3 ms·
<JOKE> How nice of them: you focus on the content. We handle making money </JOKE>
by yumraj 17y ago
<JOKE>
How nice of them: you focus on the content. We handle making money
</JOKE>
- brandnewlow 17y agoThat's the bitterness that the top commenter here referred to. The journalists I know are largely resigned to being crapped on by whoever they work for. They create all the value (similar to a programmer at a startup run by biz-ev guys) while someone makes the money and then gives them a small piece of it. They're use to getting crapped on like this. That said, they're really picky about who they let crap on them. Someone might let the HuffPo crap on them so they can share space with celebrities and get lots of hits on their story. Someone might let the NYTimes crap on them, because, it's the New York Times! So if this startup's going to run the same game, they'll need to have a good reason for journalists to want to get crapped on by them.
- stealthyc2010 17y agoNo-one is being crapped on here. I've updated the CFJ to hopefully make that a lot clearer.
- greyman 17y agoI think you nailed it. Essentially, what they are up to is to automate the content production, because that could make them (not those journalists) rich. Demand Media did it with how-to articles using SEO, now these guys wants to do that with journalism. Much harder task, IMHO. Good luck...
- stealthyc2010 17y agoThe YC motto: make something people want. Journalists do not want to be exploited for pennies, so that is not a product we would be involved in. I would not be happy getting rich by exploiting others, and newslabs won't be involved in anything like that.
- stealthyc2010 17y agoNothing sinister here. We give journalists 80% of the _revenue_ from their content. We can make it up on volume. I updated the CFJ to be clearer.