Britannica Blog Link-Baiting "Newspapers and the Net Forum"
Britannica Blog is having another link-baiting party, I mean, "Are Newspapers Doomed? (Do We Care?): Newspapers & the Net Forum". They did not quite say:
Throughout the week assorted writers, bloggers, and media scholars will [provide link fodder] discuss and debate the state of newspapers and the impact of new media on traditional avenues of publishing. We welcome your [link] input, your [links] comments and [links to] perspectives, and encourage your [linking to] participation in these discussions.
I addressed a paradox in a column a while back: "Has Britannica co-opted blogging or has it been corrupted by it?". The Britannica people definitely seem to be cognizant of a blog as an attention-getting device and Search Engine Optimization aspects. In fact, it's arguably even working for them.
I've repeatedly tried to make the point, there's no reason to assume that organizations designated as the contrast to the shiny new thing, are therefore intrinsically unable to play with the shiny new thing's toys. Britannica Blog seems to show it's in fact quite possible to adapt, or at least try.
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in cyberblather | on April 04, 2008 08:01 AM (Infothought permalink)
Clever move by Forbes:
http://cryptogon.com/?p=2317
"I received an email from someone at Forbes inviting me to add Cryptogon to, “The new community of the high quality business and financial bloggers from Forbes.com.”"
You do not need to spend even 10 minutes at cryptogon you will realise how stupid this is.
In the comments from the site owner:
"Forbes is trying to grab the advertising space to make money off the audiences that the bloggers have established. (Our cut is 40%, not including weasel fees they specify)."
Points for trying I suppose.
Forbes trying to corral the debate on finance matters, britannica trying to herd the debate on ???. Same theory by the look of it - if you can own the eyeballs you win the guanxi and/or the money.
It's the "attention economy" in action :-(.