Comments on: Fred is right and Rupert is wrong http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-375070 mathewi Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:09:01 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/#comment-375070 Thanks for the comment, Harold. I have considered the numbers (although I<br>didn't mention them in this particular post). I think CPM rates for<br>high-value content like that produced by the WSJ will inevitably increase,<br>but that's not why I think they should do it. I think that the value they<br>will get out of all of their properties -- including the print version --<br>will be enhanced by making their content more a part of the broader<br>conversation. Obviously I don't have any numbers to prove that, but<br>nevertheless I believe it. Thanks for the comment, Harold. I have considered the numbers (although I
didn't mention them in this particular post). I think CPM rates for
high-value content like that produced by the WSJ will inevitably increase,
but that's not why I think they should do it. I think that the value they
will get out of all of their properties — including the print version –
will be enhanced by making their content more a part of the broader
conversation. Obviously I don't have any numbers to prove that, but
nevertheless I believe it.

]]> By: Harold http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-375069 Harold Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:00:13 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/#comment-375069 I don't understand why either your or Fred make these pronouncements without actually considering any numbers.<br><br>In order to replicate their subscription income, <a href="http://WSJ.com" rel="nofollow">WSJ.com</a> needs roughly 10x more traffic, and that's assuming today's high CPM rates and that they would get close to selling our their inventory. Do you really believe it's possible for <a href="http://WSJ.com" rel="nofollow">WSJ.com</a> to hit 50m monthly uniques? Not unless they totally dilute their content by covering stuff that's irrelevant to their core audience.<br><br>As I wrote on Fred's site, <a href="http://WSJ.com" rel="nofollow">WSJ.com</a> can be just as much a part of the conversation by adding blogs and other inexpensive free content and still maintain a lucrative subscription option. I don't understand why either your or Fred make these pronouncements without actually considering any numbers.

In order to replicate their subscription income, WSJ.com needs roughly 10x more traffic, and that's assuming today's high CPM rates and that they would get close to selling our their inventory. Do you really believe it's possible for WSJ.com to hit 50m monthly uniques? Not unless they totally dilute their content by covering stuff that's irrelevant to their core audience.

As I wrote on Fred's site, WSJ.com can be just as much a part of the conversation by adding blogs and other inexpensive free content and still maintain a lucrative subscription option.

]]> By: antje wilsch http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-375068 antje wilsch Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:30:24 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/#comment-375068 Blogging in general to me still seems like passive "journalism" and much more opinionated and reactive towards news than traditional journalism. I don't see bloggers jumping on planes to Afghanistan or Kenya (or even the front door of Heath Ledger's apartment building for that awful matter) to report on news. They let journalists dig, do research, and come up with stories, and then react to them. Blogging has a definite, and positive role to fill in the "new media" era but I don't seem bloggers who sit in front of their screens being fed data and blogging on it replacing paid journalists any time soon. Blogging in general to me still seems like passive “journalism” and much more opinionated and reactive towards news than traditional journalism. I don't see bloggers jumping on planes to Afghanistan or Kenya (or even the front door of Heath Ledger's apartment building for that awful matter) to report on news. They let journalists dig, do research, and come up with stories, and then react to them. Blogging has a definite, and positive role to fill in the “new media” era but I don't seem bloggers who sit in front of their screens being fed data and blogging on it replacing paid journalists any time soon.

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-342820 mathewi Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:09:01 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/#comment-342820 Thanks for the comment, Harold. I have considered the numbers (although I<br>didn't mention them in this particular post). I think CPM rates for<br>high-value content like that produced by the WSJ will inevitably increase,<br>but that's not why I think they should do it. I think that the value they<br>will get out of all of their properties -- including the print version --<br>will be enhanced by making their content more a part of the broader<br>conversation. Obviously I don't have any numbers to prove that, but<br>nevertheless I believe it. Thanks for the comment, Harold. I have considered the numbers (although I
didn't mention them in this particular post). I think CPM rates for
high-value content like that produced by the WSJ will inevitably increase,
but that's not why I think they should do it. I think that the value they
will get out of all of their properties — including the print version –
will be enhanced by making their content more a part of the broader
conversation. Obviously I don't have any numbers to prove that, but
nevertheless I believe it.

]]> By: Harold http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-342819 Harold Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:00:13 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/24/fred-is-right-and-rupert-is-wrong/#comment-342819 I don't understand why either your or Fred make these pronouncements without actually considering any numbers.<br><br>In order to replicate their subscription income, <a href="http://WSJ.com">WSJ.com</a> needs roughly 10x more traffic, and that's assuming today's high CPM rates and that they would get close to selling our their inventory. Do you really believe it's possible for <a href="http://WSJ.com">WSJ.com</a> to hit 50m monthly uniques? Not unless they totally dilute their content by covering stuff that's irrelevant to their core audience.<br><br>As I wrote on Fred's site, <a href="http://WSJ.com">WSJ.com</a> can be just as much a part of the conversation by adding blogs and other inexpensive free content and still maintain a lucrative subscription option. I don't understand why either your or Fred make these pronouncements without actually considering any numbers.

In order to replicate their subscription income, WSJ.com needs roughly 10x more traffic, and that's assuming today's high CPM rates and that they would get close to selling our their inventory. Do you really believe it's possible for WSJ.com to hit 50m monthly uniques? Not unless they totally dilute their content by covering stuff that's irrelevant to their core audience.

As I wrote on Fred's site, WSJ.com can be just as much a part of the conversation by adding blogs and other inexpensive free content and still maintain a lucrative subscription option.

]]>