4 ms·

What's wrong with just saying "We are a media company" if you are a media company. The definition of a media company is fairly well understood, right? Why insis

by dalton 14y ago

What's wrong with just saying "We are a media company" if you are a media company. The definition of a media company is fairly well understood, right? Why insist that you occupy some slightly semantically different space?

vm 14y ago
Context man! He was speaking at a media conference filled with traditional media co's, such as The New Yorker, Viacom, and ESPN. It was even run by WSJ. To that audience, his statement highlights the nuance of traffic referral vs. accumulating page views, which is why Twitter is potentially poised for greater monetization than a "traditional" media company. It feels unfair to pull that quote out of context. The point you are making is very different than the point that Costolo was making when he said it.
brackishlake 14y ago
It doesn't change the fact that you're taking his words out of context. And you can't start a company to stop another. I still don't know what it is you're actually building or why it's worth a half million dollars. This isn't public funding when your "backers" don't get to own a piece of the business. This is just a well-orchestrated (?) pre-order.
nl 14y ago
Because it matters! Do you say you are a media company? Because - by your definition - you are! There are plenty of media companies that don't sell advertising (eg, book publishers). Twitter isn't a media company because they say they aren't! They see their goal as microblogging/self expression/communication (or whatever it is), and selling ads is just a means to that end. Google is that same - they see themselves as a engineering company organizing all the worlds information, and selling ads is just how they pay for it. Compare that to something like News Ltd or NYT. They seem themselves as a media companies, and so when they run into technology problems they don't adapt well.

4 ms·

What's wrong with just saying "We are a media company" if you are a media company. The definition of a media company is fairly well understood, right? Why insis

by dalton 14y ago

vm 14y ago
Context man! He was speaking at a media conference filled with traditional media co's, such as The New Yorker, Viacom, and ESPN. It was even run by WSJ. To that audience, his statement highlights the nuance of traffic referral vs. accumulating page views, which is why Twitter is potentially poised for greater monetization than a "traditional" media company. It feels unfair to pull that quote out of context. The point you are making is very different than the point that Costolo was making when he said it.
brackishlake 14y ago
It doesn't change the fact that you're taking his words out of context. And you can't start a company to stop another. I still don't know what it is you're actually building or why it's worth a half million dollars. This isn't public funding when your "backers" don't get to own a piece of the business. This is just a well-orchestrated (?) pre-order.
nl 14y ago
Because it matters! Do you say you are a media company? Because - by your definition - you are! There are plenty of media companies that don't sell advertising (eg, book publishers). Twitter isn't a media company because they say they aren't! They see their goal as microblogging/self expression/communication (or whatever it is), and selling ads is just a means to that end. Google is that same - they see themselves as a engineering company organizing all the worlds information, and selling ads is just how they pay for it. Compare that to something like News Ltd or NYT. They seem themselves as a media companies, and so when they run into technology problems they don't adapt well.