(keitai-l) Re: imode JP news in English 2006

From: Michael(tm) Smith <smith_at_xml-doc.org>
Date: 12/29/05
Message-ID: <20051229161636.GG29846@sideshowbarker.net>
Nick May <nick@kyushu.com> writes:

> Good gracious - you DO need a lot of nurse-maiding!
> 
> >> ... and the site loses money hand over fist,
> >
> > Care to cite some source for that info? Provide any real data? I
> > have a hard time quantifying "hand over fist".
> 
> Er - it is precisely because of the absence of quantified data that  
> the term "hand over fist" was used. But -- the website is still  
> losing money - quite a lot - according to my source and no - I am not  
> going to tell you who they are. So take it or leave it.

I'll leave it, thanks. I don't usually put much stock in hearsay.
(And maybe it's just me, but I personally don't think it's a
particularly good thing to make unfounded statements about the
financial health of another business on a public mailing list. For
one thing, what the hell is the point of it?)

> > I also have a hard time quantifying "not doing terribly well".
> 
> Well go and so some research if you want hard numbers. You will have  
> heard of google?

<sigh>

> But just to save your delicate little fingers, how about starting  
> here...
> 
> http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/gmgplc/finance/finrep/pdf/report05.pdf
> 
> Note (page 2)  that circulation on the Graun has fallen and pre-tax  
> profits for the group (GMGplc) halved in 2005 to 22.9 from 43.5  
[...]
> has generally benefited competitors.  "Not terribly well" seems  
> reasonable. I can't find the figures I had for the Observer (The  
> "Sunday Guardian" in effect, although a fine old newspaper in its own  
> right. ), but my recollection of them is that it, in particular, has  
> weak finances, despite its recent small increase in circulation. If  
> you have data  for this, do feel free to post it.

I see no data in any of this that relates to the website.

> >> The Times, The Indie and the Telegraph  have all moved to a "pay
> >> for some content" model.
> >
> > Exactly what is the "some" content that they charge for?
> 
> I am sure people on this list are capable of going and looking for  
> themselves.

Why should they? You're the one who was trying to make the point
that... What? Running a newsite without charging users a few to
access it is bad business?

> Not everyone needs your level of nurse-maiding.

Heh. How do you define "nurse maiding". Do you mean asking
somebody to back up their statements with data? Instead of just
trusting unfounded assertions?

> >> High quality journalism is seriously expensive. Keitai suffer
> >> from lack of screen real estate on which to put ads
> >
> > Really? Is the screen size really that much of a liability when it
> > comes to advertising? Do you have any data on that?
> 
> You remind me of one of those Japanese whalers earnestly researching  
> whether or not 50% of whales are female and 50% are male... Yes -  
> screen size is a liability, no - I don't have figures.

I sort of figured you might not.

> If you wish to  go off and research the blazingly obvious, feel
> free to do so.
> > I could imagine that a study with real users might just show that
> > the screen size helps to give the ads even greater prominence.
> 
> Ah - so it is your imagination you reach for for your facts? (And  
> your memory for your jokes I assume.)
> 
> But "greater prominence" is precisely the PROBLEM, I would have thought.

And so less prominence would be better?

> > In a keitai browser the ads are in a single column, and I must
> > scroll through them to get to the content I want to read.
> 
> YUP!  Got it in one.... Congratulations. It is nice to see you have  
> got hold of the right stick, even if it is at the wrong end....

So you're suggesting... What? That users find the ads so obtrusive
that they have a negative effect on the users' impressions of what
the ads are advertising? That the ads are too small? Something
else?

> >> and the like making a  business model for a keitai-only site
> >> rather difficult.
> >
> > So who was talking about making a businees model for a keitai-only
> > site? What I had pointed out was that users now have full browsers
> > with which they can view the exact same sites they can view on
> > their PC-based browsers.
> 
> But they can't - not properly. Oh I don't doubt you can squeeze a  
> newspaper's site onto a keitai with Opera, just as some dogs can walk  
> on their hind legs. But it is neither a pleasant nor enjoyable  
> experience to read.

That's all subjective. I read many news stories on my keitai and
do not find it unpleaseant or unenjoyable. I also read syndicated
feeds and browse many other full websites on my keitai and I do
not find it to be a wretched experience. For me, the typical
hobbled, klunky, keitai-only sites provide a much less appealing
user experience.

> It is also expensive in terms of packets  downloaded - and
> hence, for many people, price.

Carriers are moving to "all you can eat" flat-rate data plans. As
though become more common, people who do a lot of web browsing
will start to move to them more, and per-packet charges will not
be a concern for them.

> >> In fact there are very few "web only" general news sites that deliver
> >> high quality news reports that is other than a re-write of agency
> >> reports, or a rewrite of other "real news organisation's" reports.
> >
> > So who was talking about "web only" general news sites? Not me,
> > that's for sure.
> 
> Congratulations. But I was, in part. Because in Japan, English  
> language newspapers have worse economies of distribution than JP  
> papers, which makes a "web only" model appealing.

I see.

> If you were a little less self obsessed you might perhaps realize  
> that this thread is discussing issues some of which may not have  
> originally been raised by your good self.

Sorry for my error. Because the message from which I quoted you
was a reply to a message I posted, and because you quoted my
message in that, I made the mistake of assuming that your
statement about web-only news sources was somehow related to what
I had written.

> > The two sites I mentioned and the ones you mention above are not
> > "web only" news sources. They are the online arms of "real news
> > organizations", not secondary sources.
> 
> Yes, I know. Thank you for that sterling pearl. And?  As I recollect  
> part of this discussion was about news sources in Japan.  I quote  
> from the post that started the thread...
> 
>   on 27th Dec bill@tsubakimoto.com wrote
> <quote>
> Are there any more decent English language news sites covering Japan
> which don't require payment? JapanToday took their service offline
> while they make the transition to the name crisscross:
> http://www.japantoday.com/i/
> While looking for alternatives I was amazed at the lack of such
> sites. It seems there were a lot more imode access-able English sites
> with decent content a few years back. Any suggested sites?
> <quote />
> 
> What used to be called "Japan Today" is a high profile site, mostly  
> reproducing a Kyodo feed. The "news" part is web only I think.

OK. Getting back to that specific source, I'd suggest that he'd
trying use the non-mobile site through a full browser, instead of
the keitai-only site, and see what he thinks for himself.

> On re-reading your posts to this thread I am struck by your easy -  
> not to say facile - recourse to interrogatives. Parroting "do you  
> have data for that?" rather than engaging with the point being made  
> is rather junior common room.

I think I did engage with the point. The point (as I understand
it) being whether or not there are sites delivering high-quality
news on the web without charging users a fee to access that news.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://sideshowbarker.net/
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/890
Received on Thu Dec 29 18:17:47 2005