Comments on: The Economist, the EU and online media strategies

By: Werner Patels

Werner Patels — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:14 +0000

I think it’s not a dearth of ideas. We shouldn’t forget that a blog operated by a media company such as this is not some “hobbyhorse”. Someone must be paid to maintain the blog and fill it with content. Just as some publications have been cutting back on size, home delivery, etc., The Economist is probably also undergoing some cutbacks in these difficult times.

The ideas are there, but they’ll go into the proper articles of the magazines, rather than an add-on blog on the site, which many readers might skip altogether.

By: akcview

akcview — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:39:11 +0000

I am surprised that you believe the Economist closed its CIOE blog for no reason. Its final post clearly states they believe it is no longer necessary to have a separate blog given the integration of EU and European issues into their various activities.

See:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/12/a_farewell_post.cfm

So from a very different perspective, the Economist has integrated EU issues into its mainstream activities and this is an improvement from a separate and marginal blog.

By: Improving Blogactiv, the EU blog platform « Steffen’s blog

Improving Blogactiv, the EU blog platform « Steffen’s blog — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:35:02 +0000

[...] circumstances (namely, being linked to Euractiv, which has hundreds of thousands of visitors). In a recent entry, Nosemonkey mentioned that posting content on Blogactiv has not brought him much traffic. I had a [...]

By: peririn

peririn — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:14:12 +0000

Thank you very much for a reaction – at a risk of being considered stubborn, I would just like to point out that “open source” is correctly considered “voluntary” but has another advantage to it. With volunteer work you are dependent on one person who might drop out, change his/her mind, get sick, etc. In open source cases, as we are talking right now about free translations for a blog, it is possible to tap into a huge number of such “volunteers”. As one drops out, another one steps in. The system is also self-checking because new volunteers make sure no mistakes are made previously, saving editorial time. Not that I have tried that before or have a high-ranking blog myself, but possibly it could keep the stats up for the advertisers to stay on. On another practical note – with all this technology around, not that this idea is perfect, but what else would work?

By: Brusselsblogger

Brusselsblogger — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:01:22 +0000

Nosemonkey, you really target in this post the topics I am very much following myself. BTW, I do think that the voluntary approach (mixed with EU funding, I know) of Cafebabel works well.

Another way that I think works in special interest areas is aggregation (maybe combined with own content): I am involved in German language EU portal http://www.politikportal.eu and I think an English language (or multilingual) version of it could work well.

By: Rasterian

Rasterian — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:49:59 +0000

Some interesting thoughts about the economics of media and politics. But independently of how the EU audience evolves over the next years (one would imagine it can only grow), I suspect this underestimates the potential for revenues.

Online media is evolving quickly, and advertising will follow. I for one see more potential in interactive advertising (personalized and flexible) than print formats. Online media will also evolve to online distribution, think Kindle, Sony Reader and such. This is already growing quickly. And advertising there can only have more potential than traditional print, given the cost structure and the flexibility. So I remain optimistic about media variety in the long term.

By: Metatone

Metatone — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:24:15 +0000

It doesn’t help that as good as “Certain Ideas” was, it wasn’t much better than “Nosemonkey.”

Or to put it another way, the problem for commercial blogs is that if you don’t have the resources to do a lot of reporting, then you’re in competition with all the amateurs and don’t have that much to truly mark yourself out as better quality with.

This was particularly problematic for “Certain Ideas” because they did have the baggage of The Economist house ideology on the EU and on economics. So for me, Nosemonkey was a much better read. And for those more inclined to the Economist view of life, I’d imagine the comment sections at various other blogs were more interesting, even if they liked reading Certain View.

(Incidentally, a killer issue with a lot of big media blogs is the appalling technology of the comment sections. Having a conversation on “Certain View” just never really worked. In fact, most of the best conversations sparked by Free Exchange happen on other people’s sites.)

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that the strategy of the print edition for the last 5 or possibly more years has been to expand their reader base in the influential sections of the society of the US. That’s led to obvious changes in their foreign policy slant, but also just less resources devoted to EU affairs even in the print edition.

As an aside, I’m curious about your definiting of a “minimal” editorial team for an EU mag?

By: nosemonkey

nosemonkey — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:58:59 +0000

That’ll sometimes work, for sure. But “open source” is just another way of saying “voluntary”. Volunteers have a tendency to disappear, because they have no obligation to provide their services. As such, you can’t rely on them. And to produce a financially viable publication – print or online – you need to be able to guarantee advertisers that you will continue to publish.

For blogs, naturally, the entire thing works on a voluntary basis. But as every blogger knows, if you stop posting for a few days, your visitor stats will start to drop massively. If you’ve flogged someone an ad spot for x amount of money on the promise of getting y views, they aren’t going to be best pleased. (This is why I’m no longer part of the BlogAds network – my readership dropped below their threshold.) That’s not a way to make reliable money.

By: peririn

peririn — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:38:52 +0000

to publish a site on EU affairs in different languages – you don’t need translators. Online different laws rule and the advertisement industry (as the music and the entertainment industry) is still not adapted to it.

The best online way of working is open-source contributions. That’s why you don’t need translators for your site – just a volunteer who speaks other languages and willing to contribute time. Just a suggestion.