I guess you can't get accused of vanity blogging more than making reference to a third-party blog post about yourself. Today I was the subject of a post on trolling brands on onlinefandom.com - an excellent blog, authored by Communications Professor Nancy Baym
Read it here:
http://www.onlinefandom.com/archives/trolling-for-fans-on-facebook/
Tuesday 29 January 2008
The New York Times story rumbles on...
A bit busy to put on my blogging hat at this moment in time. However, read this story on Wired for a continuation of the recent hoo ha of The New York Times drop in circulation...
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/nyt.html
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/nyt.html
Thursday 24 January 2008
What is "real journalism" ?
What is real journalism? This is the question Michael Arrington is asking on TechCrunch today.
The share price of the New York Times Company is dwindling due to drops in circulation, which of course means a drop in advertising revenues.
Should it be the Government's role to protect traditional media business models which can't adapt in a digital environment?
Of course its hard to sort out quality journalism online but surely this argument extends to all content on the internet.
If these traditional media companies have an established and trusted brand they could capitalise on this to overcome the problem. There has been a lot of bandying about of the BBC facing a "digital tsunami" but I think that with a bit of strategic planning they could have a very positive global future.
The share price of the New York Times Company is dwindling due to drops in circulation, which of course means a drop in advertising revenues.
Should it be the Government's role to protect traditional media business models which can't adapt in a digital environment?
Of course its hard to sort out quality journalism online but surely this argument extends to all content on the internet.
If these traditional media companies have an established and trusted brand they could capitalise on this to overcome the problem. There has been a lot of bandying about of the BBC facing a "digital tsunami" but I think that with a bit of strategic planning they could have a very positive global future.
WarnerMusic sues Seeqpod
Seems streaming audio sites are the hot topic at the moment, following on from Last.FM's announcement yesterday.
It has surfaced that Warner Music has accused Seeqpod of
"direct, contributory and vicarious" copyright
infringement."
The site continues to stay online. Going back to what I was saying on the Last.FM post record labels must create a dialogue with the likes of Seeqpod to take streaming audio models forward - and it would seem a la Last.FM ad supported models are the way to go.
For more thoughts on this see Martin's post on Pickyblog:
http://picky.be/blog/musicfuture/music-label/
It has surfaced that Warner Music has accused Seeqpod of
"direct, contributory and vicarious" copyright
infringement."
The site continues to stay online. Going back to what I was saying on the Last.FM post record labels must create a dialogue with the likes of Seeqpod to take streaming audio models forward - and it would seem a la Last.FM ad supported models are the way to go.
For more thoughts on this see Martin's post on Pickyblog:
http://picky.be/blog/musicfuture/music-label/
Wednesday 23 January 2008
Ad supported business model from Last.FM
Today Last.FM announced an advertising supported model.
Seemingly this is the best place for music to go. Streaming audio in realtime (in particular based on playlists) is a growing trend - the likes of Spotify, Deezer, Seeqpod etc. have been popping up at a remarkable rate.
The question now lies on these sites can build a business model as they don't host any of the data, its all taken from "sweeping" the internet. Can they create a dialogue with the labels ?
http://blog.last.fm/
Seemingly this is the best place for music to go. Streaming audio in realtime (in particular based on playlists) is a growing trend - the likes of Spotify, Deezer, Seeqpod etc. have been popping up at a remarkable rate.
The question now lies on these sites can build a business model as they don't host any of the data, its all taken from "sweeping" the internet. Can they create a dialogue with the labels ?
http://blog.last.fm/
Tuesday 22 January 2008
The widgetization of popular culture
Seems there's no stopping the rise and rise of the widget...
This just in from allfacebook.com:
"PC Pro, a UK based magazine, is reporting this morning that the Facebook application development firm Slide has secured $50 million in backers. The article boasts that this is 10 times the normal investment in ‘web 2.0′ company.
Currently slide has 65 employees and is looking to expand to 100 by the end of the fiscal year. Slide applications rank as some of the top Facebook apps with an estimated 143 million users. Some of their more popular applications are: Slide Show, SuperPoke and Funwall.
Slide is boasting that they have the growing power to enter the league of developers like Adobe, EA, and Intuit. What I find most interesting about this claim is how none of the afore mentioned companies play in the same field. While the three companies all developers of software, each firm develops software for a very particular user.
I guess that is where Slide is really banking on growth. Most development firms focus on creating software that meets the needs of one group of people. Eventually the software firm expands its market and its user base, but essentially they all grow from a single type of client.
By utilizing the Facebook user base, Slide is able to successfully market to a much larger segment of the computer using population. I don’t know if this market is worth $50 million, but it is interesting to see how VC’s and the market are treating app developers who focus on the Facebook platform.
Do you think an application development firm is worth $50 million. If so why? If not, why not?
"
This just in from allfacebook.com:
"PC Pro, a UK based magazine, is reporting this morning that the Facebook application development firm Slide has secured $50 million in backers. The article boasts that this is 10 times the normal investment in ‘web 2.0′ company.
Currently slide has 65 employees and is looking to expand to 100 by the end of the fiscal year. Slide applications rank as some of the top Facebook apps with an estimated 143 million users. Some of their more popular applications are: Slide Show, SuperPoke and Funwall.
Slide is boasting that they have the growing power to enter the league of developers like Adobe, EA, and Intuit. What I find most interesting about this claim is how none of the afore mentioned companies play in the same field. While the three companies all developers of software, each firm develops software for a very particular user.
I guess that is where Slide is really banking on growth. Most development firms focus on creating software that meets the needs of one group of people. Eventually the software firm expands its market and its user base, but essentially they all grow from a single type of client.
By utilizing the Facebook user base, Slide is able to successfully market to a much larger segment of the computer using population. I don’t know if this market is worth $50 million, but it is interesting to see how VC’s and the market are treating app developers who focus on the Facebook platform.
Do you think an application development firm is worth $50 million. If so why? If not, why not?
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
