http://paidcontent.org/2007/03/18/419-nisenholtz-vs-jarvis-the-middle-ground-of-journalists-vs-bloggers/ The economics of digital content Thu, 23 May 2013 19:40:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://paidcontent.org/2007/03/18/419-nisenholtz-vs-jarvis-the-middle-ground-of-journalists-vs-bloggers/#comment-48543 Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:46 +0000 http://paidcontent.wp.gostage.it/2007/03/18/419-nisenholtz-vs-jarvis-the-middle-ground-of-journalists-vs-bloggers/#comment-48543 More here:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/03/18/me-v-nyt-at-opa-over-wwgd/

]]> http://paidcontent.org/2007/03/18/419-nisenholtz-vs-jarvis-the-middle-ground-of-journalists-vs-bloggers/#comment-48542 Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:14:23 +0000 http://paidcontent.wp.gostage.it/2007/03/18/419-nisenholtz-vs-jarvis-the-middle-ground-of-journalists-vs-bloggers/#comment-48542 Yes, to the theater. But Martin and I agree we were also disagreeing about something more fundamental or at least refreshingly different from the old blogger-v-msm debate. We were arguing about the centralized-v-distributed models of media: Yahoo as an example of the old, centralized model ('we control content and market to bring you to us and then give ads here') and Google is the example of decentralized ('we go where you are so your pageiew is our pageview and thus we enable you to do what you do'). Martin is arguing that some media brands — yes, the Times — are worth coming to. I'm arguing that all brands need to ask: WWGD — what would Google do? How can we go to where the people are and create a wider network of quality to do more than we could have done alone? Or at least this is how the discussion continued in Treo-to-Blackberry email afterwards.

]]>