I'm a bit dubious about Newsweek's contention that "the expert is back" in terms of a perceived shift toward "authoritative" content making a return after a tsunami of Wikipedia, Craigslist and millions of unread blogs, (natch!); but the idea that
"Fueling all this podium worship is the potential for premium audiences—and advertising revenue. "The more trusted an environment, the more you can charge for it," says Mahalo founder Jason Calacanis, a former AOL executive who was previously involved with several Web start-ups. It's also easier to woo advertisers with the promise of controlled content than with hit-and-miss blog blather. "Nobody wants to advertise next to crap," says Andrew Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur," a jeremiad against the ills of the unregulated Web."
Lots of people want to advertise next to crap. I'm pretty sure South Park is still on TV.
But more to the point, I don't know about ad revenue maintaining itself or how "premium" an on line audience even is. Obviously, Facebook, Google, Wikipedia and such are revenue generators in a big way, but I don't know if revenue stays put over the longer term. It feels like Web 3.0, as Newsweek calls it, has arrived only a scant few months after Web 2.0.
As it relates to books, however, the ceaseless arguments over bloggers vs "real" book reviewers is largely beside the point insofar as far too many newspaper sections have scaled back or eliminated standing book review sections. Bloggers, or Web Two, Three or whatever, has to be around to pick up the slack.
Posted by Dave