Ka-ching! Kachingle!
February 19th, 2009 at 08:28am Jennie Pollock
Have you ever heard of Kachingle? It’s basically an itty-bitty, voluntary tip jar for blog readers to contribute to sites they visit. Click!
This has come up ever since much buzz has been made over how to save newspapers, including micropayment on the Web.
The Newsosaur (an “old” journalist exploring our “new” clothing) says the math just won’t add up. Meaning the revenue would barely pay for a handful of reporters, basically.
Entry Filed under: Newspapers, Future of newsrooms, Web sites
1 Comment Add your own
1. the dude abides | February 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
[[Warning: Completely Unrelated Comment Ahead…]]
Can anyone on your staff explain the rationale/criteria behind allowing or disallowing comments on stories? Example: You allowed comments on the Richard Wanke murder story, but not the one about the recent 6 teens/gang murder. Of course, when I posted a comment about the discrepancy, the Wanke story’s comments were promptly turned off — not exactly what I was aiming for.
If you’re only going to allow comments on the most mundane of story topics, how much discussion do you expect to stimulate? Do you think people really want take the time to discuss the day’s weather report, or proper sitting techniques? Of course not! They want to discuss the hot-button issues. So how much are you “involving your community” when the message you’re sending is, “We only want your opinion/discussion on boring, non-controversial stories.”
I guess the overarching question is: Why do you have comments? What exactly is your aim? If it’s truly meant to encourage reader participation, to really connect with your customers, you’re going to have to take the good with the bad — which means doing a fair amount of monitoring. If it’s meant to increase page views, it would behoove you to allow comments on the more complicated/touchy stories. If it’s none of the above, let me know what it is. Really, it’s not the decision to disallow comments, but the lack of transparency/clarity on the “comments policy” that disappoints me.
[[Warning: Completely Unsolicited Two Cents Ahead:]]
As a reader, your unclear (or completely non-existent) policy on how and when you solicit feedback says a few things to me:
You’re willing to increase page views by having a comments section, but you’re unwilling/unable to monitor their content, and that transparency is an outdated journalistic quality that I should no longer expect.
I actually asked this question a year ago (to your managing editor, Doug Gass) and he responded with a dismissive, “There have been no guarantees that every item posted to rrstar.com will have comments available.”
I know there’s no guarantees. I know there’s other venues for feedback. We can still send letters to the editor, etc etc. But it’s much more likely that when you make it difficult, people will just go elsewhere to discuss — craigslist, independent message boards, etc.
I know this is a new playing field, and that you’re struggling to find your place. I understand it’s difficult (and somewhat dangerous) to open up your site to every yahoo with a keyboard and an opinion.
What I don’t know is what you’re thinking.
What’s your goal for “community involvement?” What is the policy?
…
Wow.
I guess my comment is more relevant to the above post than I first thought.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed