9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Terry Heaton  |  November 29th, 2006 at 5:46 am

  Well said, Cory. Becoming a total information online resource IS the future of local media, and there won’t be room for five stations and two newspapers in the space. As much as we think our vaunted “content” is what makes us valuable, the truth is that in the new world that content is ultimately just pixels on the page of local news and information. He who aggregates all of that wins the prize.

• 2. invitedmedia  |  November 29th, 2006 at 6:07 am

  could there be room for a combination local station/newspaper resource under one URL?

  frankly, at this point i’d settle for sites in different cities doing reciprocal links (because you’ve got to start somewhere).

• 3. Cory  |  November 29th, 2006 at 8:38 am

  It’s all about local and niche.

  Local media has to move quickly into key niches, which for the most part involves starting new sites. That doesn’t mean abandon the core sites — quite the opposite — it’s even more critical than ever to make the core sites the market leaders in local news, weather and traffic. But again, that’s not enough by itself. Not even close.

  I found the discussion under the MTV post very interesting, as many folks are concerned about splitting off new sites and brands and the ability to promote them.

  But niche sites can be networked by nav, search, syndication and other approaches, and smaller niches can be combined on larger niche sites.

  TV especially has this narrow window in which we can leverage our promotional platform to get into these niches FAST before pure plays win them over. And don’t believe for a second that pure plays NEED TV to get critical mass. As Craigslist has shown, it can be 100% viral.

• 4. thehartfordchannel  |  November 29th, 2006 at 8:43 am

  askcity(dotcm) is owned by someone in California.

  let’s assume it is “someone” involved with IAC. why not have the URL resolve to somewhere??? anywhere within the IAC empire?

  you have the benefit of a new york times piece working for you, the piece is probably RSS’d to a shiiteload of people and MORE IMPORTANTLY they are mentioned at LR. all that adds up to a number of curious clickers who are treated to an error page.

  why they do what they do…

• 5. invitedmedia  |  November 29th, 2006 at 8:49 am

  cory, i didn’t sound like i was advocating the “abandonment” of existing sites, did i?

  i was talking about partnerships where the same content already being generated can be monetized several times over.

• 6. Cory  |  November 29th, 2006 at 9:10 am

  Naw, invited, I was just expounding on an earlier point.

  You’re right to leverage existing content in new distibution arrangements, etc, but again, that won’t necessarily fill the new niches that are ripe for the taking.

• 7. invitedmedia  |  November 29th, 2006 at 9:25 am

  amen to that

  do any local tv sites have worship sections? most “churches” have nice budgets for promoting themselves… and the payoff by the “big guy” might last through eternity if the campaign is a success!

  what about video obits?

  video birth/baptism announcements?

  video bar/bat mitzvahs announcements?

  video wedding announcements?

  (ok, the video obits might be a no-go)

• 8. Dan  |  November 29th, 2006 at 8:21 pm

  (ok, the video obits might be a no-go)

  Are you kidding? That’s a great idea.
  Have you ever been to a funeral and seen the
  video tributes people are doing now?
  They are fantastic, and of course huge tear producing
  pieces. I’ve done one for an uncle a few years ago
  and it was tough to edit for me cause I loved him,
  but the family was so appreciative.

  I think these are exactly the kinds of things local TV stations did, for big wigs anyway, on their newscasts
  in the old days. Now, this should be something
  anyone’s family should have access to.

  Dan

• 9. Lucy  |  January 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am

  Wow, thanks for the excellent information!

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed