Ooops:
"In 2006, Mr. Anderson published “The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More,” arguing that the Internet allows for the sale of an array of niche products rather than relying on blockbusters. In “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” which comes out in July, Mr. Anderson proposes that businesses can profit from giving some products away rather than charging for them.

From a business perspective, Wired is being hurt by both those phenomena. The Web site is free, but it has not convinced most visitors to subscribe to the magazine. As for the 'long tail,' Wired is not big enough to be a can’t-miss advertising buy for national marketers, nor niche enough to have a narrowly defined audience of, say, auto buyers or watch enthusiasts."

Interesting:

"We will build a new local utility site (Local.com), which is an ecosystem of local information, resources, user content, shopping guides, and marketplaces. This site will be focused on a younger audience as well as other targeted audiences based on demographics which are attractive to our current and potential advertisers. We have the advantage of being the trusted source of for news and information in our communities and have a large base of traffic to feed into Local.com. Local.com will leverage existing newspaper content and existing traffic, and we will add new content (such as Entertainment/Lifestyle) to target a younger audience. Central to this local site will be an aggregation of city or community sites (in the YourHub model) and marketplaces. Local.com will be the ultimate site for people to find stuff, do stuff, and get stuff done in their local market."

"In writing this op-ed, the lawyers hide certain conflicts of interest that should weigh heavily against their analysis. The Post 's editors might have connected the dots for readers, but didn't.

But the piece is just so stunningly stupid that it falls apart all by itself. In it, Esq. Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown call for reactionary legal measures that would stifle access to news and information and return us to the grand old days of consolidated ownership, bloated media giants and information gatekeepers."

"Yeah, Google driving traffic to the newspapers' sites are the reason newspapers are in trouble. This line of argumentation is not only idiotic beyond words, but newspapers have a simple solution: block Google from crawling their sites with a "nofollow" "disallow" tag in their robots.txt file. Now if that sounds complicated to you, it's not: it's literally one single word in an HTML page that tells Google 'stay the fuck out because we're too fucking stupid to want people to find our material via search engines!' "

"Though future business models and financial relationships remain undefined, pubcasters and newspaper journalists are finding that their missions mesh nicely. Both work to keep the community informed and involved in public affairs. Both value their roles in educating viewers and readers. Both are passionate about those goals and have high standards."

"So from the clues we know that the future of journalism is networked not silo’d, we know that it has to be distributed not static, we know that it has to be appropriate for the platform, and to be really effective it has to be trusted and open to engagement, and in achieving that you can use any means at your disposal which, in the days of audiobooks, flip videos and social networking sties, is pretty much every way. And we know we need the help of our communities to build and engage audiences and to break stories. Simple really."