Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jeff Perlman
cc: Jeff Perlman , online-news@planetarynews.com
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960829164120.00c51fd8@proxy.latimes.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status:
I get your press releases, Jeff; I just don't hear about the
paper's online edition. In fact, we published a long thing on your launch
but now we just don't hear much about it. I don't think my world is all
that limited -- it's just that no one has seemed to care one way or
another about the site except local people. I don't know what the problem
is; it's just hard to distinguish yourself from the print version -- as
Cybertimes has distinguished the New York Times, for example -- as a
really attractive, important publication. Why don't you guys try
something like that?
Joe Shea
Editor-in-Chief
The American Reporter
joeshea@netcom.com
http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Jeff Perlman wrote:
> Joe, I'm not doubting the differences. I'm merely saying that the
> methodology of the rankings is so full of holes as to render the data useless.
>
> I still stand by that statement. And I'd say it even we were on top.
>
> By the way, we've been touted quite a bit in the net press recently, so if
> you don't hear about us it's probably because you're listening to your own
> limited crowd. We all do that from time to time.
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> At 05:06 PM 8/28/96 -0700, Joe Shea wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it's not useless, Jeff. It demonstrates that a lot of
> >people read The American Reporter and that they don't read the LA Times!
> >That's not to say we have more than a fraction of your print readership,
> >but I hear very little about your site now that the launch is over. By
> >contrast, the New York Times site is prominent in discussions everywhere,
> >as is Reuters.
> > There are important differences between the LA Times and The Am-
> >erican Reporter that a popularity poll is quick to recognize.
> > You are only on one Web site, remember; we are on our own and more
> >than 100 (sson to be 230, with add-ons being ISPs) in 16 states and
> >Canada. Yours is a local paper with national news; ours is a national
> >paper with international news. We are a small, almost personal newspaper
> >that carries no advertising and comes in the email each day to subscribers
> >who request and pay $100 a year ($5 Web-only) for it; yours is free and
> >full of ads, and one has to come to the site and read it with the right
> >browser (my lynx version can't view it). Yours cost hundreds of thousands,
> >if not millions, of dollars to develop; ours cost nothing. You have a
> >dozen or more full-time employees, yet no dedicated correspondents, I
> >would bet; we have 40 contributing AR correspondents and columnists in the
> >states and abroad, and most of their work is exclusive to us. You don't
> >break stories the Times itself has broken, but republish them; we break
> >original news stories that no one has published. There are important and
> >appealing differences that the popularity poll really does recognize. I
> >think the Times is a great newspaper, but I doubt that it has much appeal
> >online because it so much like the off-line product. Ours is a Net
> >original, a hybrid of the old and the Net.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Joe Shea
> >Editor-in-Chief
> >The American Reporter
> >joeshea@netcom.com
> >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Jeff Perlman wrote:
> >
> >> Joe, the plain simple truth is that the data are worthless. Get over it.
> >>
> >> --Jeff
> >>
> >> At 02:52 PM 8/28/96 -0700, Joe Shea wrote:
> >> >
> >> > As Eric said in his last post on this topic, Jeff Tindall's
> >> >assertion about our readership has no basis in anything he said. In
> >> >fact, Jeff made it up out of whole cloth.
> >> >
> >> > We first publisshed the poll, and as is the custom in rpint, we
> >> >distinguish our own paper's name in any list of others. WIRED's list
> >> >stopped at The American Reporter at no. 10; in response to Jeff Perlman's
> >> >comment, they did not make the WIRED Top 10, because at the time the poll
> >> >was taken last fall, the Prodigy disaster overtook the LA Times site; they
> >> >have now regrouped are doing a little better.
> >> >
> >> > Eric's gobbledygook aside, there were 25,000 responses to the poll
> >> >published in WIRED, and it was done by the University of Texas Mass
> >> >Communications Dept.; Eric's had "well over 2,500" responses and was done
> >> >by him. I think a university's methods are probably pretty sound. That
> >> >is not to say Eric doesn't know what he is talking about; only that I have
> >> >no idea what he was talking about. Polling methodology is not an area of
> >> >interest for me. Shocking, huh?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Best,
> >> >
> >> >Joe Shea
> >> >Editor-in-Chief
> >> >The American Reporter
> >> >joeshea@netcom.com
> >> >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Jeff Tindall wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >>We're really hearing a promotional pitch...<<
> >> >> >>Here is the Top 10 and beyond poll that was published in WIRED magazine
> >> in March...<
> >> >> 9. Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
> >> >> 10. THE AMERICAN REPORTER
> >> >> 11. Clarinet (newsgroup based)...
> >> >> >>Best,
> >> >> Joe Shea
> >> >> Editor-in-Chief
> >> >> The American Reporter<<
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm, I wonder if Wired Magazine used them ALL CAPS on the #10 group, or
> >> >> if a little "editorial licence" was practiced in reposting this. In
> >> >> fact, Eric's top ten list says the AR got "less than 0.3% of the total
> >> >> vote."
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaking of a "promotional pitch"... I wonder who's pitching and who's
> >> >> catching? :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >>
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >> >> This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS.
> http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
> >> >>
> >>
> >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >> >This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS.
> http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Thu Aug 29 23:52:38 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA20198 ; for ; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:52:37 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14677 for online-news-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:16:50 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14671 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:16:46 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
id TAA07017; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:06:25 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from netcom10.netcom.com by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
id TAA07922; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:06:09 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from joeshea@localhost) by netcom10.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
id SAA11321; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:05:26 -0700