Craig Newmark, it seems, is newspapers' public enemy no. 1. But if I was in any other profession (and even now), I'd concede that Craigslist was a spectacular idea. It made the buying and selling of crappy curry-scented furniture and the search for a relatively un-psycho roommate so easy -- but it swept the classified advertising rug out from under papers' feet.
But what if we took it back? Staged a coup against Newmark & Co.?
Newspapers' web sites, for example, the Herald, offer online classifieds. But you have to pay to post them, just like in the print edition. Why would anyone do such a thing, with Craigslist offering the same thing for free, with millions more hits?
What if newspapers offered free classifieds online? Now wait, before you click away in a fit of cynicism, hear me out: It would be free to post, search and respond to ads. Revenue would come from display ads (banners and such) on the pages, and perhaps one would have to be a newspaper subscriber to post, or pay a small one-time or annual fee for the privilege.
To make it work, to take back classifieds from Craigslist, these pages would have to offer something new -- a feature that would make them better or easier to use than Craigslist. Maybe a better search engine within the site, or email alerts when something you're looking for comes up, or an instant message system between users.
It'll probably take something much more innovative to beat Craigslist, which according to its own web site is the seventh-most trafficked English web site in the world and which garners publicity with every news story that mentions it. But it's worth trying to take what Newmark started and turn it on its head -- and to newspapers' advantage.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
So what about the issues?
Having just registered as a Democrat in Massachusetts (and being excessively excited about it), I went to the Globe web site for info on the three candidates.
There's a lot of stuff in the Campaign 2006 section. In addition to biographies and compilations of recent (and old) stories about all the runners, there are blogs and opinion pieces, videos from NECN, and even a map showing which households (and in a larger sense, neighborhoods and towns) are contributing to which campaign.
I went first to the "Debates" tab, expecting a story about the most recent Democratic debate to be the most relevant as far as who stands for what. Instead, although the nut graf said the candidates "dramatically sharpened their differences " at the debate, the story was exclusively about the attacks they leveled against one another. I couldn't find anything about the supposedly sharpened differences, unless I chose to watch video of the debate (a great feature, to be sure, but what if you don't have time or a good connection?) or read the entire transcript, some 20 pages of print.
After clicking around some more, (and spending a little too much time on the addictive contributions map -- only about five grand came out of my neighborhood, Roxbury) I found a very inviting section entitled "The Candidates on the Issues," on the bottom of the issues tab. Each issue provided a few grafs on each candidates' ideas about taxes, education, etc., based on quotes and their official platforms. That was pretty helpful, and so were the extensive pages on each candidate -- complete with bio, profiles on them and their spouses, recent articles and interviews, and way at the bottom, the issues.
Although the Globe has done a good job using its web site for a much more extensive look at the candidates than any given day's paper has room for, I still feel unsettled about it. Shouldn't the issues be the most important, and therefore most prominent, thing on the web site? In the paper, space is used to explain candidates' politics and strategies - why they went to this event, which base they're trying to mobilize - there was even a feature in the Globe about how each candidate dresses. Which is all good (except for that fashion bit), but as the primary nears, readers should be reminded of the promises these candidates have made, and what they can expect from each as governor -- not their latest campaign strategy of visiting charter schools or tearing apart their opponents. The least they could do is direct readers to the web site with a box in all the campaign stories.
People look to the papers to help them choose their elected officials. But so often you have to dig for the information you really want. Why are newspapers helping candidates for elected office hide behind politics, rhetoric and photo ops?
There's a lot of stuff in the Campaign 2006 section. In addition to biographies and compilations of recent (and old) stories about all the runners, there are blogs and opinion pieces, videos from NECN, and even a map showing which households (and in a larger sense, neighborhoods and towns) are contributing to which campaign.
I went first to the "Debates" tab, expecting a story about the most recent Democratic debate to be the most relevant as far as who stands for what. Instead, although the nut graf said the candidates "dramatically sharpened their differences " at the debate, the story was exclusively about the attacks they leveled against one another. I couldn't find anything about the supposedly sharpened differences, unless I chose to watch video of the debate (a great feature, to be sure, but what if you don't have time or a good connection?) or read the entire transcript, some 20 pages of print.
After clicking around some more, (and spending a little too much time on the addictive contributions map -- only about five grand came out of my neighborhood, Roxbury) I found a very inviting section entitled "The Candidates on the Issues," on the bottom of the issues tab. Each issue provided a few grafs on each candidates' ideas about taxes, education, etc., based on quotes and their official platforms. That was pretty helpful, and so were the extensive pages on each candidate -- complete with bio, profiles on them and their spouses, recent articles and interviews, and way at the bottom, the issues.
Although the Globe has done a good job using its web site for a much more extensive look at the candidates than any given day's paper has room for, I still feel unsettled about it. Shouldn't the issues be the most important, and therefore most prominent, thing on the web site? In the paper, space is used to explain candidates' politics and strategies - why they went to this event, which base they're trying to mobilize - there was even a feature in the Globe about how each candidate dresses. Which is all good (except for that fashion bit), but as the primary nears, readers should be reminded of the promises these candidates have made, and what they can expect from each as governor -- not their latest campaign strategy of visiting charter schools or tearing apart their opponents. The least they could do is direct readers to the web site with a box in all the campaign stories.
People look to the papers to help them choose their elected officials. But so often you have to dig for the information you really want. Why are newspapers helping candidates for elected office hide behind politics, rhetoric and photo ops?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
