fail, fail, fail - blogs in print

saw this from link at jjobs. here's hoping this guy fails miserably, especially after reading this sentence:

"By publishing articles written by bloggers who are already diligently covering topics as varied as town politics and local fashion, Mr. Karp can slash one of the biggest expenses of a newspaper: reporters."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/technology/start-ups/22blogpaper.html?_r=1

 

This will be a great product ...



... FOR ME TO POOP ON!​

 

Can someone explain these items in the article for me?
-David Cohen, a founder of Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, says, "There’s a huge readership that wants the local news, and local businesses tend to increase their advertising in bad times because they have to capture people’s attention."
-Then from the article itself, "Advertising remains print’s one great advantage over Web publications: advertisers will pay much more for print ads than for online ones."
Timeout. If these statements were true...wouldn't newspapers be doing just fine? I suppose they can be explained in that newspaper advertising revenue is a huge number compared to that needed for a free, smallish paper with almost no cost.

Also, this is very convenient for the founder, Joshua Karp:
"He receives free office space from the Illinois Technology Association, and his 10 staff members are volunteers who work on their personal laptops. He plans to raise venture capital to pay employee salaries and eventually expand."

 

I never have had anyone say, "When will this be on the Web?"

I never have had anyone say, "Can you put my child's photo on the Web?"

Whenever I have told people I can't put something in the paper but will get it in my blog, they look crestfallen.

"Blogs in print" is an oxymoron anyway. Newspapers are slashing column inches but will take up space with things that are on the Internets.

 

I now believe that the people running this business would do better at a business plan disemboweling birds and reading the entrails.

 

I defy any of the people who usually disagree with you to find any fault with this statement.

 

That's because people will still subscribe to and read newspapers. The Internet, people realize, is a disgraceful place with obscene and improper comments at the end of articles. The newspaper is a place where intellect reigns. The publishers afraid of costs of ink and paper have been praying for an excuse to cut staff and go Web. Too bad readers don't agree. They have catered to the 20 somethings and believed the surveys that said newspapers are dead. So newspapers are dead cause they say so. Newspaper Internet cites are a cesspool of crap because of reader comments on stories. Smart people realize this.

 

One fault that I can see: the people who run the business generally aren't smart enough to be able to catch and kill the birds marked for disembowelment.

Picture a Tweety and Sylvester cartoon.....that's what I see when I think of this plan.

 

There's something factually wrong with every single sentence of this post. New record.

 

you might want to save a template of that response for use on most future fredrick posts.

 

I hear it all the time about when something will be online. A lot of extended family that may not want to subscribe to the print product, but want to see how a nephew or niece is doing with prep sports.

 

I'll take a contradictory viewpoint and say that the idea of printing blogs is a damn fine one.
There are plenty of credible blogs and bloggers out their that are as interesting to read as the graybeards who monopolize column inches.
Why would a wire services of trusted bloggers be any worse than the scattershot items we rip from AP every day?
I have no clue about how the business model would work, but content is king and as long as newspapers keep chopping their greatest resource, their will be plenty of qualified journalists who need an outlet for their talents. The Printed Blog could be such a product.

Voice in the wilderness