Archives for posts with tag: techcrunch

A few months back, I blogged about how writer Paul Carr had been sacked by the Guardian due to freelancer budget cuts. At the time, I said:

“…it is yet another indictment of the decline of ‘traditional media’ and the power and rise of bloggers and media ‘personalities’ who don’t need a publishing house behind them to be successful. And that’s great for people like Carr. It’s harder though for less forthright journalists.”

And I was right. Carr is still writing his next book, publishing on his blog and has since secured two new columns. One with pro-blog Techcrunch and the other with the Telegraph.

The latter always seemed a weird fit, but it was good to see the Telegraph taking a few more risks (which it certainly was with Carr!). But then yesterday Carr announced – surprise, surprise – that the Telegraph has terminated his contract. The reason given by his boss:

“I’ve been looking at the latest traffic figures for your blog and also our budget and how we’re spending it. And I’m afraid I’ve reached the conclusion that your time blogging with us should come to an end… Our limited budget just cannot sustain these sums without a bigger bang for our buck.

You can read the rest of Carr’s post to get his full (and colourful) reaction to his sacking. But it’s the reason given that is interesting to me. As Carr says:

“I short, I wasn’t driving enough pageviews to justify what they were paying me.”

Should we be surprised that this is potentially all that seems to matter for journalism now? Should we be concerned? These are after all commercial companies, with commercial concerns.

Perhaps this is why, for me, ‘personal’ blogging is becoming so important. By this I don’t mean Techcrunch or even Paul Carr. I mean the thousands that blog every now and then, even the millions that post on microblogs like Twitter. Those that share their thoughts and ideas.

They aren’t driven by page views or sensationalist headlines.  They aren’t ruled by the ‘media agenda’ or corporate, PR-speak.

This is why the democratisation of media is so important, especially considering the way more and more professional media outlets seem to be going. I hope the professional media stays strong and survives, I think it is vital. But I’m excited by the new brand of journalism just as much.

Does the sight of hundreds of pages of comments on an article fill you with dread? Do you get fed up of reading the same comment again and again and again?

I read an interesting article today on TechCrunch by Nicolas Holzapfel. Nicholas claims that comment sections have become unruly and rarely add anything particularly constructive to an article because of the way they are structured:

“Lots of comments amounts to an enormous long list of entirely unstructured text. There are no dividers or subheadings, no logical progression of arguments or groupings of opinion and no distinction between unique, intelligent insights and throwaway expressions of approval and opposition. Because nobody can be bothered to read through such a mess before they add their own comment, there isn’t even the structure of a coherent conversation. Instead, there is endless, pointless repetition; conversations emerge, peter out and then re-emerge 50 comments later with new participants who haven’t noticed that the same issues were discussed 50 comments ago.(his emphasis)

And I largely agree with this. When you get mainstream articles with lots of comments, I will instinctively read the first few and then skim the rest. I will rarely go onto a second page and never to a third.

So what is the answer?

From the looks of things, Nicholas clearly believes that his startup – Yoomoot – will provide the solution, but it is hard to tell from the website exactly how or why!

I’m a fan of Disqus (used on this blog) and the service mentioned in the article – Echo, a real-time comment engine – also looks interesting. However, neither service really solves the specific problem Nicholas highlights.

Should comments be subjected to more editorial control? Should there be more social or Digg-style elements where visitors can vote up popular comments (the BBC website does this, for example)? Perhaps the eagerly anticipated Google Wave will help with more ‘Wiki’-like technology allowing visitors to manage and control comment sections in a more democratic way.

Surely this is an aspect of blogging that is ripe for innovation and fresh thinking?

I like to judge the issues of the day that are particularly relevant to me not by Twitter trending topics or the most read list on BBC.co.uk, but by the articles that crop up in my RSS reader. They are, after all sources I have hand-picked because they are likely to contain content that I find interesting.

And if these are indeed a fair reflection of what is and isn’t hot right now (in my world), then Spinvox is certainly winning at the moment. On both counts!

But, I can’t help being a little bit mystified by all the attention.

Yes, I know the service is one of the darlings of the Web 2.0 world and, here in the UK at least, has been promoted all over the Twitterverse by its social-media-guru-dude, James Whatley. But why all the recent attention?

You probably know the gist of the furore that has encompassed the company in recent weeks. If not, you can read about it here.

The whole incident has generated unprecedented media attention: numerous posts on the BBC website, national newspapers, Techcrunch… the list goes on.

Then yesterday, Spinvox invited its main detractors to attend a demo at its HQ to see for themselves (or not) just what the fuss is (or isn’t) all about.

Which still leaves me with the question – why all the fuss?

I’m not trying to let Spinvox off the hook. They’ve made mistakes and there is a clear lack of transparency there somewhere. I also don’t think the PR has been handled at all well during this little spat (but that’s another post for another time). Anyone that thinks any publicity is good publicity is misguided.

So is this just an example of a media man/company-hunt? Did the lack of a clear and quick response from the company create a mountain out of a molehill or does the company really have something to answer?

It’ll be fascinating to see how they try and recover from here. Despite their buoyant claims about increases in sign-ups following the BBC coverage and their latest funding round, I think it’s going to be a battle.

Mike Butcher’s written a great piece on Techcrunch in response to Paul Carr’s latest column in the Guardian, which lambasts the state of London’s start-up scene. Mike’s counter argument is both well thought-out and winning (which you would expect given his job and stature).

But it’s his comments about the media industry in general that I really want to cover. He flags up Paul Carr’s announcement (via Twitter of course) that he’ll no longer be doing his Guardian column: “The Guardian has slashed its freelance budget. Result – no more column from me. Thought about writing it for free, but meh.”

I think Paul Carr’s great (and I know many don’t!). Yes, he’s arrogant, big headed and likes to name-drop. He’s also prone to putting the cat amongst the pigeons. But that is all deliberate and, whilst I sometimes don’t agree with the point he’s making, it makes you think and is often the start of a wider, more useful debate (of which this is a good example). His column also fills a gap in the Guardian’s output and, as far as I can tell from the sheer volume of comments and tweets, surely drives a significant amount of traffic.

So why is he going?

Well, declining print ad revenues etc. etc. mean less money for expensive freelance columnists – and I imagine that Paul Carr certainly fits into that bracket. Which does seem odd considering his popularity. But, as Mike states:

“…here’s a newspaper culling a column that almost certainly punched above its weight in terms of traffic, and probably got a lot more comments and reader interaction than the average post on that site. How many traditional journos would get this kind of reaction?

“That’s significant because at the same time “traditional” journalists (some of whom are my best friends btw) are doing their best to try and grapple with writing stories, blogging, posting videos and metaphorically washing up the boss’s coffee cup in the staff kitchen at the same time.”

Paul’s words aren’t lost forever! He was well-known before writing for the Guardian, and being on their books won’t have done his book sales any harm at all. But it is yet another indictment of the decline of ‘traditional media’ and the power and rise of bloggers and media ‘personalities’ who don’t need a publishing house behind them to be successful. And that’s great for people like Carr. It’s harder though for less forthright journalists.

UPDATE: Interestingly, Carr has posted an update on his blog:

“Initially I mooted the idea of carrying on writing for free until the economics started to look better but, yunno, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that would be a bad idea.

“The truth of the matter is, I’m rubbish at writing for free. You only have to look at how infrequently this blog is updated, and how badly it is when it is, to see the problem.”

He also suggests that he is likely to be ‘back soon’:

“Flatteringly, since Twittering the news of my most recent parting of ways I’ve had a few interesting offers – both online and off – which would allow me to continue the column. I’ve dismissed a few, shortlisted a handful and am seriously interested in maybe three.”

Related Posts with Thumbnails