They got it backwards

Time Inc. announced that Andrew Sullivan is moving his blog to Time.com. Good for Andrew. But they got it backwards. They should have left Sullivan right where we was and sold advertising there. That would have extended their reach to a new audience. They’re thinking the old way: trying to draw people to their site and brand and buying content to do it. The new way would be to build your audience and brand and ad revenue all over the web, at all the best places, piggybacking on the audience and reputation that is already there. They’re thinking like a marketplace in a distributed world. [hat tip: Jay Rosen]

: Here’s Andrew on the move.

  • http://isfullofcrap.com/ Laurence Simon

    Pathfinder is gone, but obviously not forgotten. Or learned from.

  • APF

    Wait, blogs have websites now? I just get them through my RSS feed reader.

  • http://www.calacanis.com Jason

    This could work really well… putting bloggers in a network makes it so much easier to get advertisers and build and audience.

    More
    here

    http://www.calacanis.com/2005/11/14/jarvis-gets-it-backwards-again/

  • Marina Architect

    So basically if you build an audience organically on the web, we will make you an offer. It never changes.

    Jason lays a compelling case but leaves out how the conflict of interest (however hip you are to your core) will over time erode the voice of the blog. It’s udeniable. No doubt more money awaits anyone who enters the ad bundled world of corporate advertising budgets.

    Pseudo credibility gained through established brands equals more money everyday, every year and at any age. New networks like Weblogs (collection of mediocre amateur noise) will emerge and follow the same fate.

  • http://www.blognetworkwatch.com Matt Craven

    I agree mostly with Jason – the network provides many things that as an individual you would have to take on – advertising, marketing, technology, etc.

    More here

  • Tim

    Does this mean an end to that blog’s HIDEOUS, semi-illegible, white-text-on-dark-blue design? I have never understood why Andrew persisted with it in the face of so many complaints.

  • http://www.calacanis.com Jason

    >> Jason lays a compelling case but leaves out how the
    >> conflict of interest (however hip you are to your core)
    >> will over time erode the voice of the blog. It’s udeniable.
    >> No doubt more money awaits anyone who enters the
    >> ad bundled world of corporate advertising budgets.

    Everyone thinks that. I used to think that.

    However, when we started working with AOL they said they would never edit or filter the bloggers. We at WIN never filter our bloggers (beyond something like porn, hate speech, etc.).

    I actually think that MSM companies are getting comfortable with dissent on blogs, so much so they are bringing the most vocal folks under their domains. Remember, media is about ratings and if having both sides fight it out increases ratings the MSM folks are going to do it.

    >> Pseudo credibility gained through established brands
    >> equals more money everyday, every year and at
    >> any age. New networks like Weblogs (collection of
    >> mediocre amateur noise) will emerge and
    >> follow the same fate.

    1. Collection of mediocre amateur noise? I think the 60M+ page views a month would disagree with that! Engadget and Autoblog and Cinematical and many of our blogs are ON FIRE!

    2. Why is it pseudo credibility? If the New Yorker, New York Times, or 60 minutes decide that you are worth putting under their well-established brand that is not “pseudo” that is real. Now, I agree that street level credit is very real too–but it’s not the only cred out there.

  • http://morningcoffee.cjb.net women

    community is the buzz…

  • APF

    Tim: Want to hack your viewing experience of Andrew’s blog? Use a direct link to the blog content instead (essentially plain-text, and you can then use a user-defined stylesheet if you want to muck around with the presentation).

  • Duneview

    Tim: Just click on “Black & White” under the The Daily Dish header at Andrew’s site.

  • Tim

    APF — thanks, great suggestion, i had no idea!

    Duneview — Thanks, I knew about that, but even though it solves the light-on-dark problem, it’s still an ugly, even harsh design that makes me feel like I’m under the bright lights of a hospital emergency room. ;-)

  • Pingback: Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » MATURING BLOGS

  • http://red-state.com Michael Meckler

    The problem is that Andrew Sullivan was having a tough-enough time as it was selling ad revenue on his own site. (One could compare his BlogAd revenue today — two standard ads at $250 each for one week — with what I saw on his site last December, when he charging $400 a week for a standard BlogAd.) Yes, time.com will get some additional traffic, but Time Warner now has a permanent relationship with Sullivan that can be exploited in media where ad revenue is at a much higher level (such as television). And Sullivan finally gets a decent return on the time he spends blogging.

  • Pingback: Time digests Sullivan | Chris Thilk