Scoop: IBM Considering Bankrolling Partner Projects Because of Financial Crisis

>> Google has a total lock on the Internet. I would venture to call it a monopoly almost. Why would they invest in offline news papers when Google them self is making newspapers obsolete.

Eric, What's wrong with making a reasonable profit as a news organization? I agree with you that there is a race to the bottom going on because the econopmics of online news continue to worsen.

Gabe: You should get a press pass and if you don't, you should ban SXSW stories from Techmeme. (SXSW gets very noisy, you'd be doing us all a big favor :)

Money is neither noble or ignoble. It is value-neutral.

Danny: I agree... But press passes aren't free this year. They cost $299. Gabe can afford $299.

Eric: What's so noble about a non-profit status in regards to news organizations? What's so noble about relying on handouts from billionaires to produce local news?

If we can develop profitable news business models then we will have competition, and that is good for news, good for everyone.

While I'm no fan of the way the BANP has acquitted itself thus far, your comment that "There's plenty of 'non-profit' media businesses around, the largest local one is the San Francisco Chronicle." is glib to the point of meaninglessness.

Free the Gabe 1! The Techmeme 1?

Seriously, if there are any TV editors getting passes, then Gabe should. Press isn't just defined by writing stories.

It is "underground" now because the consultants are pretending Social Media is a big "secret" worth $22K/ day (see my post on this - Is Chris Brogan Worth $22K?http://micurl.com/wpFeo)

I think many PR/communications professionals are still getting their heads around the new media world order. What's surprising here is this happened at SXSW.

Judy, yes, it is a new mdoel but is it already broken? One of my contacts told me that there is a lot of social media marketing going on but that it is underground. I thugh that the point is for it to be seen, rather than be 'underground.'

Ted: Yes, I agree, some big roll ups on the way. Every week I'm introduced to yet another successful ad network I've never heard of, with tons of people and VC money. They have the upper hand right now, but ad networks are not a sustainable business long term, imho.

I agree re the sophisticated news consumer. Note that this consumer is probably more likely to respond to the news in some way as well.

Tom,

My biggest beef with the Poynter Online piece is the implication that auctions only work well for high priced goods which strikes as basically ridiculous.

In addition, I concur that the notion of creating artificial scarcity will not work either.

Actually Tom I disagree. Social media does work at promoting products. What you miss is a mature marketing approach to social media.

I personally could not find a social media agency - I did find lots of "social media consultants".

Guy: I like that Drucker quote.

Marshall: Yes, you are right, bad marketing can ruin good products. Sometimes even good marketing and good products is no guarantee of success. I remember the excellent word of mouth marketing around Tivo, a great product, yet growth was still very slow.

That sounds like a variation on the old "build it and they will come" idea that continues to plague technology companies.

The problem is that can have the coolest, most useful, most technologically superior new way to do 'X', but if the idea doesn't develop sufficient awareness within your target market, you're a flop.

Guy: Well said.

You just echoed the eternal mousetrap fallacy, which has killed more Silicon Valley start-ups than Oracle.

Drucker himself said that business has only two functions -- marketing and innovation (everything else is admin work).

Marketing is important and it is a whole lot easier if you have a great product or service in the first place. It sucks when you are trying to sell something which isn't very good.