STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!! JOURNAL SENTINEL BREAKING MU NEWS

[GGGG]

Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?

The web site is not profitable as a stand alone, but the vast majority of affiliates have them.  That isn't going to change.  And Yahoo has national reporters that have broken sports stories in previously.  

I should have been more clear (and you less pedantic, because I'm pretty sure you know what I meant).

I didn't.  You should have been more clear.

[Pakuni]

I'll respond to the rest later, but you should google celebrities and Twitter to read about how they get paid for promotional/product tweets all the time.

Also, it's called Twitter advertising. You originally said twitter doesn't make money then changed that to people who tweet.

Celebrities also get paid for wearing certain shoes.
Ergo, wearing shoes is profitable.
#logic

I'll take some time trying to figure out how Lindsay Lohan tweeting about her new purse has to do with Twitter as a news medium.

[Pakuni]

Come on you can't post your big long statement of how nothing makes money and then change it to the portion that you would be most correct with.  Stick to your argument and be stubborn or address the portions where you're wrong. 

Umm ... he specifically called out my comment about blogs making money.

[Aughnanure]

Umm ... he specifically called out my comment about blogs making money.

Ummm...and then you changed it to "most blogs don't make money." Which was not my dissent. Of course most don't, there more than 150 million of them!

That still doesn't prove your original comment that blogs don't make money and they need to subsidize themselves with print. You think Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call make their money from the all the print publications they just give away in DC? You essentially don't believe in online advertising. There are mommy bloggers and teacher bloggers that earn six figures a year EASILY.

[Aughnanure]

Celebrities also get paid for wearing certain shoes.
Ergo, wearing shoes is profitable.
#logic

I'll take some time trying to figure out how Lindsay Lohan tweeting about her new purse has to do with Twitter as a news medium.

You said people don't get paid to tweet. Which is wrong.

[Aughnanure]

Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?

Yeah, and they get paid a TON for their advertising. Being one of the main portals for web traffic = bank. Which is why AOL is still very attractive, jokes and all. I believe they still take-in the most advertising web dollars of all, at least up to a few years ago. And then look at the AOL-Huffington Post. Huff Post started mainly doing aggregation, and still do, but they're freaking loaded to the point that they've added nearly a new country/service every 3-4 months. And why? Because they could deliver a huge market of the internet to advertisers. The same works for niche blogs and networks - people/companies can pay to reach very specific subsets of our population. That's very valuable.

Jesus, how were newspapers profitable before the internet? ADVERTISING.

[Pakuni]

Ummm...and then you changed it to "most blogs don't make money." Which was not my dissent. Of course most don't, there more than 150 million of them!

That still doesn't prove your original comment that blogs don't make money and they need to subsidize themselves with print. You think Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call make their money from the all the print publications they just give away in DC? You essentially don't believe in online advertising. There are mommy bloggers and teacher bloggers that earn six figures a year EASILY.

I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money."  I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.

Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.

Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."

http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx

Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?

As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.

[Aughnanure]

I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money."  I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.

Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.

Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."

http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx

Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?

As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.

Firs off, "most" to me equals "vast majority." Those words don't change anything. By the way, 8 percent of 150 million is 12,000,000 for christ's sake.

You're right on the subsidize part. I know "blogs" don't. I was just combining those two to make sure they were included in my next point.

There's more money-making bloggers than you think, especially in niche markets. I'll see if I can find enough examples for you. Sure, there's not 50 mommy bloggers making money, but there's still FIFTY full-time money-bloggers writing on a subject that no one specifically-covered in the newspaper-only era. And there's notably more than two that make good money - probably over a dozen. There are negatives to the blog era, and there are many positives (focus on smaller subjects is one of them). With so much inventory and activity on the internet there will always be bad examples you can point to.

BUT we don't need 500 super-profitable blogs anyways. We need 50. And I think you will certainly see that exist. Almost inevitably with way more than 50 to go along with all the small/personal niche blogs that make minimal or zero amount but still provide a valuable service.

[Pakuni]

Firs off, "most" to me equals "vast majority." Those words don't change anything. By the way, 8 percent of 150 million is 12,000,000 for christ's sake.

Where are you getting this 150 million blogs figure? The story I linked placed the number at 31 million, and notes that many of those blogs are dead or dormant.
That said, even if there are blogs that earn enough to support a family, don't you think that's vastly (mostly)  different than enough to support a full news organization?

As for the rest, while I won't disagree that blogs can succeed financially by targeting some niche markets, that's mostly (vastly) different from how the conversation started.

[THEultimateWARRIOR]

Twitter brought in $350 million in revenue for 2012. The web business is on pace to surpass $1 billion by 2014. I'd say there making plenty of money...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/twitter-said-to-expect-1-billion-in-sales-in-2014-on-ad-growth.html

[Benny B]

I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money."  I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.

Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.

Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."

http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx

Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?

As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.

According to the article, there are 31M bloggers.  For argument's sake, let's assume only 8% make any money and the blog to blogger ratio is 1:1.  That means 2.48 million blogs make money and 28.52M do not.

So, pray tell, in what world would the statements "a vast majority of blogs don't make money" and "there are many many blogs that make money" be mutually exclusive?

If I had 2.48 million of anything, I think the vast majority of people would agree that I have "many, many" of that item.

[spacecrusader]

^^^

This is why basketball needs to hurry up and start.

[real chili 83]

^^^

This is why basketball needs to hurry up and start.

+ 1 kabillion