I think this was a great article, it touches on the transformation that is going on in the news economy.
It does cost money to report on things, and people who spend their time thinking about the issues and summarizing them or coralling them together. And historically those people were paid by the fees from Classified Ads [1].
What was interesting in the 'old school' was that the classifieds of the newspaper that had the most readers did best, and so they could charge the most for them, and subscribers and circulation became the variable you maximized to make your paper successful. But in the 'new school' there is no single paper, there is the web, and it has voices from all over and all of the ad revenue is going to places like Craigslist and Google so the support cost of serious news is 'gone' or its entirely subscriber based.
TPM is 100% correct in that it gets no benefit from Flipboard (or Feedly, or whatever) in showing its story if it never sees the reader.
People are willing to pay for editorial, the New York times, the Economist, and others have shown that. But how do you create their scale or markets these days? Can you even make a 'lean startup' type organization based on editorial content? That will be an interesting question for the current generation of entrepreneurs, and a vital question to Journalism/English majors everywhere.
You're of course correct about the classifieds business funding the news side of newspapers, as well as certain editorial brands as a revenue source.
The problem is that in the absence of actual news gathering, editorializing becomes either navel-gazing or shilling for whatever bias you have. It's hard to have meaningful editorials about government spying on its citizens or companies shipping shoddy products if you don't actually have the news of such things in the first place due to a lack of revenue to fund investigative reporting.
There is of course the possibility of citizen journalism devoid of any substantial revenue model, but the passion necessary for Joe Smith to take time from his normal life to dig around dumpsters probably reveals an existing bias to begin with, so you're back to the editorial without dependable news on which to base it.
There's a reason it's a hard problem that few news organizations have come remotely close to solving.
> Can you even make a 'lean startup' type organization based on editorial content?
I think that one issue here is that the news reader apps focus on user experience while most of the content providers focus on content (and frankly, provide a relatively awful user experience). I think that to have a successful news product, you have to provide both. If you look at the classic periodic news/opinion model, the magazine, you had a strong marriage of both aspects of the overall product. The confounding issue for content providers right now is that they all give the milk away for free, and so it's trivial for aggregaters to both focus on user experience AND have more quality content than any particular content provider. But if there was a shift in the content industry away from allowing aggregaters to use their content, then perhaps individual content providers could compete. However, I expect that to succeed in such an environment that the content providers would have to become desirable destinations in their own right.
This lament reminds me of the scornful recounting of many photographers (Jason Wilder is one: http://www.ishotyourband.com) about how they are frequently asked for permission to reproduce pictures for no compensation, or just have their photos ripped off, with the explanation that they'll get valuable "exposure". They know very well that this exposure is worth zero, and is offered as a cynical excuse, often by large publishing organizations that just don't want to pay for anything.
I run News360, which is a popular news aggregator, and TPM pulled their full-text feed from us as well.
I think the issue here is that aggregators are trying to own the reading experience without replacing the monetary value of traffic to TPM's site, which is what's really bugging Josh, not losing direct relationship with the reader. He's fine with Google News, and he's fine with a truncated RSS feed being consumed in News360, or Flipboard or wherever as long as the main story has to be read on talkingpointsmemo.com.
This makes sense to me, and I think it's a very common problem across all content creators except the top-tier publishers who can actually make ad deals to sell inventory inside the aggregator (see TechCrunch/AOL's experience described here - http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/23/flipboards-mike-mccue-confi...). But looking at the mobile version of any article on talkingpointsmemo.com I have to question how effectively they're monetizing that traffic right now - it seems like it's all a bunch of network banner ads that I can't imagine anyone ever tapping on except by accident.
I think with the right native mobile experience, TPM can get a much larger value from a mobile reader, and if someone can provide an aggregator that delivers that to everyone, not just the top brands, it should be a no-brainer to jump on board. And I think we as an industry are pretty close to figuring out how this can work (we @News360 are certainly working very hard on this specific problem).
How about aggregators paying the publishers for full-text feed and then monetizing in the best possible way on their own mobile platforms? This is like paying a royalty to the content creators.
Scams or not, I - as a potential reader - don't care. I read my morning news through Flipboard, and if you deliberately pull your content out, then you don't exist on my radar. It's nothing personal against you. It's just that I have finite time to discover and enjoy content, and Flipboard helps me do that. There isn't enough time in my day for me to want to do that myself.
You sir, bring no value to the site as a reader, and offer justification for their move away from Flipboard.
What if someone invented a slick, uniform UX for free mobile apps and repackaged them for easy consumption? Would you jump at the chance to have your apps featured? What if your free apps were ad supported?
Flipboard really should offer a "news store" where you can sign up for any news service for approximately the same amount as ads bring in per user for those publications plus Flipboard's cut.
As a blogger I agree with this but as a reader I dislike visiting other websites purely because I find it so hard to adjust to all the different font sizes/layouts I'd be exposing myself to each day.
I like a good layout as much as the next person but when it comes to reading I just want white background, black text and a few images.
I created popurls (aka the mother of aggregators) in 2005 (acquired 2010) and within those years I've had exactly three requests from publishers who wanted to be removed from the site – compared to a few thousand who wanted to be included, i.e. aggregated. Go figure.
Holy smokes! Popurls! That brings me back. Congrats on the exit. That was a really nice product. (And probably still is.) I haven't used in years, but it was my go to for a long time.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
It does cost money to report on things, and people who spend their time thinking about the issues and summarizing them or coralling them together. And historically those people were paid by the fees from Classified Ads [1].
What was interesting in the 'old school' was that the classifieds of the newspaper that had the most readers did best, and so they could charge the most for them, and subscribers and circulation became the variable you maximized to make your paper successful. But in the 'new school' there is no single paper, there is the web, and it has voices from all over and all of the ad revenue is going to places like Craigslist and Google so the support cost of serious news is 'gone' or its entirely subscriber based.
TPM is 100% correct in that it gets no benefit from Flipboard (or Feedly, or whatever) in showing its story if it never sees the reader.
People are willing to pay for editorial, the New York times, the Economist, and others have shown that. But how do you create their scale or markets these days? Can you even make a 'lean startup' type organization based on editorial content? That will be an interesting question for the current generation of entrepreneurs, and a vital question to Journalism/English majors everywhere.
[1] http://www.mediabistro.com/mediajobsdaily/mediamemo-google-d...
[+] [-] fallous|12 years ago|reply
The problem is that in the absence of actual news gathering, editorializing becomes either navel-gazing or shilling for whatever bias you have. It's hard to have meaningful editorials about government spying on its citizens or companies shipping shoddy products if you don't actually have the news of such things in the first place due to a lack of revenue to fund investigative reporting.
There is of course the possibility of citizen journalism devoid of any substantial revenue model, but the passion necessary for Joe Smith to take time from his normal life to dig around dumpsters probably reveals an existing bias to begin with, so you're back to the editorial without dependable news on which to base it.
There's a reason it's a hard problem that few news organizations have come remotely close to solving.
[+] [-] shawn-furyan|12 years ago|reply
I think that one issue here is that the news reader apps focus on user experience while most of the content providers focus on content (and frankly, provide a relatively awful user experience). I think that to have a successful news product, you have to provide both. If you look at the classic periodic news/opinion model, the magazine, you had a strong marriage of both aspects of the overall product. The confounding issue for content providers right now is that they all give the milk away for free, and so it's trivial for aggregaters to both focus on user experience AND have more quality content than any particular content provider. But if there was a shift in the content industry away from allowing aggregaters to use their content, then perhaps individual content providers could compete. However, I expect that to succeed in such an environment that the content providers would have to become desirable destinations in their own right.
[+] [-] xivzgrev|12 years ago|reply
Blogging :)
Also Upworthy was a very interesting example of a successful news startup: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-upworthy-grew-to-104-mill...
[+] [-] leephillips|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkarachinsky|12 years ago|reply
I think the issue here is that aggregators are trying to own the reading experience without replacing the monetary value of traffic to TPM's site, which is what's really bugging Josh, not losing direct relationship with the reader. He's fine with Google News, and he's fine with a truncated RSS feed being consumed in News360, or Flipboard or wherever as long as the main story has to be read on talkingpointsmemo.com.
This makes sense to me, and I think it's a very common problem across all content creators except the top-tier publishers who can actually make ad deals to sell inventory inside the aggregator (see TechCrunch/AOL's experience described here - http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/23/flipboards-mike-mccue-confi...). But looking at the mobile version of any article on talkingpointsmemo.com I have to question how effectively they're monetizing that traffic right now - it seems like it's all a bunch of network banner ads that I can't imagine anyone ever tapping on except by accident.
I think with the right native mobile experience, TPM can get a much larger value from a mobile reader, and if someone can provide an aggregator that delivers that to everyone, not just the top brands, it should be a no-brainer to jump on board. And I think we as an industry are pretty close to figuring out how this can work (we @News360 are certainly working very hard on this specific problem).
[+] [-] yashg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kstrauser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
Its you choice. You can help a content provider you clearly value on some level, or actively choose not to. No cost you you either way.
I think "I don't care" sums it up well.
[+] [-] BIair|12 years ago|reply
What if someone invented a slick, uniform UX for free mobile apps and repackaged them for easy consumption? Would you jump at the chance to have your apps featured? What if your free apps were ad supported?
[+] [-] jcomis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgustard|12 years ago|reply
- don't allow content on Flipboard
- allow truncated content
- allow full content
A/B test and tell us the results. This article is just speculation and complaining about the variety of options you have, without any data.
[+] [-] malandrew|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MattGrommes|12 years ago|reply
Something people in a great many endeavors should keep in mind.
[+] [-] apricot13|12 years ago|reply
I like a good layout as much as the next person but when it comes to reading I just want white background, black text and a few images.
[+] [-] marban|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffraff|12 years ago|reply
It would seem to me the case of flipboard is quite different, instead of driving traffic it actively decreases it.
[+] [-] wmeredith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jawngee|12 years ago|reply
and your mobile shiz is funked up.
[+] [-] andrewfong|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattbarrie|12 years ago|reply