9 Responses to “Yes, News Sites Are Facing A Crisis, But Aggregators Aren’t The Problem”

  1. Charbax

    We need web standards for monetisation as well. Google should be obligated to provide monetisation tools for all web content publishers.

    Google is currently sitting on their laurels thinking "Well, it's the free market, those web content makers can just deal themselves to build monetisation tools. They can just use our Adsense tools and place the ads on their pages in the most optimal way." That though is not sufficient.

    Though one thing makes me wonder, with more monetisation tools, Google's own revenue would increase 10x or more, so I actually don't really understand what is holding them back. Are they too afraid to open pandora's box?

  2. Allan Hoving

    So if we can't realistically expect Google to do it, what's Plan B? How about aggregating the payment models and letting the users choose which one(s) they prefer?
    "Keeping what's read in the black"
    demo online now at http://www.PayCheckr.com

  3. Charbax

    Google is the aggregator. Thus Google has a responsibility!

    Google needs to implement standards for:

    – Micropayments for web contents

    – Subscriptions for web contents

    Nobody is going to subscribe to my blog or to NYT at $5 per month. But Google could setup a "Global Subscription Plan" and just allow any news source, any blog, any web content producer, to basically be part of that, thus to get paid from it.

    With several opt-in choices, to only allow access for people who are subscribed or to allow everyone access but remove ads for subscribers, or to allow earlier access for subscribers or access to archives only for subscribers.

    Those tools are Google's reponsibility to implement! And it's VERY LATE.

    Being a huge corporation, Google tends only to care about making money for Google itself. Thus they don't feel the urgency of monetising web contents in more different ways.

  4. Mike ODonnell

    Well written article. Grueskin calls it "engagement," we call it "usage." The money is definitely in usage and not in "page views." The data we collect from thousands of web properties clearly supports this proposition. More money is made when users click (engage) the print, email, post, and comment links, then it is by the mere fact the page was displayed by the user's browser. So why do so many publishers fail to monetize these links?


  5. Chris M

    If you are getting $1 CPMs, you must be using an ad network or have a really bad sales team. We have not seen a drop below $10 for our site.

  6. ed dunn

    <i>What good is Web traffic anyway when the online advertising model is so badly broken?</i>

    This is a great point I wish more people would understand. I'm tired of hearing about web traffic. I'm one of those "web traffic" people and I can assure everybody I'm ignoring online ads 99.7% of the time.

    I have an underground video series out there where I explained the true monetization is going to be contextualize marketing and it appears Google, Inc. is the only one who gets it and pursuing this direction.

    These content writers aka "journalists" are running around crying they are about to go under and do not understand how Google can monetize off their content contextually. That's kind of funny to me to be honest.

    These same newspaper industries are failing to grasp the obvious in-your-face realization that they can do to their paper what Google, Inc. is doing in order to sell contextual marketing to the users and how Amazon recently patented a contextual marketing program for e-books within Kindle.