
New York Times versus Digg - vlad
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/06/new-york-times-vs-digg-strange-new-media/
======
brent
I aggree with tx and Laurentvw, but (once again) Steve has missed the point.
People who follow loads of links on digg and reddit are not high valued
readers (maybe gullible enough to click on ads, but mostly college age geeks).
He's on there because they are both a list of crap with catchy titles.

People who read the times are a much different reader. If he was in nyt and
had something worthwhile, I'm sure he would have seen value from the article
(although maybe not in the form of click throughs on his ads). Since he
doesn't produce anything new or interesting, it isn't likely to happen though.

~~~
andre
I think what steve was driving at is how many visitors were generated by each
service.

If you get 1% conversion of 50,000 visitors from digg, it's still better than
if you get 5% of 500 visitors from NYTimes

------
tx
How can you compare NYT with Digg or Reddit? NYT _produce_ content, while
Digg&Reddit; produce nothing, just trying to make money on what NYT does.

One can possibly compare NYT with a bunch of bloggers, they are also content
producers, but not with Digg/Reddit who produce nothing.

~~~
pg
There is some overlap. The voting mechanisms of news aggregators tend to
discover interesting stuff, and that is also the purpose of some of the
"content" in papers and magazines.

