Comments on: NBR’s marketing fail http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/ Making sense of social media Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:44:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-957 Simon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:43:31 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-957 Thanks Nathaniel! Thanks Nathaniel!

]]> By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1711 Simon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:43:00 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-1711 Thanks Nathaniel! Thanks Nathaniel!

]]> By: Nathaniel Flick http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-955 Nathaniel Flick Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:45:49 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-955 More insult (and ignorance of the current market) here. John Gruber analyses the creator of "The Wire"'s suggestion that all newspapers close their free web content immediately: http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/pay_walls More insult (and ignorance of the current market) here. John Gruber analyses the creator of “The Wire”‘s suggestion that all newspapers close their free web content immediately:

http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/pay_walls

]]> By: Nathaniel Flick http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1710 Nathaniel Flick Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:45:00 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-1710 More insult (and ignorance of the current market) here. John Gruber analyses the creator of "The Wire"'s suggestion that all newspapers close their free web content immediately: http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/pay_walls More insult (and ignorance of the current market) here. John Gruber analyses the creator of “The Wire”‘s suggestion that all newspapers close their free web content immediately:

http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/pay_walls

]]> By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-953 Simon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:12:55 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-953 Thanks Nate! You've really hit it on the head = they've not only insulted part of their audience, but failed to provide a simple (eg. $1 a day) offering. It's all or nothing. Thanks Nate! You’ve really hit it on the head = they’ve not only insulted part of their audience, but failed to provide a simple (eg. $1 a day) offering. It’s all or nothing.

]]> By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1709 Simon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:12:00 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-1709 Thanks Nate! You've really hit it on the head = they've not only insulted part of their audience, but failed to provide a simple (eg. $1 a day) offering. It's all or nothing. Thanks Nate! You’ve really hit it on the head = they’ve not only insulted part of their audience, but failed to provide a simple (eg. $1 a day) offering. It’s all or nothing.

]]> By: Nathaniel Flick http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-952 Nathaniel Flick Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:33:18 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-952 If it didn't work for the New York times (the paid subscription for content model) then it's certainly not going to work for NBR! Smearing bloggers is a cheap and easy (and immature) way of making NBR appear more "newsworthy" and therefore more valuable; the only way NBR sees it can gain credibility to charge for content. Shame on them for attacking the very community they need to use to help them grow. I think if they had just said, "pay $1/day for our content and you'll also receive..." they'd get a much better response than sticking their tongue out at bloggers like school children. Great thoughts, iJump. If it didn’t work for the New York times (the paid subscription for content model) then it’s certainly not going to work for NBR!

Smearing bloggers is a cheap and easy (and immature) way of making NBR appear more “newsworthy” and therefore more valuable; the only way NBR sees it can gain credibility to charge for content.

Shame on them for attacking the very community they need to use to help them grow.

I think if they had just said, “pay $1/day for our content and you’ll also receive…” they’d get a much better response than sticking their tongue out at bloggers like school children.

Great thoughts, iJump.

]]> By: Nathaniel Flick http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1708 Nathaniel Flick Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:33:00 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-1708 If it didn't work for the New York times (the paid subscription for content model) then it's certainly not going to work for NBR! Smearing bloggers is a cheap and easy (and immature) way of making NBR appear more "newsworthy" and therefore more valuable; the only way NBR sees it can gain credibility to charge for content. Shame on them for attacking the very community they need to use to help them grow. I think if they had just said, "pay $1/day for our content and you'll also receive..." they'd get a much better response than sticking their tongue out at bloggers like school children. Great thoughts, iJump. If it didn’t work for the New York times (the paid subscription for content model) then it’s certainly not going to work for NBR!

Smearing bloggers is a cheap and easy (and immature) way of making NBR appear more “newsworthy” and therefore more valuable; the only way NBR sees it can gain credibility to charge for content.

Shame on them for attacking the very community they need to use to help them grow.

I think if they had just said, “pay $1/day for our content and you’ll also receive…” they’d get a much better response than sticking their tongue out at bloggers like school children.

Great thoughts, iJump.

]]> By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Simon Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:14:47 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-948 Thanks Scott. I tend to disagree. It's rarely as black-and-white as that, and I know a few people within NBR who have a good handle on this space. And news organisations do provide the bulk of information that then gets commented on in blogs - it's a symbiotic relationship, not a competitive one (well, at the best of times it's like that). It's important for our society that some form of professional news gathering survives. But I think it's a more nuanced argument than "old media is bad, new media and blogging are more authentic". Thanks Scott. I tend to disagree. It’s rarely as black-and-white as that, and I know a few people within NBR who have a good handle on this space. And news organisations do provide the bulk of information that then gets commented on in blogs – it’s a symbiotic relationship, not a competitive one (well, at the best of times it’s like that).

It’s important for our society that some form of professional news gathering survives. But I think it’s a more nuanced argument than “old media is bad, new media and blogging are more authentic”.

]]> By: Simon http://ijump.co.nz/nbrs-marketing-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1707 Simon Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:14:00 +0000 http://ijump.co.nz/?p=537#comment-1707 Thanks Scott. I tend to disagree. It's rarely as black-and-white as that, and I know a few people within NBR who have a good handle on this space. And news organisations do provide the bulk of information that then gets commented on in blogs - it's a symbiotic relationship, not a competitive one (well, at the best of times it's like that). It's important for our society that some form of professional news gathering survives. But I think it's a more nuanced argument than "old media is bad, new media and blogging are more authentic". Thanks Scott. I tend to disagree. It’s rarely as black-and-white as that, and I know a few people within NBR who have a good handle on this space. And news organisations do provide the bulk of information that then gets commented on in blogs – it’s a symbiotic relationship, not a competitive one (well, at the best of times it’s like that).

It’s important for our society that some form of professional news gathering survives. But I think it’s a more nuanced argument than “old media is bad, new media and blogging are more authentic”.

]]>