Don't oversimplify the GateHouse fight

Boston.com's big day

Dont Quote Me — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:34:07 GMT

Editor & Publisher reports that Boston.com is a quintuple finalist in the 2009 EPpy awards, the new

Kutsal Bilgi » Blog Archive » Dan Kennedy: Dispute between New York Times and GateHouse Media could determine online journalism’s future

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:58:36 GMT

Pingback from Kutsal Bilgi » Blog Archive » Dan Kennedy: Dispute between New York Times and GateHouse Media could determine online journalism’s future

ippimail.com » Blog Archive » Dan Kennedy: Dispute between New York Times and GateHouse Media could determine online journalism’s future

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:11:51 GMT

Pingback from ippimail.com » Blog Archive » Dan Kennedy: Dispute between New York Times and GateHouse Media could determine online journalism’s future

re: Don't oversimplify the GateHouse fight

Tim Allik — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:08:15 GMT

Aggregation isn't a sound business model. Aggregation is a commodity. There is no "wide moat" around this idea. In fact there isn't a moat at all. Using an RSS reader and a few search terms achieves virtually the same thing.

Boston.com's new Your Town sections are a laudable first step in the right direction -- but the site would be better off by launching a local blog network with a shared revenue model. Boston.com could leverage its reach and traffic to the benefit of its blog partners in a way that smaller competitors could not (the moat). Bloggers' compensation would be tied directly to pageviews, an incentive model that New York Times property About.com has used and is using successfully.

By giving bloggers in this network special opportunities to integrate Boston.com content on their own websites with widgets and links, Boston.com would also benefit from broader distribution and better search engine optimization.

re: Don't oversimplify the GateHouse fight

Chuck T — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:31:09 GMT

Very well said. I've noticed some changing habits lately about aggregation: they don't drive that much traffic. People get what they need from whatever source they're reading and that's it. It takes a "touch" to actually drive traffic from one site to another, people tend to be lazy and will just read where they are.

The Globe's site acts more as a scanning tool, giving you a quick snapshot of what's in Newton. It doesn't encourage the linking the way that Google does. It also doesn't add anything to the overall "conversation" about the city the way that Gaffin and Universal Hub adds to the Boston discussion.

re: Don't oversimplify the GateHouse fight

Ryan — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:09:27 GMT

Very, very good explanation. I wasn't paying much attention to this whole story - and you summed it up quite nicely.

This is probably the lowest moment of the Globe in terms of journalistic standards. It's stealing and I hope GateHouse wins. The sooner the Globe's sold, the better.

re: Don't oversimplify the GateHouse fight

Appalled — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:35:06 GMT

I am in no way an expert, proponent or even pretend to understand the blogsphere rules and regulations but I think that Boston.com and the Globe, let's call a spade a spade have taken embarrassing yourself to new levels.

To pass off mostly GateHouse materials as their new local journalism and sell ads around it is the most despicible thing to come out of that crap hole on Morressey Blvd. in years.

I am sure that they had many a conference call with their lawyers who assured them that ripping off Gate House on the Web could be done legally and on the cheap. Another example of lazy journalism that dosen't help, inform or better anyone but themselves.....

Bravo you jack asses!!!