I hadn’t gotten around to blogging about, or even finish reading, the WSJ’s Wizards of Buzz article. If you missed it, it focused on sites like Digg, Reddit, Netscape, and StumbleUpon. How these sites are powerful buzz builders. IMHO, this is a risky strategy. Way too many variables, way too hit and miss. Regardless, I guess the WSJ just doesn’t see the long-term benefit of having popular articles stay free. This is what I got today (I followed a link from Valleywag):
FREE PREVIEW
The Wizards of Buzz
By Jamin Warren and John Jurgensen
Source: WSJ.com – Login
Oh WSJ, so much to learn.
Isn’t that interesting. I’m blown away by the arrogance we see sometimes in companies just wanting to make a buck. Why else would they get popular content like this and then make you pay to see it?
Thanks for the great post to raise this issue of balance between what we create and how we pay for it.
Your site is full of fresh ideas that help us to use more strengths in ways that allow us to create more and pay for at least some of it – to keep the ship afloat.
Do you think that we have created an inequity about what we pay well for Online and how that gets calculated? I’d be interested in your thoughts?