Paul Carr is the process of elimination, writer. He writes a weekly column for TechCrunch, weak focusing on media and technology. For the first part he might run away calls his career, he edited various publications and founded multiple businesses with varying degrees of abysmal failure. After getting fired from every job he ever had – including at least ... ? Read More
It is difficult to imagine anything more sophisticated than the decision to dismiss his distinguished MEDIA slate critic Jack Shafer. Not perfect, in a good way — I count myself among Shafer's legions of fans — but ideally perfect security Inspector, drop the tenth window material or in a manner that Alanis Morissette, not understanding the meaning of "Ironic" is perfect.
"I tolllldddd yyoooouuu sooooooo ..."
I mean, what better illustration could there be online media woes than ezine dismiss MEDIA critic since the economy Web content do not support the writer's credibility and specialty? At least Shafer may take some satisfaction that his departure is itself absolutely perfect MEDIA criticism: Jack Shafer as medium and message.
Slate is also suitable for admission that, even with a small staff of 60 and financial company "may", "Washington Post, he could not make money from online content. A great opportunity, i.e., to recognize once and for all that great experiment in free online content is not.
On Forbes.com, Jeff Bercovici nails file.Thus … problem
"Common interest — this is a very good concept for physical product that gets delivered to your doorstep, where to get all these disparate sections, the bundled together makes sense. It's not such a great concept on the Internet. Web hates artificial links. If you're going to make a general interest News product online, you must be willing to do it on the cheap as Matt Drudge and Arianna Huffington (or at least used to do, in the latter case). Conversely, if you want to put out more expensive production, professionally edited product, it's best to stick to a niche, preferably one with a demographic that advertisers want to reach, both technology and business ".
... and he is right. Up to a certain point. In fact many niche publications is also feeling the pinch. It's not so long ago, Bercovici to employer, Forbes, renounced its status as a professionally written and edited financial publication and decided to style itself as a sort of HuffPost for funding; covering cheap guest posters, regardless of what conflicts they can churn up. In the meantime, it would be petty of me to call those of our rivals in the blogosphere technology who supported bullshit slideshow and top ten lists over its more expensive cousins: actual fucking reporting. (Thus far TechCrunch AOL acquisition do not lead to our editors hand forced to choose between God and Mammon, but a cynic might say this is only a matter of time until we too are tested.)
Blunt truth, advertising on the Internet is a numbers game. And even the niche sites, number of impressions is intended for pages necessary to even break even is huge. There are simply too many pages of content is for advertising remain a viable long-term business model. The New York Times cannot earn money online, guardian can't can't slate and Salon practically cannot. As pointed out by Bercovici, even slate attempts to launch verticals, aimed at business readers and women, are relative failure.
There is a publication of general interest may be two, which you can reasonably claim that they have cracked the code free content: The Daily Mail and the Huffington Post. But in fact the only way in which these publications can afford to pay their growing army real, adult editors, selling millions of pages of animal stories and celebrity fluff churned underpaid hacks. (One day I want to make HuffPost slide shows slide show best of the Daily Mail is a celebrity will cleanup.)
AND YET. It's just howl and moan about how the Internet is killing journalism, but that the dystopian future only exists, if we assume that the Internet is the only place that may live editorial content. In fact, over the next five years or so that we tend to see is a bifurcation in the digital content.
On the one hand these content producers who choose to stay on the Internet free and open to more and more ethically questionable solutions stay profitable. Out will go professional writers and the separation of Church and State content and Commerce; in a more "style reader Groupon offers, affiliate links for each keyword and Malthus dumber and dumber linkbait. Ten ways to earn extra income with Lady Gaga Sony porn — kittens!
But on the other side? The fact that North American circulation of the magazine the Economist has just reached its highest ever level tells us that the audience quality content is here to stay. He also suggested that those of us who prefer our content unsullied, payoff, and who appreciate the beauty of a well-crafted headline are turning our backs on the Internet. All records and reporting better can be found in books and the Kindle singles, where readers are happy to pay directly to high-quality information and entertainment. Web content continues to get dumber and more ethically compromised, the market for high-quality content from the Internet will continue to grow.
Of course it would be idiotic to suggest publishers should hurry back in print, in the hope of emulating the Economist. But shouldn't they will spend money publishing their content on the Internet. As wildly profitable application developer will tell you, the web is a great marketing tool, but it's on the dedicated portable devices to real money and attention spans, is found. Looking today to launch a new magazine smart Publisher — focusing on business, technology, or just about anything else — it would be advisable to develop specifically for e-readers, instead of wasting more money chasing dumb eyeball web. Oh and they should hire Jack Shafer. He is brilliant.
