• Steph

    The reason why a lot of newspapers do not allow comments is because the journalists don't like the ugly free for all. It's no fun working hard on a story and then have a bunch of anonymous people call you stupid (or much uglier things). It wears on you. And moderating involves a lot of work.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/michellegreer michellegreer

      I understand there are ugly comments, but there are also really good ones that newspapers miss out on. I wanted to comment on a post about ecommerce on Inc Magazine's site but couldn't. I was an expert in the field and my comments could have added to the conversation.

      My response to this is simply, pay your journalists more so they have time to moderate comments. Block IP addresses of trolls. That's actually very easy. Ugly comments are a part of life and anyone who does reputation management for a company has to deal with the same issues.

  • http://oldmedianewtricks.com Robert Quigley

    Good post, Michelle. Somewhat in Old Media's defense, I think most are coming around. There are some that are doing new media pretty well (Chicago Tribune is a good example).

  • Jay Cosnett

    Great post! So many of the "old media" need a kick upside the head. Do you follow @Pampelmoose (Dave Allen)? Very compatible perspective and observations. His focus is music biz (http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2009/04/billbo… but also addresses newspapers and other "old media" that still gets lots of eyeballs but is missing the boat: http://www.social-cache.com/2009/03/newspapers-wi

    Plus, it is not like this is really "new" anymore. "Earth 2" had an incredibly vibrant online community and fan base (especially considering it was canceled after only one season)–in 1995! Frankly, there's no excuse for "not getting it" anymore.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/michellegreer michellegreer

    @Robert, I'd say the Statesman is coming along nicely. You and I have talked about some ideas and I hope the higher ups see it your way. It would be good for the Statesman and for the city.

    @Jay I've worked with the Science Channel, which is part of the Viacom network. It really doesn't get any older media than that. The money that social media makes relative to what they are used to really pales in comparison. What they don't get is that it also doesn't cost much and the ROI is really good if you know what you are doing. They are used to a big network, rather than a bunch of loosely affiliated smaller yet more effective networks.

    Honestly, I could create a big post about how new media doesn't get that good content draws people in. I've been watching more TV and movies lately and I genuinely miss engaging content. I do feel that a lot of new media gurus are creating some silly ponzi scheme for how to get fame online. So I'm just trying to match the good content with the awesome medium (new media) to make something truly great happen. No kick upsides the head necessary–just trying to tell them that I appreciate them and would like to see them in this space as well.

  • http://www.eyeballeconomy.com David Weiner

    You raise some very good points. @Steph and re:comments/trolls, read the Wired article this month about all the technology that avoids this problem. Was recommended for our President's new site.

    I think they need to start realizing where the newspaper industry is headed and adjust quicker. We're moving to an ad-only model where web ads are cheaper but far more precise, measurable and effective. Writing a post on it now (and have been for over a month. Can't finish it … I feel like I'm writing my own "Wonder Boys." I can't stop!!!)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/michellegreer michellegreer

    David,

    Total agreement about ads. You'd be amazed at how many companies don't even create landing pages for them.

    Someone needs to create an ad network that is based on keywords. When a blog post about a certain topic comes up within the network, an ad pertaining to that topic pops up. Sounds like Google's ad network, except this service would be subscription based and would earn the blog/site a lot more money than using AdSense. It's time bloggers actually make a decent cut of their ad revenues.

    I also think advertisers under this model should pay something for impressions. They do help for branding.

    I got in this argument at SxSW with Chris Anderson when asking a question at his "free" panel'. He felt the current advertising model is not flawed. That is easy to say when you are backed by Conde Nast.

    Anyway, I hope you find what you are looking for for your "Wonder Boys" post. I'll keep posted.

    • http://www.eyeballeconomy.com David Weiner

      Thanks for the encouragement, Michelle. I'm not sure I agree with your point regarding advertisers paying for impressions. I think that will solve itself once online ads start costing more money, which it eventually has to. Then they will in essence be paying for impressions indirectly.

      Aren't there ad networks for bloggers?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/michellegreer michellegreer

        There are ad networks for bloggers, but none that I know of that are based on keywords like AdSense is.

  • Zoujiaofang