Comments on: Can You Charge for News? Ask Google

By: Can You Charge for News? Ask Google « Joe Wilcox – The Facebook News

Can You Charge for News? Ask Google « Joe Wilcox – The Facebook News — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:49:24 +0000

[...] Joe Wilcox wrote an interesting post today onCan You Charge for News? Ask Google Â« Joe WilcoxHere’s a quick excerpt [...]

By: Joe Wilcox

Joe Wilcox — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:42:21 +0000

Thanks, Michael.

Right, I understand what the business model is, which I further highlight near the end of the post. I absolutely see GigaOM Pro as competing with established market research firms that charge bazillions of bucks.

I told someone after the GigaOM Pro launch that it’s the wave of the future. The free Web content undermining the news media would next become lower-cost research undermining established analyst firms. It’s a smart idea. Good luck with it.

If you’re ever looking for someone who has worked as analyst and journalist, I’m available.

Thanks,

Joe

By: Michael Wolf

Michael Wolf — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:08 +0000

Hey Joe – nice writeup. As being part of the GigaOM Pro efforts here at GigaOM, i do think its worth pointing out the blogs here at GigaOM haven’t started charging for content at all – what we do charge for at GigaOM Pro (which is a separate site altogether) is the entirely new market research from well recognized industry analysts. If you look at our model and who to compare to, a better point of comparison (though not perfect) would be IDC or Gartner, since the content we publish under Pro is closer to these market research vendors than it is to an online news site. Our content at GigaOM Pro is certainly informed by our blog network, and some of our editors do contribute insights, but again, we are selling market research content at a fraction of the price of the traditional research market vendor.

~Michael Wolf, VP of Research, GigaOM Pro

By: whatever

whatever — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:38:48 +0000

I hope Murdoch’s paywall changes will encourage others to change course from the race to the (qualitative) bottom…

By: Wes

Wes — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:08:55 +0000

Of course, the Wall Street Journal tries to have it both ways. If you come in via Google they’ll gladly welcome you to read any article, subscriber or not, whereas if you come across the article any other way you’re asked to pay. I wonder if they split the metrics so that advertisers know how much come from subscribers vs how much comes from the freeloaders.

By: Posts about Engadget as of August 11, 2009 » The Daily Parr

Posts about Engadget as of August 11, 2009 » The Daily Parr — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:44:41 +0000

[...] you know, we’ll pretty much take any opportunity we can find to run a Lloyd Dobler Photoshop. Can You Charge for News? Ask Google – joewilcox.com 08/11/2009 The pundits opining about Rupert Murdoch’s plans to charge for his [...]

By: Ian Betteridge

Ian Betteridge — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:23:57 +0000

One other thing to consider (which I suspect might be the topic of your next post: How valuable is search traffic, compared to the traffic of subscribers?

My guess: Much less valuable. Search traffic can be anyone. Subscribers, on the other hand, are people you know a lot about – from their job title to their address. Subscriber traffic will deliver higher CPMs (because it’s easier to sell differentiated traffic to advertisers) and probably better click through rates if you’re selling those, too.

It’s the dirty little secret that Google doesn’t want you to know: not all traffic is valuable. Some turns out to be just a cost.

By: Twitted by joewilcox

Twitted by joewilcox — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:13:44 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by joewilcox [...]