"This is Going to be BIG" has a piece about pay walls which pretty accurately describes what News sites want to believe. That if you make great content people will pay for it. That’s true. If you make great content. Wired has an AMAZING iPad app for its content fun pictures for free jokefunny pictures with sayings for free. It costs more money than the paper version delivered to my home. And I would gladly pay that if I had an iPad. The Wall Street Journal has a pay wall, that I pay to get behind. The Toledo Blade on the other hand has crap content from Associated Press.
ASSocitated Press’s content is crap, and when you further dilute it by putting in content from under paid journalists who couldn’t do any better than the Toledo Blade you get even crappier content herunterladen.
Comparing Journalism to the iTunes market is just plain stupid. The amount of man hours that goes in to a Pop song is astronomical compared to the effort that goes in to most of the crappy journalism that appears in the small dead tree rags of today. I barely pay for TV with my Hulu providing 90% of what I watch. So why am I going to pay for the SF Chronicle, or other news sites? A month of most news sites is going to bring me far less number of hours of entertainment than a single from Lady Gaga (and I’m not even much of a fan) springerprofessional download whole book.
The thing that has made me the most unhappy about the Internet revolution, is that MY content competes with the New York Times. That shouldn’t happen. I’m a smart guy who occasionally has a really well thought out post that would be way more inspired than what the WSJ would run, but that is the exception. Most the time my content is about celebrities doing stupid things and is based off of what I learned from other sites on the net. I don’t belong competing with the big boys on that content. So it’s Google’s fault that newspapers can’t make money on their content. If Google’s rank algorithm was smart enough to know that when I’m searching for "Tesla Stock Ticker" that it should return a post from the WSJ instead of from XYHD those people who leach off of the search rankings with content engineered to rank rather than written to inform would move up the rankings and the splogs would fall off the wayside musik gratis downloaden app.
But it isn’t in Google’s best interest to do that. Instead it is better for them to favor sites that run Adsense and they get a cut from. It’s also better if people search more than once so that they get more exposure to the user word 2016 kostenlos herunterladen.
Until someone can ratchet up the bar so that all the splogs in the world starve and the high quality content gets all of that traffic that is normally lost to the splogosphere, large media companies are going to lose out to places like Demand Media that can write quick, barely researched fluff content that doesn’t answer anything that the user who had heard enough about the story to search for a term will find worthless because the content only bothered to pay lip service to the topic and doesn’t add any new information herunterladen.
Conversely if big rags want to compete they need to work on SEO. The format for writing in print and writing on the web are not the same, and if you want to compete online you need to re-train your writers to write for the medium that is going to make you the money long term. Big rags also need to blend their ad strategies and look at the value of contextual ads. CPM ads will only take you so far. To occasionally hit it out of the park you need Google Adsense or Microsoft PubCenter to get you those big dollars on stories about kids getting mesothelioma because their school was built on a landfill, or ads from lawyers on the stories about sexual harassment.
At Howcast.com (Full disclosure: they pay me to do SEO) they use a demand engine to pick topics based on the Internet’s reader demand for the topic, but also the advertisers value and demand for the topic. This helps to make content profitable much more quickly herunterladen.
With contextual advertising a content producer can know that "Samsung Sprint" is worth half what "Microsoft Mobile" is in the ad market, so even if there is 50% more demand for "Samsung Sprint", likely if you only have time to do one story or the other you should follow the money, not the people.
The down side of this approach for news sites to the general population is that there never will be any money writing about what was debated at a city council meeting, or most of the feel good pieces about the local grandmother who sells tea cozies to raise money for the local animal shelter, because there is no "demand" from the readers or the advertisers herunterladen.
Putting content behind a pay wall does have some advantages. Wall Street Journal would not be able to be impartial if it picked its stories based on the Ad revenue differential between "Ford" and "GM". Nor would most people trust articles that gave companies strong buy recommendations and featured ads for that company. Keeping the money and the content separate is a good way to keep trust, but in a world of Twitter and Facebook, people trust every one so I don’t think that would be a concern for the mass market, just us old guys with healthy paranoia herunterladen.