Ultralocal
“ Here’s a common question I get from startups, especially in the early stages: when should we launch? My answer is almost always the same: don’t. First off, what does it mean to launch? Generally, we conflate two unrelated concepts into the term, which is important to clarify right up front.
Announce a new product, start its PR campaign, and engage in buzz marketing activities. (Marketing launch)
Make a new product available to customers in the general public. (Product launch)
In today’s world, there is no reason you have to do these two things at the same time. In fact, in most situations it’s a bad idea for startups to synchronize these events. Launching is a tactic, not a strategy.
Lessons Learned: Don’t launch
“ In one respect, this is working. Our advertisers pay $15 or more per thousand impressions, or appearances, of their ad, and we have been able to hold this rate in these tough times — though we have increased volume discounts, and we now target local advertisers’ ads to local readers only, thereby increasing their value. Meanwhile, our local competitors often offer our customers half that rate, and national networks like Google Ads offer to sell ads onto our site for a tenth of what we charge or less. But the number of advertisers willing to pay for that quality is still too small. This much I know: If the rate for locally sold advertising drops to $1, or even $5, only publishers with truly gigantic global traffic will survive on ad revenues. Increasingly, the pitch we’re making to advertisers is to sponsor part of the site, rather than just buy banner ad flights. This is working well. In the past two months, we’ve sold two sponsorships: One for the Daily Glean, a midmorning roundup summarizing and linking to the best of what’s in the other local media, written with attitude, and one for Community Voices, our daily op-ed feature. These opportunities give sponsors more exposure than they would get with regular banner ads and a stronger connection to our core mission. Foundations have provided critically important funding to MinnPost. The Knight Foundation has been especially generous, but they told us from the outset that they wanted us to find local foundation support, too.
Joel Kramer: Lessons I’ve learned after a year running MinnPost » Nieman Journalism Lab
“ Those who want to leave a comment must register, and their full real names are attached to their comments. Comments are prescreened by volunteer moderators and rejected not only for foul or hateful language but also for things like name-calling. We took plenty of heat from web-savvy readers for this decision. But as readers have watched the quality of comment on respected sites that don’t require real names, many are now grateful for our approach. Recently we published our 7,000th comment. Some sites with looser standards appear to be reconsidering their no-holds-barred policies.
Joel Kramer: Lessons I’ve learned after a year running MinnPost » Nieman Journalism Lab
“ I answer their questions and ask a few of my own. My number one question: Do you have significant start-up funds? When I started MinnPost, we had commitments of one year’s operating budget, about $1.2 million. The business plan called for having two, but my startup donors and I agreed that the time was right in late 2007 to begin, so we did so even though we were undercapitalized. It was the right decision, but it means I spend a great deal of my time finding the funding to sustain us through the next few years instead of devoting all my energy to the things that will sustain us longer term. Many of the callers tell me they have no start-up funds in hand yet. “Well,” I say, “I’d start by getting some.
Joel Kramer: Lessons I’ve learned after a year running MinnPost » Nieman Journalism Lab
“ Newsrooms no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of wasting readers’ time with non-stories or information readers already know. Readers will simply go somewhere else. Jarvis offers a mental checklist for journalists to consider before publishing a possible non-story: if you can’t imagine anyone linking to your coverage — if you can’t imagine anyone saying “this was new,” “this is good,” “this was valuable,” “go here for more,” “I didn’t know this,” or “you should know this” — then chances are, it’s not worth saying and in the link economy it won’t get audience, and so it’s not worth making.
Why not writing a story is innovation - Publishing 2.0
Wikis aren’t tools for collaboration
I’m still struggling with the application of wikis in news and information. Clearly, Wikipedia is an astonishing feat, but most wikis seem broken, empty, and disorganized.
Until a few weeks ago, this site was a wiki that was overrun with spam. I’m still working to repair my status with Google.
One core problem with wikis is that they don’t allow posters to own what they write. This is fundamental. It’s difficult to get folks to contribute to an enterprise they don’t have a sense of ownership for. Even group blogs seem to be populated by postings that aren’t good enough for the participants’ personal blogs.
I think a wiki might be a good tool for a dedicated and cooperative group with a well-structured project, planned in advance. Too many folks are treating it as a “just add text” website or a “tool for collaboration”. The wiki is not a tool for collaboration. It tends to use up collaboration at a prodigious rate.
“ Ryan Sholin on the future of newspapers, online news and journalism education. Wiki what? Wiki who? Wiki why? February 2, 2009 Carlos Virgen rounds up some thoughts on wiki use by news organizations, but I always get the feeling that most reporters and editors stop reading at the word “wikitorial,” freak out, and hide under the desks. Still here? Good. Carlos has a great idea about using a wiki as a “contextual archive” for related stories. (Matt Thompson might call them “topics.”) Carlos says: “So maybe calling it a wiki is the wrong thing to do. Maybe it would be more precise to call it a contextual archive of news stories. Although I think incorporation wiki conventions such as public input via comments and edits (after a reasonable registration to preclude trolls) should be a big part of this feature.” I like the idea, but I’d like to reiterate my frequent pitch for using wiki software to build an evergreen “FAQ About [Your Town Here].” It doesn’t even need to be a fully open to the public for editing endeavor — you could use one account for your entire news organization and let any staff edit it. This is really a wiki in FAQ’s clothing. This, my friends, is a gateway wiki. It should be good for SEO if you do it right, it would drive traffic to your news site (because you would link to stories that helped answer the questions, yes?) and it could serve as trip-to-the-morgue-free reference material for reporters.
Wiki what? Wiki who? Wiki why? - Invisible Inkling
“ Ryan Sholin of ReportingOn (a 2008 Knight News Challenge Winner) and Brad Flora of Windy Citizen.com debate the merits of using local wikis (sometimes called “knowledge databases”) in newsrooms. This started with Ryan’s blog post earlier today.
Should local news sites use wikis? | Knight Pulse
“ We have a number of ideas for sustaining our project beyond a dependency on grants, like building a local advertising engine and/or selling hosted versions of the open-source software, but we’re sure there are other ways for EveryBlock to be a successful business. That brings me to the reason I’m posting this — we’re looking for ideas and partners who would be interested in helping us figure this out. If you have any ideas or suggestions, get in touch with me.
Looking toward EveryBlock’s future | Holovaty.com
