mariao8kc: Money Making Websites

Last night, for the second week in a row, The Simpsons took a shot at corporate cousin Fox News. However, if you’re clicking over to Hulu or Fox’s websites to check out this week’s helicopter gag, you’re going to be disappointed. WebNewser has noticed that the joke, from the episode’s opening credits, has been removed. Did someone at Fox (other than Bill O’Reilly) complain?

Well, maybe. However, as much as we love a good conspiracy, our money is on WebNewser’s second hypothesis, that the gag was added at the very last minute and after the websites had received their copy. We can easily imagine the producers of the show getting so excited about the media coverage of the first joke (and thoroughly enjoying O’Reilly’s take down of it) that they rushed to their computers to add the new joke to the next episode, which was finished long in advance of airing. Besides, as much as some might like to picture shadowy Fox executives wringing their hands over the joke, we just can’t imagine any exec exclaiming, “What? People are writing about our two-decade-old series all over the internet because of one joke?! Well dont let them do it again!”

However, you’d think that the TV channels would get the shows before the websites so you never know…

UPDATE Simpsons’ Executive Producer Al Jean revealed in an exclusive interview with the NY Times David Itzkoff that the motives behind the anti-Fox News gag were light in spirit:

Mr. Jean said the “Simpsons” producers — in particular, the creator of the series, Matt Groening — were pleased with how the first Fox News joke seemed to ruffle the feathers of Bill O’Reilly, the host of the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor.” (On his show last week, Mr. O’Reilly played the “Simpsons” satire of Fox News and, with a smile, said of the cartoon family: “Pinheads? I believe so.”)

The “Simpsons” producers could not let that remark stand, so they rushed their second Fox News joke into Sunday’s episode — so late in the production process that the gag could only be inserted into the version shown in North America, but not into versions shown in foreign markets or on the Internet.

“There’s a lot of masters that go out,” Mr. Jean said in a telephone interview, “so to save money we just put it in the one master that’s for the U.S. and Canada. More money that will then go to Fox News and undoubtedly to Bill O’Reilly.”

Mr. Jean emphasized that neither he nor his “Simpsons” colleagues have ever been told by their corporate Fox parents to stop making fun of Fox News.

Check out the opening from Fox below as well as the Hulu version below that:

Ashley Norris is CEO of branded content advisory Sutro Digital and director of Anorak Publishing, including the Whoateallthepies.tv soccer blog...
See more of our latest Entertainment coverage
or add an alert for future coverage of Entertainment.

There’s an awful lot of heat at the moment about both paywalls and paid for iPad magazine apps. Yet paywalls as a concept haven’t been bothering the indie media sector too much recently.

I seem to remember gadget site Pocket Lint offering a subscription based area a few years back, but that is about it as far as charging for online content goes.

The indie sector is obviously a little coy about asking readers for cash. The theory runs that if mainstream publishers can’t make paywalls work then what hope have bloggers?

It gets messy too in that it takes a degree of technical nous to create and run a paywall system and collect subscriptions.

So can indie publishers charge for online content? Maybe. They do already for printed content. Jeremy Leslie’s wonderful Magculture blog is full of magazines from indie publishers that are at the cutting edge of both content curation and design.

It’ll be fascinating to see what happens to the Whoateallthepies - the UK’s leading sports blog which will shortly launch a printed magazine. With a circulation nudging a million monthly users it has a huge following, but will that translate into sales of printed editorial?

As for creating a paywalls for online content, well there’s one indie publisher that is making it work very well.

Paul Tomkins is the editor of a site called Tomkins Times. Created in 2009 it is completely focused on the fortunes of Liverpool FC. The difference is that unlike the thousands of other footy websites out there Tomkins Times charges readers £3.50 a month to access the site. And remarkably it has almost 2,000 subscribers.

As Paul says ‘We charged £3.50 a month for Premium and £2 for Standard. I was hopeful of a couple of hundred subscribers, just to get a steady, regular income of some sort, and maybe 500 at the most. Once we passed 500 – which was quite soon – the aim was for 1,000. We past that earlier this year. I remember fairly early on Anu (Paul’s developer) telling me that we could get 2,000, and that seemed like a crazy figure. Now it’s within sight. Traffic to the site is also growing at a strong rate. We added Google (NSDQ: GOOG) ads to the site for non-subscribers, who benefit from the free pieces, but it’s not a big money spinner

So how does Paul make it work, and what can other indie publishers (and indeed freelance journalists) learn from his experience?

1) He is an authority on his chosen niche. Several years ago Paul self-published a book about Liverpool FC “Golden Past, Red Future” and has written for both the official Liverpool FC and for various fan sites. He is an expert on The Reds, has good connections with the club and his views are widely respected by other fans.

2) He focused on building up a community not just a blog – Paul had already constructed a database of Liverpool FC fans who liked his content and were sympathetic to what he was doing. Many of these became his first subscribers. Paul has nurtured that community by constantly engaging with them.

3) He exerts rigorous standards in his community – As Paul says ‘The one big bonus has been the community that has built up behind the paywall, and the quality of their posts. People can discuss football in an intelligent manner, without spammers, trolls and wind-up merchants ruining it. So far I’ve banned just five people in over a year. We lose a few subscribers each month – some move on (as it’s not for everybody), some have money issues – but most soon come back. While there are excellent posters on most public forums, you often have to wade through the nonsense.’

4) He has a great tech partner – The paywall was the brainchild of fellow Liverpool FC fanatic Anu Gupta and his Digital Query agency. Anu offered his services for free, saying that he’d only charge if it took off. ‘True to his word, he built a site within a week, and we launched on 21st September 2009.’

5) He has not been scared to experiment – In addition to the paywall, in itself a huge experiment, Paul has created different subscription levels and has also kept a significant chunk of content available freely. ‘I still make about half of the stuff I write free to read, depending on my desire to get the message across to a wider audience, and of course, to get the balance of bringing new visitors to the site and offering value to those who subscribe.’

6) He has developed other projects – ‘It’s also allowed me to co-write and publish a new general football book – “Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era” – and not stress over how many it sells, beyond the fact that you always want your work to be read and appreciated. The royalties go towww.postpals.co.uk, a charity for terminally ill children I’ve been promoting for a few years now – the girls who run it also have M.E., and set it up as something constructive to do when housebound and unable to do conventional work. Our book is dedicated to the memory of the 12 Post Pals children who died in 2010, although a 13th has since passed away.’

7) He judiciously uses social media – Tomkins Times is consistently updated and now has nearly 20,000 followers.

This article was reproduced from Ashley’s blog with permission.

bench craft company scam

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Money Making Websites

No comments:

Post a Comment