Comments on: Fred is right and Rupert is wrong

By: mathewi

mathewi — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:09:01 +0000

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

Harold — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:00:13 +0000

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

antje wilsch — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:30:24 +0000

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

mathewi — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:08:02 +0000

Hey, Dave — relax. There was a misunderstanding — and not just by me, but
lots of other people too. You want to talk about professional journalists?
Talk about the way that WSJ headline and story were written.

Anyway, everyone understands each other now — no harm done. Welcome to the
Internet.

By: Dave Ingram

Dave Ingram — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:07:26 +0000

Oops I did it again! Got the story wrong.

One of the 7 habits of highly effective people is: “seek to understand before being understood”

You and so many other bloggers are so desperate to make it first with a story on to Techmeme you often forget to check your facts and your supposed to be a professional journalist!?