NPR is going all podcast and dropping Audible.
But is this an old story? One that the blogosphere just got wind of? Could very well be the case.
Apparently, MacObserver started reporting the story in June.
This is the kind of stuff you see in the media biz all the time. A story breaks and it gets ignored. Then, a few weeks later, its recast by a competitor and treated as breaking news.
What also happens: The story doesn't get any play and when it does get attention, it is treated as breaking news because people think it is a hot, fresh story.
In the blogosphere, though, to me at least, there is no such thing as a breaking story as the link trail goes long and about. Who broke it first? Does that matter? It's such an old media game. I want the insights.
Like this from Doc Searls:
...The main problem will be what in sales they call call "channel conflicts", which are more political than technical. NPR essentially wholesales programming to local stations, which retail them to listeners. The new strategies will need to help, rather than hurt, local stations and networks, which are the final "sales channel" of programming to listeners (and sponsors)
And this from Phil Torrone:
...Here's my review / HOW TO of Audible with their podcasting features...and on that note, I've been using CD audio books for the last month, and so far, working out great.
1. Mike Janssen on August 19, 2005 1:55 PM writes...
This is old news. I reported it June 13 in Current newspaper (but can't link to it, it's not online). I guess MacObserver beat me by four days (we're biweekly and don't post web exclusives, boo hoo).
Permalink to Comment