Does the short-term high from socially distributed content – greater reach – inevitably gives way to symptoms of dependency: loss of control and financial damage?

My latest piece for the Guardian Media & Tech network is on the changing nature of social channels, the growing dominance of Facebook and the impact of distributed content on creators and publishers of content.

A couple of questions run through the piece. There’s the one above (long, I know) and there’s this one from the beginning of the piece:

Do the benefits of allowing social platforms to host your journalism outweigh the disadvantages? Most publishers, however reluctantly, will say yes and adopt the “we are where we are” argument. Others put a more positive spin on things, maintaining that publishers should go where their audience is, share what advertising revenue is available and trust that they can turn passing interest into loyal (paying) readership.

Continue reading Facebook’s dominance in journalism could be bad news for us all

What do the following websites have in common?

So here goes:

  • The New York Times
  • The Atlantic
  • Drudge Report
  • The Huffington Post
  • AOL News
  • Gawker
  • People
  • TMZ
  • Vice
  • E.Online
  • Perez Hilton
  • Buzzfeed

The answer: the Daily Mail is gunning for them all. Or rather Mail Online US believes it is “uniquely positioned” to take them on and in the process “fill a gap in the U.S. news/ent landscape”.

We know all this because Forbes.com’s Alex Kantrowitz got hold of the marketing slide that shows Mail Online floating expectantly among this exalted company.

I’ve written some more about it over on the Press Gazette.