How's this for a business model for new media? Have people talk about products, and let the corporations who make the products pay to control the conversation.
That's Gawker's new sure-fire money-making scheme, according to CJR (5/24/12), which quotes a memo from the media gossip site: "In two years, our primary offering to marketers will be our discussion platform." CJR explains that people mainly read Gawker for the snarky comments, so site founder Nick Denton is planning on virtually doing away with posts:
Expect Gawker's blog posts to get shorter, in future, and sometimes just be a headline, at least in the first instance, so that the conversation can get going before a pretty post can be put together. And if Denton's scheme goes according to plan, when you follow a link to a Gawker website, it will often–or maybe even usually–be a link to a comment, rather than to an original post.
This will help Denton pursue his dream of not having to pay anyone for content. But Gawker still has to make money, right? The solution: Sell corporations the right to edit the comments:
If an advertiser buys a sponsored post–and sponsored posts have been part of Gawker's menu of offerings for some time now–then once the new commenting system is in place, the advertiser will have a reasonably large degree of control of the conversation that most people see in that post….
The idea is to get challenger brands, in particular, to take part: They tend to be very open and transparent about what they’re up to, and they love the idea of engaging with the public as much as possible, if they can do so in a reasonably controlled environment.
So the new Gawker will involve people talking about corporate products in a "reasonably controlled environment"–controlled, that is, by the product manufacturers. Does that sound like fun to you? Maybe if your the sort of person who goes to shopping malls for the architecture.
But it's got to be the ultimate fantasy for corporate media owners: having advertisers pay to edit copy for you that your audience wrote for free. Ka-ching!


Which term doesn't belong?
(a) open and transparent
(b) engaging with the public
(c) reasonably controlled
Answer: They all do.
We're talking marketing, silly.
And CJR seems to be just fine with that.
i like colbert, who's always holding up boxes of sugar puff coco pops, advertising and mocking at the same time. your t shirt's too simplistic for my tastes. ergo?
It's beginning to morph into a chain letter pyramid scheme. Pretty soon it will be a closed-loop and the actual "reader" will only be able to do just that: READ. The content will be explicitly within and around the PR minions and their product cycle.
Well, at least they're honest about what everyone else in the MSM is already doing while proclaiming otherwise. Like Chris Matthews for instance?
I took another look at "1984" the other night, and all the parts that used to be confusing, like how could people be that stupid and gullible, now not only make sense, but I'm able to see the real-time examples getting more predominant in society. Especially during this election season.
The masters of unreality…
Fortunately for us, as Gawker websites have become more advertiser friendly, there have been fewer and fewer comments.
How interesting, not only do we have advertisements that act like news shorts, but controlled (by editing) on the spot persons commenting on corporate product. When will all new stations and their local talking heads just become vehicles for their corporate sponsor advertisements all though the "news" show? Sooner or later they will.
I took another look at "1984" the other night,…
I was going to say, this is the perfect example of the Mini-True and it's constant rewrites, modifying the history to match the present.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH