along the lines of the partial rant, I was disappointed by the brevity of the post. The end came all too soon. I expected wide, sweeping scythes through the upper levels of journalism managers, and their marketers, but it ended abruptly. It was brief and to the point. Well done, this time for not over-indulging in the macabre navel-gazing about the “future of journalism” that I just.can’t.help.devouring.

@Matt – and in 15 or 20 years’ time, when you say their newsprint parents are finally gone, will they still embody in themselves “the power of brand from the SMH/Age”?

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:35:14 +0000

Jason, I can feel your envy from here. What these websites (blogs, whatever) have going for them is BRAND.
And while I’m not likely to look at your blog (which I’m sure is very good), I am likely to check out the new National Times site, because they’ve got the power of brand from the SMH/Age sites.
I think they’ve got good models – you’re right, they need some more investment, but I reckon they’ll still be around, and making money, in five years’ time.
And in 15 or 20 years when their newsprint parents are finally gone.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:54:29 +0000

i concur

By: Jason Whittaker

Jason Whittaker — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:59:17 +0000

I’ve got a bunch of ideas, Ben and Danu. I think we all do. I’ve blogged some of them and commentated for others on some of them at length previously. This wasn’t a forum for trying to solve the incredibly complex puzzle of new journalism business models, which much smarter people with much more at stake are trying to figure out. I don’t envy them.

This was about the hypocrisy of how these opinion sites are promoted. Which is either spin from marketing people who don’t know any better, or a genuine belief within the highest echelons of these companies that, as they claim, they are making serious investments in journalism with these websites. If it’s genuine, then I really do worry about the bigger decisions facing them in the months and years ahead.

By: Danu Poyner

Danu Poyner — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:20:39 +0000

LOL @ Ben. My thoughts exactly.

By: Reevesy

Reevesy — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:01:55 +0000

From an ad placement POV these sites / environments are likely to only really deliver performance campaigns in reality (meaning little revenue at low CPM’s)

Premium placement advertisers unless they have “irreverence” as a brand equity tend to steer clear of polarising or opinion simply due to wanting to keep criticism at arms length from their brands…

Editorially this might be argued to impact the journalism discussed.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:39:42 +0000

nice partial rant jason..
offer some alternatives please?

i cant stress enough, the importance of ideas.