Comments on: NowPublic lands funding, challenges ‘hyperlocal’

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:49:16 +0000

“until a beer drinking bear bicycles into town?”

Dude! What channel is that on? I will watch it everytime!

By: Rex

Rex — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:37:34 +0000

“NowPublic may be one of the only ‘citizen journalism’ success stories out there right now.”

Newsvine?

By: stefan

stefan — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:22:13 +0000

ive always felt the ‘hyperlocal’ mantra to be overrated, especially vis-a-vs excluding national and international events. Thats more a soapbox for print website issues, but i define news as simply “events or information that matter” - so its a question of what matters, and to whom. Thats why the participatory journalism trend is so crucial, because to serve the public with information and resources and be the sole arbiter of what matters is to really disconnect with the public we purport to serve.

By: Aaron Weiss

Aaron Weiss — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:47:56 +0000

It’s not an either/or proposition. You can be hyperlocal AND hyperpersonal.

If this worked right, my name above should link to a piece in this month’s Wired Magazine about Gannett’s online transition. If nothing else, it’s worth reading for the stats on pageviews and revenue.

The first thing struck me: Gannett’s CincyMOMS site generated $386,000 in revenue in its first 6 months. It’s a hybrid discussion/photo sharing site. Nothing groundbreaking. It’s local and personal. It’s making money.

By: Steve Boriss

Steve Boriss — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:01:41 +0000

Hyperlocal WILL be big, and it WILL be for the 35+ crowd. These folks have always been the target for what we now call “news.” These are the people who have a stake in their communities, with their kids and homes. These are the people who go to the polls in every election. Hyperpersonal may be for the under 35 crowd. I think we may be looking at 2 different markets, and as people age they will move from one to the other (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:40:13 +0000

I totally agree with that. Our interns define news as: Hollywood gossip, where to get happy hour specials, concert times, Facebook status, and which friend broke up with his girlfriend.

I was asking some friends last week what would make them watch local news (friends in their 20s and 30s) and the answer was nothing. Not better quality, not more hyper-local, not more tech/business stories. Just nothing.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:11:46 +0000

oh my, that is really well put.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:09:12 +0000

Bold?! More like dead on… Global IS local to anyone growing up with the internet.

Until a child is lost? Fire blazing? Sorry, unless young people know the child or the fire is within walking distance of their house, they don’t care even then. Tornado, maybe… if the power stays on.

Ask your interns: “If you weren’t going into local news, would you watch local news?” Almost all of them will say no.

By: tdc

tdc — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:06:21 +0000

until a beer drinking bear bicycles into town?

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:42:53 +0000

I live in a slow moving neighborhood full of slow moving people.
Local is not important, until something happens.
Until a child is lost. Until a tornado is sighted. Until a fire is blazing.
It is at that time that I demand local news, and am somehow surprised that there is nobody around to do the job.