Media buyers today, generally because of
employer “downsizing”, have more responsibility and less time to research
their buys.

As a result, although traditional media(
radio-newspapers-tv-magazines etc)impact
might be down…it still works for the
buyer and the client.
Example: A successful “CHR” internet
radio station has a great 24 hour international audience.

For McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi to buy that
internet radio station..would be a natural.
During the day in the USA, your client
reaches the daytime work audience in the
USA.
At night, your “CHR” internet radio station reaches the daytime audience in
Australia, Guam, Taiwan…etc where these
products are also sold.

This buy would work for the client, agency and buyer. However, because of
today’s “downsizing” and additional job
responsibilites, I don’t believe the
media buyer has the time to research these “new media” opportunities.

Thus, because of research time restrictions, the media buyer generally
will stick with the traditional media(
which has less of an impact) but still
works.

I hope that established media companies will use partnerships to bolster their own offerings, but I suspect The New York Times will simply mainly see this as a traffic/revenue opportunity. However, I think that the strategy you suggest is worth testing.

Thanks for your feedback.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re correct there. Sort of like a producer/director for a movie not wanting to give an unknown a chance because they’re looking only for stars.

If that’s the case, then that would be a bad strategy and you’re spot on with that. Because I’ll go to a Freakonomics because it’s Freakonomics, not from the NYT.

Good question. Hopefully, The New York Times will find a way to develop some new features around the Freakonomics blog. So, when the partnership ends, NYT will still benefit from it.

Please note the clarifications I made to the post that more accurately reflect NYT’s partnership with the Freakonomics blog.

I’m not saying that this partnership isn’t a wise decision, but what I hope to get across is that partnerships and acquisitions don’t replace the need for fostering in-house innovation. Established media companies should not feel that deals like this one — as smart as they are — are sufficient to truly establish a web 2.0 presence.

Also, I want to note that I agree with Jeff Jarvis in that post that you link to when he says that newspaper sites can’t be everything to everyone. However, that doesn’t excuse them from bolstering their offerings to their core audiences.

I also think Jarvis has some astute thoughts on how this differs from a traditional media company acquisition:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/200.....n-or-join/

To me it makes sense for NYT to hire/buy a Freakonomics and then build around it from withing. Or Ana Marie Cox and Time. I doubt there is a shortage of talent out there.

The million dollar question is, why haven’t they done it alreadY?

I agree; buying the Freakonomics blog was smart. However, what if the NYT or other large media organizations developed the savvy to capture “web 2.0″ lightening in a bottle more frequently on their own?

Sure, you could probably find writers close to as good as the Freakonmcis guys and put together a very good blog. But it is unlikely you will catch the lightening in a bottle that Dubner/Leavitt have already built.

I’m not saying that by acquiring the Freakonomics blog, the New York Times is not able to nurture efforts within its organization, but I would’ve appreciated effort from the paper to try something else. Perhaps it has economics writers who are just as quirky as Leavitt and Dubner or could find another economist that it could hire who could take the whole armchair economist concept in another, yet brilliant, direction. We could potentially have an additional fascinating blog to read, and NYT could take more credit for that.