Comments for Writing, content strategy & user experience.

Comment on Lloyd Blankfein and Tiger Woods. by carlbaldassarre

carlbaldassarre — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:07:08 +0000

My point exactly. But under the surface, and not all that deep at times, there is indeed a racial or ethnic element that fuels the unreason.

Comment on Lloyd Blankfein and Tiger Woods. by Randy Burgess

Randy Burgess — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:59:34 +0000

Not sure that racial profiling has anything to do with either story – is your headline here a red herring?

But I think I agree with your larger point – it doesn’t serve any of us to respond to a complicated issue with simpleminded retribution. I’ve never bought the argument that Tiger “deserves” to get savaged by the media just because he is a celeb. And from the little I have read, Goldman Sachs seems like a case where they are getting hit just because they are a big target. But scapegoating a particular firm won’t help reform an industry.

Comment on Media talks, social walks when there’s money involved. by Jeff S.

Jeff S. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:37:56 +0000

I don’t think it’s required that Facebook own all status updates and posts.

In fact, if I’m not mistaken, they attempted to take away user copyright to images posted on the site in their TOS and the uproar it caused forced them to reverse this policy.

In my view, a successful social network, in order to foster open usage by members, should not attempt to own content shared via its platform.

While they may reserve the right to delete content they deem “offensive” or “violates policy”, they shouldn’t own copyright and then resell content shared/created by users. Can you imagine an ISP claiming copyright on data passed through its servers via private emails for example? That may not be possible, but it isn’t that dissimilar.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by carlbaldassarre

carlbaldassarre — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:36:15 +0000

Exactly how things get paid for is variable and complex. That they get paid for is a simple matter of survival. Many forms of media have evolved multiple revenue streams. For example, both viewers and advertisers pay for cable and satellite tv at present. It’s pretty obvious that many of the best content creators in the newspaper and book business aren’t getting paid enough relative to their costs. You can only lay off so many reporters before you either no longer have a news organization or decide it’s time to starting making readers pay.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by Randy

Randy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:40:50 +0000

OK, I’ve gone and done some further reading. Charging for online news content is commonly called putting up a “pay wall.” And there seems to be quite a bit of controversy as to whether this strategy will prove to be viable for newspapers, or whether other strategies till work – e.g. micropayments. And some whom favor charging for content nonetheless think there is a good chance the NYT’s current digital strategy will pan out and leave it in a good position once the dust settles, e.g. once enough other papers fail. See for example Nicholas Carter – http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/02/misreading_news.php – and also Steve Brill – http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=158210 – and also Real Clear Politics (hmm) – http://www.realclearpolitics.com/mediawatch/2009/01/a_payperview_future_1.html

All of this paints a far more complex, far less certain picture than you describe in your blog post.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by Randy

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:44:29 +0000

If you were in my essay class and submitted this as an attempt at reasoning & persuasion, I would give it back to you with this note: “Go and do some research on the actual reasons being given by those who aren’t doing what you say they should – as opposed to the reasons you have invented for them. Put these actual reasons in the piece, and put them fairly – and then maybe you will persuade readers that your argument is sound.”

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by carlbaldassarre

carlbaldassarre — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:29:06 +0000

The historical truth is that smart people do lots of dumb things. Giving away content that costs a great deal to create simply can’t continue. Which means, one way or another, it is bound to change.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by Randy

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:44:48 +0000

I doubt publishers are thinking it “has” to be any particular way – they have as many lawyers or more than the next guy, and are just as bottom-line oriented. Same with the NYT – probably they are leery of charging for content right now because they see it as a risk in particular ways, for pretty smart reasons. Just today the WSJ had a Mossberg column in which as a passing comment he allowed that many news orgs have tried to charge for content & failed. So I don’t think the reasoning of the parties here is quite as simple as you make it sound – although admittedly I would have to do the same research that you would have to do to find out.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by carlbaldassarre

carlbaldassarre — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:51:45 +0000

One reason publishers allow Google to offer books free, or the NYT allows all sorts of sites to grab it’s content free, is because they have think it “has to” be this way. Yet music, software and some editorial don’t work this way. I think that when opinions change, so will the pricing structure.

Comment on Content doesn’t always want to be free. Sometimes it wants to be $1.99. by Randy

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:04:23 +0000

To once again veer off topic – but not entirely so, when you think about it: I note your adoption of the coy phraseology that has arisen over the past decade or so, wherein people assert things like “Information wants to be free,” etc.; here you have “Content sometimes wants to be free, but not always,” etc. The problem with this particular abuse of language is that it omits mention of the human actors who actually decide such things – e.g. Google the company is a bunch of humans organized in a certain way, making decisions for people like your novelist friend, whether they like it or not (in this case I suspect, as you do, that she is either ambivalent or dislikes it but is powerless to stop it). There is never any such thing as “information” or “content” etc. making such decisions. If we wish to speak of cultural forces, or of systemic forces, these can all be meaningfully represented in speech without resorting to double-speak. Sure, it’s less cute to be accurate, and also less convenient – but as Orwell pointed out a long time ago, when we sacrifice accuracy for convenience the convenience is usually someone else’s and not our own. Unless of course we are in the military or some other group that wishes to cover up what is really going on.