mathew ingram › Comments

"Yes that's a good point, Scott. I find it hard to understand why there wasn't even a simple pointer to the blog though." - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Dave. I agree that it shouldn't have been either/or -- why would the NYT not package the two together as a feature, or at the very least include a link to the blog? I just don't understand that. In any case, congrats to you and to Lindsay on a job well done." - mathew ingram

"So newspapers fail to convert readers who come in through search. Is that Google's fault, or the Internet's fault, or is it the fault of the newspaper for not knowing (or caring) how to engage and convert and retain readers? Better to focus on charging an ever-shrinking number of devoted readers ever-increasing sums for the same old content. Great strategy." - mathew ingram

"Obviously he still has promotional power -- all kinds of it. So I'll be interested to see what happens to his business when he removes Google and virtually all of social media from that equation. Should be a fascinating test case." - mathew ingram

"Yes, I can see how Rupert would see things that way -- and so he is willing to potentially endanger the long-term online growth (if not survival) of some of his key media properties because he wants to take down Google so they don't someday decide to compete with him. Classic." - mathew ingram

"I didn't say that's all they should care about, Mark -- I said that when it comes to search, all they should care about is that readers can find their content, not whether Google or Microsoft or Yahoo is on top." - mathew ingram

"I don't see how it's a net benefit to News Corp. -- or any other major media outlet, for that matter -- if they all pull out of Google and no one benefits directly, but Google is somehow negatively impacted. The only companies I can think of that benefit in that scenario are Microsoft and Yahoo, but why should Murdoch or anyone else celebrate that? All they care about (or should care about) is that people can find their content. So my two things would be: 1. News Corp. pulls out of the index and nothing happens, in which case why did they bother? 2. they pull out of the index and they lose all kinds of traffic and mind-share and attention and promotional value through link-sharing, blogs, etc. -- but they don't notice until it's too late, and by that point re-entering the index doesn't help. That sounds like a sucker bet to me." - mathew ingram

"Strikes me as a great approach, George -- the same way many blogs have "landing page" boxes that promote their RSS feed, related posts, etc." - mathew ingram

"Fair enough, Mark -- although I think that the theoretical Fox News audience is more fungible than either you or Ian (or Rupert) want to admit. In any case, what you have described is a recipe for maintaining a certain audience, not increasing it." - mathew ingram

"I think news is more of a commodity than either you or Rupert wants to admit, Ian." - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Mark; always a pleasure to hear from you. Don't read too much into the "crusty old billionaire" crack -- I was just yanking your chain a little :-) As far as the whole business model thing is concerned, please read my response to Ian -- I am not some kind of business naïf, or Internet triumphalist. And I don't think advertising is the key to making content pay online, in part because of the factors you describe. But the fact remains that in order to prove value, or even successfully create it, we have to use tools like Twitter and Facebook and yes, even Google -- not cut them off and put roadblocks in their way. People sharing our content is one of the best marketing tools we have available; why would we make that even harder than we do already? You should be thanking me for saying that you're right about the power of Twitter etc. But you don't explain how that jibes with Rupert's Google-blocking and pay-walling - which is understandable, because it doesn't. Go..." - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Ian. I get the monetization piece -- that's obviously where the "economy" part of "attention economy" come in. I'm not some kind of Internet utopian who thinks money will magically fall from the sky. But how do people know that your content is valuable to them if they can't see it or read it or share it with others? That's part of what generates the value in the first place. Like the commenter on my Nieman post, I find it intensely frustrating not to be able to share a link with someone because of a pay wall. So not only does that frustrate me, a dedicated user or customer of that content site, but it frustrates every *potential* user or customer as well. How is that a good strategy? My point is that social recommendation networks and other tools of "social media" are a crucial part of how media entities gain attention -- which is a pretty scarce commodity. To use your store analogy, how are people supposed to know that they want to buy your content or services..." - mathew ingram

"That is a really great point, David — sharing (in other words, redistributing) the content is a crucial part of social media, and disconnecting people from that by putting up pay walls means effectively shutting down a really fundamental aspect of online behaviour." - mathew ingram

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

Facebook referral traffic is up 48 percent since the launch—and the already-heavy volume of comments jumped to 2.2 million from 1.7 million in July. Fifteen percent of HuffPo comments now come from Facebook. In September, Facebook referrals accounted for 3.5 million visits, up 190 percent from June and 500 percent from January. Those numbers continue to build, according to HuffPo’s internal stats. - mathew ingram

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

"No worries, Daniel -- I think your focus on data and measurement is a valuable one, and you are quite right that there are arguments on both sides that are not bolstered by any data whatsoever. But how does one measure serendipity or the lack thereof? It seems to me that the whole concept is so abstruse and indefinable that I wouldn't even know where to start." - mathew ingram

"No data, Daniel -- just my perceptions :-)" - mathew ingram

"I think that's a great point, Mark. So many newspaper websites -- ours included -- simply copy the format and structure that worked in print, rather than taking advantage of this new medium and the way people consume and understand content online. Hopefully we are all learning quickly :-)" - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Steve. Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that there is a much broader range of serendipitous content that we get exposed to on the Web and through social media. I rely on that and enjoy it immensely. But I still think (maybe just nostalgiically) that there is value in the particular blend of curation and aggregation that newspapers provide -- not all of it, but certainly some of it." - mathew ingram

"Thanks, Raul -- I just finished reading Todd's piece, which is excellent, and posted a link to it on Twitter. I think he is dead on target with his overview of the five "werewolves" and what they are doing to the industry. I particularly liked his observation about how newspapers appealed to an "accidental public," some of whom were interested in informing themselves about issues and some of whom just wanted to be entertained or amused. That is one of the central dilemmas of any form of publishing, in paper or online -- how much should you appeal to the former and how much to the latter?" - mathew ingram

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

Posted via web from mathewingram's posterous - mathew ingram from Posterous

awesome - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Neil — those doubts are one of the big reasons I wanted to do it in the first place. And Jason, as I said before, if it was up to me I would have left the post as it was. I wish we weren’t quite so thin-skinned about criticism, whether internal or external, but it is what it is." - mathew ingram

"Thanks, Simon. And Joe, the proper forum to discuss internal matters is an internal one — a lunch, a coffee, a meeting, etc. P.S. Please feel free to take your trolling comments about me elsewhere." - mathew ingram

"@Mo — we have talked, and continue to talk, about moving the SEO discussion somewhere so that we can continue the debate around the issues mentioned in Peter’s post. I think he raised some points that need to be addressed. @Andrew — I said that I thought objectivity was obsolete, not good manners. Using our platform to insult someone we invited to speak is just rude. And the books blog is for discussions about books, not about internal Globe matters. @Marc — If it had been up to me, I would have left the post up and had Peter or someone else respond to or update it. Once it was gone, I thought the way we handled it was the best option available. And yes, the SEO discussion is continuing." - mathew ingram

"Thanks for the comment, Jenna. It is definitely a new game, and to some extent we are making up the rules as we go. That can make it difficult, especially when things are moving quickly — but at least it keeps it interesting :-)" - mathew ingram