Print Media vs. Blogs
I've been following this discussion over on Apartment Therapy today. The NY Times wants AT to stop using their images — which basically means that AT probably won't be posting much about future NYT stories.
As a blog and newspaper writer — most of you know I was once a regular contributor to AT:SF — I can easily understand both sides here. But I tend to agree with AT commenter "18percentgrey":
Forget about the warm & fuzzies. It's not like you're not in business to make a profit here. It's business. They pay the reporters & expenses to create original content, and blogs take it, and post it, claiming it benefits the Times. ... Blogs that have their own advertising should pay for the content they take from other entities - plain and simple. Either legitimately license the material, or create your own original content.
When I was writing for AT:SF, one major concern was whether another AT city site might scoop me. Or, even worse, if a subject for a pending post was already covered ad nauseam by other design blogs. The only way to 100 percent avoid either scenario was to come up with completely original content: get out there and see what's in the local shops; track down people for house tours; interview people yourself, instead of excerpting another magazine/newspaper/website's interview; make contacts in the design community to stay on top of events.
And you know what? It wasn't such a bad thing. So maybe, in the end, losing the NYT content will make AT even stronger.
Comments
I absolutely agree with you and with "18percentgrey".
Frankly, I'm amazed this didn't happen sooner. The amount of content on AT that's directly lifted from other blogs (including photos that are improperly sourced/credited) is really kind of shocking given the related traffic/ad revenue, and it has always bothered me.
Posted by: Anna @ D16 | March 19, 2009 03:14 PM
I agree. I'm getting tired of AT posting stuff from other people's blogs. I don't need to read the same damn thing 3 different times. It's getting a little incestuous. Your approach of covering something original is something I really miss about what AT used to be like. Is it that there are so many writers now? Is there a quota and they just can't realistically fill it with original stuff?
Posted by: L | March 19, 2009 03:20 PM
L - I think AT is in a tough position. Although there are plenty of us who read lots of design blogs and, therefore, see repeat content on them, AT does have a fair number of readers whose only link to the design community is AT. They feel like if it's important/good, AT will bring it to their attention.
Maybe the solution is to have just one daily round-up post with a list of links to stories on other sites (no photos unless permission is given to use them). I don't know.
Posted by: anh-minh | March 19, 2009 04:39 PM
I have to say, I'm pretty sick of Apartment Therapy and other blogs just scanning and posting photos from various design magazines -- like, you don't think I've already read that issue of Domino or House Beautiful? -- and, in AT's case, from the style section of the newspaper in their home city.
In fact, AT has been particularly bad lately at lifting stuff from other blogs and print publications. I rarely see anything on there that I haven't already seen somewhere else. At this point, AT mainly seems like an aggregator of content from around the internet, and not a source of it.
Posted by: Leah | March 20, 2009 01:09 AM
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2009 07:36 AM
I like how you cover the NYT stories, and think it's the best way to do so. AT has such inept writers who can't really comment on the original stories. I never trust the taste of the AT bloggers.
Posted by: Miriam | March 20, 2009 08:33 AM
I agree with you too -- you can't have a whole site of mainly other people's content and then be mad when they want you to take down their copyrighted photographs. I love your blog because you have original content and a great eye.
Posted by: sewbettie | March 20, 2009 01:19 PM