Comments on: The New York Observer and the Web http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xavier http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-56708 Xavier Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:31:24 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/#comment-56708 I think the free access to blogs is essential. I'm a fan of this paper, and free access online. I think the free access to blogs is essential. I’m a fan of this paper, and free access online.

]]> By: Berta Monteiro http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-906 Berta Monteiro Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:00:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/#comment-906 Frankly, the issue of making money on the web for a newspaper is really tough though ads of any kind - primarily because ad targeting is very difficult to do with changing themes for each article. I think that generally, people are focussed on getting information when on the net. If I'm reading a newspaper, I am intent on getting news and not concerned with ads that might distract me from that mission. Charging for online access is also a failing scheme, unless the newspaper is vastly superior in its coverage, and it has content that cannot be found elsewhere. This is predominantly not the case! The whole equalizing framework of the internet is that information is readily available from multiple sources, where 1000's of website compete for online viewership by offering free access(or cut-rate fee access. Given the reality that every other site is virtually pimping itself for your business, it's really hard to have a viable business model. YouTube is popular, but darned if I've ever even looked at ads on the site. I'm too busy trying to upload the next interesting video. They're bound to fail, at least from a financial perspective. Frankly, the issue of making money on the web for a newspaper is really tough though ads of any kind – primarily because ad targeting is very difficult to do with changing themes for each article.

I think that generally, people are focussed on getting information when on the net. If I’m reading a newspaper, I am intent on getting news and not concerned with ads that might distract me from that mission.

Charging for online access is also a failing scheme, unless the newspaper is vastly superior in its coverage, and it has content that cannot be found elsewhere. This is predominantly not the case!

The whole equalizing framework of the internet is that information is readily available from multiple sources, where 1000’s of website compete for online viewership by offering free access(or cut-rate fee access. Given the reality that every other site is virtually pimping itself for your business, it’s really hard to have a viable business model.

YouTube is popular, but darned if I’ve ever even looked at ads on the site. I’m too busy trying to upload the next interesting video. They’re bound to fail, at least from a financial perspective.

]]> By: Info/Law » Linkbot http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-695 Info/Law » Linkbot Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:14:58 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/#comment-695 [...] It may not be clear how newspapers should manage their migration to the web (though here’s a start: the Washington Post has announced it will link to other content, including competitors). But sometimes it’s clear what they should not do. Robotic hyperlinking falls into the second category. [...] [...] It may not be clear how newspapers should manage their migration to the web (though here’s a start: the Washington Post has announced it will link to other content, including competitors). But sometimes it’s clear what they should not do. Robotic hyperlinking falls into the second category. [...]

]]> By: Evan Hill-Ries http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-687 Evan Hill-Ries Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:19:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/02/the-new-york-observer-and-the-web/#comment-687 They have the basics of being a web publication down, but they are falling down on the syndication front. Trying to find an RSS or Atom feed outside of their blogs was like pulling teeth, and all I got in the end was one for their Media section. Perhaps I'm a mad outlier, but for the most part, if I can't syndicate it, I don't read it. I haven't got the time to flit about between 100 sites to see if they've got something new. If they really intend to effectively critique the Times' "benign dominance", they ought to at least make themselves as easy to read. They have the basics of being a web publication down, but they are falling down on the syndication front. Trying to find an RSS or Atom feed outside of their blogs was like pulling teeth, and all I got in the end was one for their Media section.
Perhaps I’m a mad outlier, but for the most part, if I can’t syndicate it, I don’t read it. I haven’t got the time to flit about between 100 sites to see if they’ve got something new.
If they really intend to effectively critique the Times’ “benign dominance”, they ought to at least make themselves as easy to read.

]]>