„Is building massive scale the only strategy?”
miercuri, noiembrie 13th, 20131.
“I think I can begin to discern the vague outlines of how digital publishing might eventually be able to deliver the kind of scale and impact that brand advertisers demand from TV and glossy magazines. I don’t know who the winner is going to be. But I do think that Blodget is right about one thing: whoever the winner is, they will have to have some very deep pockets. Winning this game won’t come cheap.”
2.
So massive scale is necessary because advertisers — especially those accustomed to TV — apparently require it (which is why Twitter has made the changes it has as well). In effect, we are rebuilding the mass media of the old days because advertisers can’t think of any other way to make money other than by accumulating billions of pageviews, and publishers are being dragged along for the ride. In order to play ball, and generate the kind of revenue their backers require, they apparently need to achieve global scale or die trying.
3.
Is this really the future we want for online media? Doesn’t it just mean that we wind up with one or two giant conglomerates whose only business model is based on pageview-driven clickbait content? That’s the model that Business Insider appears to be pursuing — one that involves producing more and more pageviews that bring in less and less revenue. Is this the only possible future? I honestly don’t know.
Pareri?
This entry was posted on miercuri, noiembrie 13th, 2013 at 07:13 and is filed under Discutii, Internet, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Raspunsul este da, catre asta converg lucrurile astazi. In Romania este fix la fel.
Este insa posibil ca atunci cand se ajunge la un echilibru intre siteuri gen google sau facebook care au un cost zero de productie si grupuri mari cum e al vostru de exemplu, sa apara nevoia de diferentiere, si asociere cu branduri de calitate, nu doar clickuri cat mai ieftine. Insa astazi eu cred ca directia e consolidare catre ce e mai sus, pentru ca e o concurenta acerba in preturi SI in costuri, in acelasi timp.
De acord. Singura scapare ar fi sa se poata intretine din continut publisherii, cititorii sa nu mai fie produsul, sa fie clienti.
Washington Post a incercat si nu a iesit, cu siguranta si pentru ca e gresit sa ceri abonament pentru tot continutul, cand pe tine te intereseaza cate un articol de aici, 3 de acolo si 1 de pe site-ul ala obscur. Ceva similar cu http://flattr.com/ cred ca ar fi mai bine. Fie dai $30 pe luna intr-un loc si se imparte la toti publisherii accesati, fie platesti specific per articol. Pentru restul lumii, link farm-uri.
Dar pentru asta si cititorii ar trebui sa aiba anumite standarde.
Analizele de gen ignora anumiti factori care au dovedit in timp ca schimba total scena. Ma refer la inventii/inovatii, reactia publicului fata de anumite lucruri care acum par poate ridicole sau nesemnificative si de ce nu conflicte sociale, economice etc. Astfel de „blocaje” erau analizate si in trecut, dar rar au avut vreo relevanta. Foarte putini sunt cei care au vazut viitorul. Cred ca totul va depinde de formele noi prin care va fi expusa informatia si evident de inflatia de continut. Cred ca oamenii tind spre idiocratie, dar asta nu este posibila fara un suport tehnic deosebit de sofisticat creat evident de cativa oameni foarte priceputi. Intr-o lume in care telekinezia, levitatia si ingineria genetica vor fi normalitati… cum vor fi privite analizele de acum? Sigur… discutia este despre monetizare… dar aceasta intr-un sistem capitalist este f diferita de cea intr-un posibil viitor sistem socialist-comunist-monopolist.