Comments on: Headlines and Headcount http://www.accidentallyonpurposeblog.com/2007/11/01/headlines-and-headcount/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:10:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Michael Prosceno http://www.accidentallyonpurposeblog.com/2007/11/01/headlines-and-headcount/#comment-604 Michael Prosceno Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:47:04 +0000 http://www.conversal.com/0_mikep/2007/11/04/headlines-and-headcount/#comment-604 Hi Oliver, as I stated in the post, the need to study blogger economics in order for newspapers to get a head or keep up was a big assumption. But, the point of the post was to call attention to the fact that some commercial blogs are making money and are now capable of being compared from an economic perspective. While its not the definitive comparrison it does enable comparrison. I will disagree with you that newspapers have more respect for “good writing and good research” than blogs. There are plenty of examples (good and bad) in both mediums. Another interesting tidbit is that according to Technorati’s most recent “State of the Live Web” (slides are Q4 2006) 22 of the top 100 online sites are blogs. If print is declining and if blogs (commercial) are replacing traditional online media properties in the top 100 online sites — there is likely an economic model that goes along with it. This blog is not a commerical entity and I certainly don’t have a pay-to-play blogroll. TechCrunch is a business and one with which advertising is a key economic contributor to its financial success. As for making an economic comparison between a commercial blog like TechCrunch and a personal blog like mine — I don’t follow your logic. Hi Oliver, as I stated in the post, the need to study blogger economics in order for newspapers to get a head or keep up was a big assumption. But, the point of the post was to call attention to the fact that some commercial blogs are making money and are now capable of being compared from an economic perspective. While its not the definitive comparrison it does enable comparrison.

I will disagree with you that newspapers have more respect for “good writing and good research” than blogs. There are plenty of examples (good and bad) in both mediums. Another interesting tidbit is that according to Technorati’s most recent “State of the Live Web” (slides are Q4 2006) 22 of the top 100 online sites are blogs. If print is declining and if blogs (commercial) are replacing traditional online media properties in the top 100 online sites — there is likely an economic model that goes along with it.

This blog is not a commerical entity and I certainly don’t have a pay-to-play blogroll. TechCrunch is a business and one with which advertising is a key economic contributor to its financial success. As for making an economic comparison between a commercial blog like TechCrunch and a personal blog like mine — I don’t follow your logic.

]]> By: Oliver Picher http://www.accidentallyonpurposeblog.com/2007/11/01/headlines-and-headcount/#comment-603 Oliver Picher Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:36:47 +0000 http://www.conversal.com/0_mikep/2007/11/04/headlines-and-headcount/#comment-603 I was talking to an Inquirer business reporter at a LinkedIn meetup that was being held recently at the Inquirer’s offices. He made the observation that he didn’t understand blogs because the economics of them just didn’t make sense. There were two things that struck me about his comment. First, his major complaint about blogs was about the economics of them, which makes sense given that he was a business writer who is no doubt interested in his own business. Second, he was really very passionate about this — it wasn’t a passing comment, it was something he felt very deeply. He has a point. There may be lots of opportunities to write for blogs, but I’m sure that writing for a newspaper pays a lot better. Newspapers also have more respect for good writing and good research, or at least they used to. On the other hand, I don’t know if you can judge “the economics” of blogs purely as a vehicle for advertising. Does this blog, for example, generate any direct revenue? (Not that I can see, unless your blogroll is pay-to-play.) Most blogs are not meant to make money. They are meant to start a conversation with a specific audience. Or maybe they’re just meant to howl at the moon. I was talking to an Inquirer business reporter at a LinkedIn meetup that was being held recently at the Inquirer’s offices. He made the observation that he didn’t understand blogs because the economics of them just didn’t make sense. There were two things that struck me about his comment. First, his major complaint about blogs was about the economics of them, which makes sense given that he was a business writer who is no doubt interested in his own business. Second, he was really very passionate about this — it wasn’t a passing comment, it was something he felt very deeply.

He has a point. There may be lots of opportunities to write for blogs, but I’m sure that writing for a newspaper pays a lot better. Newspapers also have more respect for good writing and good research, or at least they used to.

On the other hand, I don’t know if you can judge “the economics” of blogs purely as a vehicle for advertising. Does this blog, for example, generate any direct revenue? (Not that I can see, unless your blogroll is pay-to-play.) Most blogs are not meant to make money. They are meant to start a conversation with a specific audience. Or maybe they’re just meant to howl at the moon.

]]>