Comments on: The misdirected revolt of the dinosaurs

By: Learning from free Classifieds | Ma vision floue du monde

Learning from free Classifieds | Ma vision floue du monde — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:59:46 +0000

[...] 2 – Confidence in the concept. In other words: “our brand, our users”. When free classifieds took off, so-called “meta search engines” appeared. Like Google News for the news, meta engines aggregate classifieds from other sites, make them accessible through a good search interface and send traffic back to the original sites. In the process, they make lots of money thanks to Google text-ads. In France, one of the biggest such meta engines is Yakaz: it carries about 3.3m classifieds from a thousand sites. This fast growing site is well served by a remarkable search interface (Leboncoin’s search is weaker: it generates lots of noise, i.e. unwanted ads). “We quickly decided that we’d be better off building our own traffic”, explains Leboncoin’s Olivier Aizac, 35. “We prevented Yakaz and the like to crawl our site. These guys built their brands on the back of others. In the beginning, they send traffic back to you, for free. Then, once you’re hooked, they propose to charge you by the click for the traffic they funnel back to you. We believe it is not in our best interest to help them since we might end up competing head-to-head”. This has to be compared to the way publishers attempt to manage their relationship with Google. These publishers keep trying a wobbly dual (neither completely for or against) strategy directed at aggregators: see a previous Monday Note, The misdirected revolt of the dinosaurs. [...]

By: fajar

fajar — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 02:10:20 +0000

Thank you for the link

By: Attorney Don Hecker Bulletin » Not on the same page. Ever.

Attorney Don Hecker Bulletin » Not on the same page. Ever. — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:06:54 +0000

[...] There, Google-bashing was the life of the party. As I told in last week’s Monday Note (see The Misdirected Revolt of the Dinosaurs) the climax was the “debate” between WAN’s president Gavin O’Reilly and [...]

By: Learning from free Classifieds | Monday Note

Learning from free Classifieds | Monday Note — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:19:30 +0000

By: Se Google desse un segnale di buona volontà… | LSDI

Se Google desse un segnale di buona volontà… | LSDI — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:54:32 +0000

[...] avevo scritto nella nota precedente (vedi The Misdirected Revolt of the Dinosaurs) il momento culminante al Congresso della WAN è stato il ‘dibattito’ fra il presidente degli [...]

By: Chandra Coomaraswamy

Chandra Coomaraswamy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:12:51 +0000

Let it go gentlemen. The old exploitative, rather too self-indulgent fat cat publishing model will not run any longer. I feel an old cliché coming on but really, wake up and smell the coffee please. When the press (newspapers and magazines controlled the medium, consumers were screwed. We paid for the issues and we got the ads we did not want. The press no longer control the medium of today. If they want to continue in business, they must provide better content than their ‘net upstart competitors and forget about including ads for their paying customers. If someone wants the content but is not prepared to pay, then by all means inundate them with all the ads you can muster.
Whatever happens, even if Google is excluded from every news outlet, the news will out by one means or another….err probably Google and as little as 10 minutes after the moment of first publication. We’ve done this experimentally a few hundred times. It is easy and it works just fine. I mean, once a news item is out, it is in the public domain and can be re-purposed by anyone. The news event itself belongs to no one in most cases, so what’s all the bleating about ownership and plagiarism? The proprietary stuff is another matter – the carefully researched investigation and so on. But no one and no thing can stop this change happening … short of blowing up the whole of the Internet.
This is evolution. The time is ripe for a new paradigm. The reason there is so much protest from ‘old’ publishing houses is because they know in their hearts that they will never have it so good at the consumers’ expense any more. Now what is wrong with that? You are consumers too, every one of you.
Consider that Felix Dennis has recently published books on how to get rich and how easy it is … anyone can do it etc etc. Now, imo, that is a sure sign of bad times to come for publishing.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:06:01 +0000

@Stan, yes, I agree, they’ve had to sell both and have failed at both, and perhaps I’m exaggerating because we spend 99% of our time talking about content when 70% of profits for most publishers comes from advertising (although that figure varies wildly, particularly for mass market tabloids which make more money from cover sales).
The other point is that the main threat to newspapers has not come from new ways of selling content, but rather new ways of selling advertising (e.g. CPC, CPA), and they’ve not responded to that threat.

By: Stan

Stan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:08:08 +0000

@Paul Bradshaw «Why do we talk so much about content when the main source of income – and the main area where innovation is needed – is advertising?» : because — in the ‘news’ business case — publishers’ expertise has always been to sell contents AND to sell an audience, at the same time. As far as today, news publishers have failed at both on the Net. Innovation is needed in both areas. Furthermore, how can you say that the MAIN source of income online is advertising ? Look at the facts : mass market in content business is over.

By: Not on the same page. Ever. | Monday Note

Not on the same page. Ever. | Monday Note — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:12:30 +0000

By: Chandra Coomaraswamy

Chandra Coomaraswamy — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:22:09 +0000

The future is ad-free. Ads are a cancer in media. I don’t want ninvited encroachers into my consciousness. Left to persist it will be just a matter of time before we see a 50-50 split, or worse, between ads and content, just as is becoming the case with Sat TV. I want good content and am prepared to pay for it. I don’t want uninvited distractions from that content by vendor-whores trying to separate me from my money and getting in the way of my enjoyment of what I am paying to consume. If your future viability rests on ad revenues, you are finished imo. Paid-for content must be ad-free. If the content is good, it will succeed.

By: Etude Médiamétrie sur la consommation d’internet, les nouveautés de Google, un clip des Plasticines, et Pierre Billon : le nouveau héros | zdar.net

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:23:51 +0000

[...] bon article de Frédéric Filloux sur les relations de Google avec la [...]

By: What’s your problem with the internet? A crib sheet for news exec speeches

What’s your problem with the internet? A crib sheet for news exec speeches — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:44:25 +0000

[...] A crib sheet for news exec speeches December 8th, 2009 by Paul Bradshaw No comments When media executives (and the occasional columnist on a deadline) talk about ‘the problem with the web’ they [...]

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:57:16 +0000

Thanks Andrew – that’s very useful. Also worth reading is Sly Bailey’s comments on a similar vein some months before – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/17/sly-bailey-newspaper-websites-digital-britain

Seems Kelly is to some extent just repeating the party line.

By: jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-12-08 — jardenberg unedited

jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-12-08 — jardenberg unedited — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:12:19 +0000

[...] The misdirected revolt of the dinosaurs [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:15:55 +0000

Worth seeing a recent post about this here – http://econsultancy.com/blog/4986-3am-site-goes-from-no-seo-to-keyword-stuffing-in-3-months

They changed their tune quickly it seems.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:24:15 +0000

@PSG wow, I’m feeling the love in this comments thread. Where exactly was I suggesting that I had the answers online? I’m just pointing out that the article suggests Kelly has been successful without any evidence, and that there is a lot of crap talked about Google/SEO specialists/ANOther being at fault for the news industry’s woes.
Bring on the paywalls, bring on the micropayments, bring on the anti-SEO editorial. Let’s have some experimentation, test the theories and stop talking about how it’s somebody else’s fault.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:15:40 +0000

Yes, I do agree with Kelly broadly. If you’re going to compete on traffic alone you’re always going to lose to the bigger fish who can claim millions. The USP that publishers have is brands and engaged audiences (although a lot more could be done around engagement) so playing to those strengths makes absolute sense.
By the way, as for being at the sharp end of the business, I’ve been a group editor and online services editor; I’ve overseen magazine launches, magazine website launches, and events. And I currently run a startup. So I’m more than familiar with having to produce results at the sharp end. But ‘having to produce results’ does not make someone right.

By: PSG

PSG — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:13:53 +0000

Better late than never, the newspaper industry is getting serious about digital. Who knows what is right and what is wrong. It would take an act of supreme arrogance to suggest you had the answers online (take note Mr Bradshaw) but it is encouraging that people of intelligence, dynamism and vision are taking up the baton. The presumption that print journalists are not capable of making sense of a digital landscape is just insulting. Especially when the answers provided so far appear to be leading precisely nowhere. One thing I agree with Frederic absolutely is that newspapers must stop whining about their predicament and take control of their own futures.

By: James Revkin

James Revkin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:47:09 +0000

Yes Paul, I understood you first time around, although your syntax was a tad confusing. What I failed to grasp was the reason you were attacking Kelly .. it seems what he is suggesting is perfectly aligned with your argument.
Kelly never said he was not interested in traffic … only traffic at any cost. Indeed, he was quick to point out the relative success of his websites in terms of traffic. His point is that the newspaper industry has to “reinject a sense of value” into what has become commodotised online. Isn’t this entirely true?
Of course, he is at the sharp end of the business – by which I mean, he actually has to produce results, rather than merely chat about them on blogsites and classrooms.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:21:41 +0000

I should also point out that CPM as an online advertising model is not growing nearly as fast as CPC and CPA – another reason why CPM rates are declining and one which publishers need to react to. Why do we talk so much about content when the main source of income – and the main area where innovation is needed – is advertising?

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:19:50 +0000

James, I know very well that CPM rates have been falling in the past 5 years – and it’s bloody obvious why. My point was simply that the claim of Kelly’s ‘success’ (by the article) does not rest on anything to do with CPM, but on traffic. If he’s reduced traffic but increased CPM to compensate for that, great. If he’s maintained traffic, and increased CPM, wonderful. But CPM isn’t mentioned at all in this article, only traffic, traffic, traffic, which is exactly what Kelly says he’s not interested in!

By: James Revkin

James Revkin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:19:47 +0000

I have followed this argument for a year or more and only now is some clarity emerging. It seems quite simple and obvious to me (but then again, I don’t make my living peddling SEO solutions to newspapers).
What Matt Kelly is saying (as I read him) is that newspapers need to concentrate on building an engaged audience online. He argues that the primary job of any newspaper website should be to mark itself as distinct and if this means sacrificing some SEO practices in favour of, as he puts it, engaging passion, then this is worthwhile.
In response to Paul Bradshaw above, anyone who actually has to make a living from this business, and not just talk about it, knows that CPM values have been decreasing steadily in the past five years. This supports entirely Kelly’s premise about the underlying value of content being eroded. What’s flawed about that understanding?
I disagree with Kelly and the sentiment of the above article; that Google and other aggregators should not be the primary focus of the industry’s challenge. But I think his general sentiment, as expressed here, is a fine one. Do what we can for ourselves, and stop blaming others for our problems.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:25:30 +0000

The bit about Matt Kelly doesn’t make sense – on the one hand, he’s saying he wasn’t chasing traffic because it’s worthless, and this appears to be justified by… traffic? No mention of how much advertisers are paying for these ‘passionate’ readers. His understanding of SEO appears to be rather flawed – content is king in SEO, but it’s the one ‘trick’ that costs the most money, and so the last one that publishers appear to want to invest in.
I could go on and on and on about the various flaws in the various views presented in Hyderabad, but I’ll just pick out that one.