3 ms·

That makes a lot of sense. It follows, then, that the way forward is to hyperlocalize, either geographically or in a particular subject matter. And come to thin

That makes a lot of sense. It follows, then, that the way forward is to hyperlocalize, either geographically or in a particular subject matter. And come to think of it, I would find much greater value in a detailed news site about my city, or even my particular section of my city.

hobs 11y ago
It has been tried (though you could argue not well.) I feel like it was either Yahoo or AOL who tried hyperlocal news and it did not gain traction. However, you could argue that this lack of traction was due to the climate of the users and what they were interested in at the time, they also (if I remember correctly) were actively paying local "reporters" who had a specific local beat.
- rthomas6 11y ago
  That's not authentic and not really what I want. There is zero chance that a single reporter reporting to a mothership in another city could generate better content than a local paper. After thinking about it, what I want already exists in limited ways. Some examples for my city: clatl.com atlanta.eater.com atlanta.curbed.com In addition to these, I think a small monthly paper devoted solely to investigative journalism in a particular city or town would generate enough paying subscribers to be viable, but I could be wrong.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    They exist but they're largely labors of love that probably depend on certain demographics. The chains with local stringers for smaller city papers are terrible.
- pcai 11y ago
  You're probably thinking AOL. AOL bought patch.com for hyperlocal and failed, laid off staff in an attempted turnaround, failed the turnaround, then sold to it to an investment firm www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/01/15/aol-hands-off-patch-to-turnaround-firm-hale-global
hughw 11y ago
In Austin we have the fabulous Austin Monitor [1]. You want to know whether Commissioners Court is going to add shoulders to your county road? The Monitor's your destination. And on the topic of sponsored content, I just visited it, and found this editorial comment: "I’ll use this space to note that, while sponsorship revenue is key to our survival, we remain hesitant to test the waters of sponsored content for the Monitor. Many – most? – of our colleagues around the news publication world have settled on this concept as a way to quickly boost revenue in an ecosystem starved for it. But we worry about the impact it would have on our credibility. "That said, we’ve experimented with a version of what the Voice of San Diego calls “Partner Voices,” a space for sponsored content from area nonprofits. To make this work – read: to keep it off the Monitor‘s page – we figured we’d post it on the CoTMF website. Thus far, we’ve found little interest, but we’re happy to continue to entertain the idea."[2] [1] http://www.austinmonitor.com http://www.austinmonitor.com [2] http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/publishers-note-whispers-more-sponsorships-and-watson-and-alder-on-transportation/ http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/publishers-note...

hobs 11y ago

It has been tried (though you could argue not well.) I feel like it was either Yahoo or AOL who tried hyperlocal news and it did not gain traction. However, you could argue that this lack of traction was due to the climate of the users and what they were interested in at the time, they also (if I remember correctly) were actively paying local "reporters" who had a specific local beat.

rthomas6 11y ago
That's not authentic and not really what I want. There is zero chance that a single reporter reporting to a mothership in another city could generate better content than a local paper. After thinking about it, what I want already exists in limited ways. Some examples for my city: clatl.com atlanta.eater.com atlanta.curbed.com In addition to these, I think a small monthly paper devoted solely to investigative journalism in a particular city or town would generate enough paying subscribers to be viable, but I could be wrong.
- ghaff 11y ago
  They exist but they're largely labors of love that probably depend on certain demographics. The chains with local stringers for smaller city papers are terrible.
pcai 11y ago
You're probably thinking AOL. AOL bought patch.com for hyperlocal and failed, laid off staff in an attempted turnaround, failed the turnaround, then sold to it to an investment firm www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/01/15/aol-hands-off-patch-to-turnaround-firm-hale-global

hughw 11y ago

In Austin we have the fabulous Austin Monitor [1]. You want to know whether Commissioners Court is going to add shoulders to your county road? The Monitor's your destination. And on the topic of sponsored content, I just visited it, and found this editorial comment: "I’ll use this space to note that, while sponsorship revenue is key to our survival, we remain hesitant to test the waters of sponsored content for the Monitor. Many – most? – of our colleagues around the news publication world have settled on this concept as a way to quickly boost revenue in an ecosystem starved for it. But we worry about the impact it would have on our credibility. "That said, we’ve experimented with a version of what the Voice of San Diego calls “Partner Voices,” a space for sponsored content from area nonprofits. To make this work – read: to keep it off the Monitor‘s page – we figured we’d post it on the CoTMF website. Thus far, we’ve found little interest, but we’re happy to continue to entertain the idea."[2] [1] http://www.austinmonitor.com http://www.austinmonitor.com [2] http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/publishers-note-whispers-more-sponsorships-and-watson-and-alder-on-transportation/ http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/publishers-note...