Courtesy of Lucas Grindleys blog comes a comment from Rob Curley, the digital media whiz-kid behind the Washington Posts great new OnBeing video feature, which I wrote about here. In a comment on Melissa Wordens blog, Rob responds to questions about how the new feature can be monetized:
Im going to say something that Ive never said in my 10 years as an online journalist: I dont care how its monetized. Dont get me wrong: I love capitalism. I want our newspaper to make money hand-over-fist so that we can continue to do journalism that matters, but &
and then he adds:
Why are online journalists treated so differently at most newspapers than the print journalists are? I mean, if a print editor was planning a huge enterprise project that was going to be really special for the newspaper (and would take some resources to do successfully), would people ask that print editor how he or she was going to monetize it?
The answer, Rob says, is never. Im not quite sure thats the case, however. I know that at our newspaper, new projects that take a lot of resources are often subjected to a rigorous business case analysis although to be fair that isnt alway the difference between a project living and dying. But still, I think Robs point is a good one: if its a good idea, its a good idea. Period. The rest of his comment is worth reading too.
Technorati Tags: media2.0 newspapers videohttp://mathewingram.com/media/2007/02/12/why-alway...