I don’t even try to follow ego feeds for John Roberts anymore (thanks to the Supreme Court), so I missed when Steve Gillmor called my response to Steve Rubel a new form of spam, based on my presumed status as an “incumbent.”
Last I checked, CNET News.com wasn’t even nine years old yet. Whatever audience has been earned in that time, by many folks before and besides myself, returns because there is worthwhile information every day. If not, no one spends their time. It’s that simple, isn’t it?
Steve G thinks it’s disingenuous for publishers to talk about what readers want. I disagree, on two counts. First, I’m a reader, too. Second, without readers, there is no business. Responding to what readers want is how media businesses remain businesses. It’s quite clear that not all media outlets are businesses, nor do they need/aspire/want to be, necessarily. I work for a media business, as I have in one form or another for 14 years.
Before coming to San Francisco in 1996, I spent five years at a magazine where the door code was the year of its founding… 1857. That is incumbency. Even then, we brought The Atlantic online (first on AOL in 1993, then the web in 1995) because that’s where the readers (yes, readers) were going to be. The forward-thinking Kim Jensen (sadly gone now) realized the future could not rest solely on the aging print subscribers, and acted to stay relevant. Verdict is still out for The Atlantic, in my judgment, but I still find it compelling enough to spend a few hours/month on, in print even.
If incumbency means people still care about what your organization does 150 years later, then, sure, incumbency is a goal.