<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://mathewingram.disqus.com/is_google_a_content_company_now_93/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:49:40 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-812056</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Google may or may not want to be in the content business, but it more or less is, given that the distinction is no longer whether you *create* content but where and how you serve it. YouTube is a content business. Google owns YouTube.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In many ways, Google is the ULTIMATE content business. It is the company that provides the best dashboard to the web's content, and it serves ads alongside a sizeable portion of it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What MacFarlane's cartoons are doing in the middle of AdSense I don't really know. My best guess is that Google is trying to work on the "blind spot" that internet users have developed towards the google ad boxes. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jason Preston</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:49:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-811921</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I understand how this is not advertising...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even if it wasn't  advertising this is far from making GOOG into a content company. BTW, it already pays AP to use its content in Google news.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;GOOG is and will always be a software and server company, it does not want to be in the content business. Yahoo tried to be in the content business with mixed results...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tom Foremski</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:17:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-810754</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I suspect this is one of those "hey let's try something different and see what happens" type of things.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it will work. Maybe it will fall flat.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Either way, Google will have learned something.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">johnkoetsier</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:22:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-809409</link><description>&lt;p&gt;like a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down ..&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;trying anything to get advertising to remain palatable, or become palatable, depending on you pov&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;i think even google knows ads aren't sustainable long term, more space created than things to advertise&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">gregorylent</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:01:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-807117</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I've never heard of this deal before between Google and that certain cartoonist. This is weird. Google's acting strange recently. What does it try to tell? Are they changing a new business scheme?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Czar</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:12:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-806217</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It is definitely a strange deal.  I'm waiting to see one to fully understand what they're trying to accomplish with it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Shawn Farner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:12:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-803329</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Google rolled out “gadgets” last year and partnered with a few media companies and ad agencies to demonstrate how you could use Adsense to deliver “apps instead of ads.” I think the MacFarlane deal is similar: trying to provoke producers, media owners, and planners to innovate around distribution, even if the delivery mechanism is hitched to general-purpose search. It’ll probably fail (the demographic is a bit narrow, search is too directional, etc), but it’s a better place to fail than, lets say, Gmail or Googledocs, which generally don’t add much to the bottom-line or improve their premiums.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Ury</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:18:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-802276</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Mike -- I'm glad I'm not the only one  :-)  That said,&lt;br&gt;however, it is nice to see people experimenting, even if we can't&lt;br&gt;figure out what they're up to exactly.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:44:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-802178</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well, as a true believer in the "content is advertising/advertising is content" concept, I'll say that I agree with Mathew.  I have no clue what to make of this deal.  I think they may have gotten the whole setup backwards.  The point of advertising = content is that you focus on established *content* channels to deliver advertising, not focusing on established *advertising* channels to deliver content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't know.  I just haven't figured out how these content units are actually used.  Who uses them and how? And who looks at them?  The whole thing seems confusing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Masnick</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:29:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-801148</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Reminds me of the first big-time TV show -- Milton "Mr. Television"&lt;br&gt;Berle's show Texaco Star Theater  :-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:29:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-801111</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yeah I'd have to agree with Rob's comment.  What is advertising any more?  &lt;br&gt;FYI, Hockey Night in Canada was created by MacLaren McCann the Ad Agency (it was originally General Motors Hockey Broadcast and GM remains a client of Maclaren's to this day)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">leigh</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:25:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-799480</link><description>&lt;p&gt;True -- and all advertising is content.  I guess I momentarily forgot&lt;br&gt;my Web 2.0 catechism  :-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:43:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Google a content company now?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/02/is-google-a-content-company-now/#comment-799454</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I thought all content is advertising.  ;)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rob Hyndman</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:40:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>