I totally support what you say about your approach Mike. What I was really getting at, was just that I’m fascinated by the problem of the finding the future model for media, and that for me the tricky bit is the money bit. So when I saw Wadds’ blog title, I was excited. When I saw your blog format, I was still excited and engaged. But then I couldn’t help thinking ‘yes – nice and good, but not yet the solution I was looking for’.

I don’t expect you to solve it Mr Litman. It’s a niggle that I should stick somewhere else. That is all.

I think design can solve the problem. I think we need to design a better model for media. But it needs to go further.

Sorry if I’ve been a bit confusing.

One thing that has always remained constant is that I don’t run ads on the site and have turned down several fairly lucrative advertising offers as my impartial judgement and perspective is my USP. Once I start messing around with that, I have no right to an unbiased opinion and destroy all the hard work done thus far.

For the money it doesn’t make, it does bring me immense unquantifiable value and is a useful tool I’d recommend to anyone wanting to do the walking and talking.

So it seems to be that there’s a fine line between an impartial personal blog and a funded news site. There doesn’t seem to be much in between.

You’re right that the ‘future’ does require monetization and to be economically sustainable and if it was a full time job then I would need to think about making money off the back of it.

However, it’s more a labour of love, a hobby, a past time for me so sustainability for me lies in the fact that it gets updated frequently.

In all seriousness, if mobile is the future As Google like to say then surely there’s a massive
conflict here no? Sites in this style really struggle to translate.

—–
Written on a mobile device