From the exit post on New Matilda:

Looking to the experience of media start-ups in the US and the UK, we have realised that the days of the single-revenue media outlet are over. Nowadays, small outlets are finding new ways to fund their work through what Texas Tribune founder John Thornton calls “revenue promiscuity”: “you have to get it everywhere and often”.

They are trading on the quality of their journalism and their trusted brands to build relationships with other media outlets to which they provide niche content. And they rely on a broad and growing base of philanthropists, funding bodies, foundations and individuals who see that as the media industry cuts costs, the survival of public interest journalism requires them to put their money where their mouth is.

Well, it’s a triple backflip summersault from an editor that claimed that there was no future in online media.

But it is spoilt a bit by stuff like this

These outlets are doing important work to fill the gaps left by a shrinking media industry, often with little money and few staff

Actually, the media industry is thriving. The HERITAGE media is shrinking, new media is thriving. And that’s half the problem with how New Matilda was run, and was certainly a problem at Crikey when king luddite Jonathan Green ran the shop: neither considers themselves to be part of new media.

This also doesn’t help

When we re-launch, our primary aim will not be to drive hits back to our own site — the model that advertisers dictate is king — but to inject new, quality journalism and analysis into the Australian media environment. In this way we hope to inspire enough of you out there to deem us worthy of your financial support.

She doesn’t seem to understand that traffic isn’t just about ads: if you don’t have enough readers, you’re not going to get enough financial support from ANY source.

Saw these ads on Problogger Jobs today (and yes, I read Problogger Jobs once every week or two: competitive intelligence 😉 )

Seeking Australian mum bloggers to write about what they love to write about
Freelance SEO-aware online copywriters, Sydney
Head content angler (suit editor, sub-editor), Sydney

All the jobs are for blog(s) coming out of McCann Worldgroup, a Sydney based “advertising, marketing and communications agency.”

It naturally tweaked my radar: what’s a marketing firm doing creating blogs.

This paragraph in particular caused the radar blip (emphasis is mine):

“We’re currently on the lookout for Australian mums (with kids under 10) who can write their socks off. We’re working with a variety of large companies on building great content-rich websites, many of which will focus on mums. ”

Now this isn’t a publishing company, this is a advertising, marketing and communications agency, a company that would normally place ads on other sites, not create sites, at least the sort they are proposing here.

So I turned to Twitter, and in particular to Laurel Papworth for a radar check. The thought was “am I reading too much into this?”

A little later Mark Pollard, the Strategy Director and McCann Sydney responds.

I responded in terms of the description of the site: note McCann states that they are “working with a variety of large companies on building great content-rich websites.” That line suggests that the sites are being made for the companies, not the sites being made for the inventory to sell to (one would presume) advertisers.

But apparently this doesn’t raise any alarm with Pollard, which in itself is interesting. I originally asked Laurel what she thought of it because I was looking to see both sides (and Laurel has a fine radar for these things), but the other side seems to be lost on Pollard.

Ah yes, putting “real names” to blog posts negates any relationship between the content they are writing, and the advertisers the site(s) have been set up for.

Sounds a little bit epic fail to me.

I could well be wrong, and if Pollard would like to share the editorial guidelines with me that show that there will be a clear separation between editorial and advertisers, I’ll cop that my radar is wrong.

Thing is: so far it doesn’t read that way.

Perhaps it’s not astroturfing, but we know what happened in the United States when the line between advertising and content blurred, don’t we.

Argue away in the comments, and try to convince me otherwise: as I last said to Pollard on Twitter:

And I mean that sincerely. But getting defensive in replies on what is a genuine interest in the ethical issues that could come into play here doesn’t endear confidence.

Another birthday passed May 5 for The Inquisitr, and we did the month in style with new traffic highs.

The challenge ahead is to get the uniques up now; we’ve finally got the page views per visit up to where is should be, but its the extra uniques that drive the ad revenue.

Not bad numbers for a site mocked by a senior ABC employee as “insignificant” or another Australian publication as “having 50 readers.” 🙂

The Age: ‘Rape simulator’ game goes viral amid calls for censorship

Attempts to ban a deplorable “rape simulator” video game have only caused it to spread virally across the internet, leading to calls for sites hosting the game to be blocked by internet censors.

Karen Willis, executive officer of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said in a phone interview that the existence of material such as the RapeLay video game, which lets players simulate stalking and raping young girls, made internet filters, such as those proposed by the government, necessary….

Willis said she “absolutely” believes the forthcoming internet filtering regime is necessary and should block sites that offer access to the game.

Here’s a copy of the cover of the game, what’s the one thing that stands out (well, besides the young anime girls)

Did you notice the DVD part?

It’s not an online game, it’s an actual game that you can download or buy on DVD.

And if it’s a download, what’s the most common forms of downloading on the net again, and are these blocked by the internet filter? 🙂

I wan’t an internet filter for stupid people, and I’m adding Karen Willis on my blacklist after Chairman Rudd and Reichsminister Conroy.

Inquisitr: Gothamist Blog Network Acquired For $5-$6 Million

I don’t know Jake much at all, although I’m pretty sure we swapped some emails in the early days. I covered the network in the Blog Herald days a fair few times, well, my memory is backed by Google as well here.

It’s just great to see one of the early few finally come up with an exit.

Which is why I found this comment from Nick Denton odd.

Don’t get me wrong: Nick is the master of all things blog, even if his first protege is burning through the remaining funding at a company I was once involved with, and bleeding traffic.

Thing is: I don’t care whether $5-$6 million isn’t the greatest exit after 7-8 years. It’s still an exit, and I don’t believe that even a couple of million each (and yeah, I get the CGT argument, been there, done that) is bad.

Probably not in NY, but I could buy a nice house with that and have change for the next thing. Hell, if someone wants to offer me low 7 figures for The Inquisitr tomorrow, please do; the divorce has been costly after all 🙂

In context, and this is where Nick may not get it, is that so many have fallen before them; that they lasted so long and could exit at all is a credit to Jake and Jen. It may not be the biggest exit, but it’s a respectable one in the broader context of those that came before.

Nick, I hate to say it, but you haven’t exited yet. That Gawker may be worth a stray $100 million on paper is way different to actually exiting.

Give them their credit without condition; they deserve it, and I think deep down you know they do, even if they never reached your heights. Besides, I’ve seen their network traffic, that valuation just helped you at least a little bit 🙂

So it bucketed down Golf balls here in Melbourne Saturday…well, it did where I lived, some media are reporting hail as big as lemons.

One of the few times I’ve ever been scared in weather (other times nearly exclusively on aircraft.) I actually pulled Declan away from the windows because I was scared that the hail would shatter them. The noise is something I’ll never forget: we have a colourbond roof, OMG it was loud.

I didn’t keep a full tally of how long it took for the media to cover it, but my general observations: slow.

The Age was first with the storm warning. News.com.au didn’t have it, but it did appear in the Hun just before storm. ABC mustn’t work Saturdays.

Afterwards, The Age was first up with a picture, but slow in updating the storm warning.

The Hun beat The Age, but it was a good 30 mins after the fact.

The rest followed. ABC was beyond slow, hours later.

Notably while the newspapers were still only just reporting it, Seven News that night (and it’s the only time I watch the news…natural disasters) dedicated the first full half to the disaster.

It was too local for my coverage (earthquakes and fires I’ll play, but hail not so much) but given what was coming out of Twitter in the minutes following, could have beaten them all….and anyone else could have as well. I was sharing video and pics via Twitter from others 15 minutes before the MSM hit the story hard.

It would appear though that the MSM here in Australia continue to get caught short on weekends.