<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Martin Stabe &#187; cartel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.martinstabe.com/category/cartel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.martinstabe.com</link>
	<description>A UK-centric look at new media and online journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:35:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>SearchEngineLand: Thoughts On A “Killer” Bing-News Corp Deal &amp; The Myth Of An “OPEC For News”</title>
		<link>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/11/26/searchengineland-thoughts-on-a-%e2%80%9ckiller%e2%80%9d-bing-news-corp-deal-the-myth-of-an-%e2%80%9copec-for-news%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/11/26/searchengineland-thoughts-on-a-%e2%80%9ckiller%e2%80%9d-bing-news-corp-deal-the-myth-of-an-%e2%80%9copec-for-news%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[del.icio.us Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wsj]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Danny Sullivan: &#34;So what happens if the WSJ is out of Google? Nothing. Seriously, nothing. Remember, for years the WSJ was NOT in Google, and yet Google grew just fine. Also, the WSJ seems to have been fine. Neither is crucial to each other.&#34;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Danny Sullivan: &quot;So what happens if the WSJ is out of Google? Nothing. Seriously, nothing. Remember, for years the WSJ was NOT in Google, and yet Google grew just fine. Also, the WSJ seems to have been fine. Neither is crucial to each other.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/11/26/searchengineland-thoughts-on-a-%e2%80%9ckiller%e2%80%9d-bing-news-corp-deal-the-myth-of-an-%e2%80%9copec-for-news%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Telegraph: It&#8217;s not just the BBC that prevents British newspapers putting up pay walls</title>
		<link>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/05/14/telegraph-its-not-just-the-bbc-that-prevents-british-newspapers-putting-up-pay-walls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/05/14/telegraph-its-not-just-the-bbc-that-prevents-british-newspapers-putting-up-pay-walls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 06:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Telegraph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[del.icio.us Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paywall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shane Richmond responds to Emma Duncan: &#34;Once we&#39;ve dealt with the BBC what do we do about Sky News? How does the Times compete with the Telegraph if they&#39;re behind a pay wall and we&#39;re not?&#34;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Shane Richmond responds to Emma Duncan: &quot;Once we&#039;ve dealt with the BBC what do we do about Sky News? How does the Times compete with the Telegraph if they&#039;re behind a pay wall and we&#039;re not?&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/05/14/telegraph-its-not-just-the-bbc-that-prevents-british-newspapers-putting-up-pay-walls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Los Angeles Times: iTunes proves newspapers can and should charge for online access</title>
		<link>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/28/los-angeles-times-itunes-proves-newspapers-can-and-should-charge-for-online-access/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/28/los-angeles-times-itunes-proves-newspapers-can-and-should-charge-for-online-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[del.icio.us Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[desperatetimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itunes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our next contestant is David Lazarus: &#34;[N]ewspapers need to band together for a joint online subscription service. Digital readers would pay a monthly fee -- let&#39;s say $10 -- and in return they&#39;d have full access to the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times and any other paper that wants to be part of the consortium (the more the merrier).&#34;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our next contestant is David Lazarus: &quot;[N]ewspapers need to band together for a joint online subscription service. Digital readers would pay a monthly fee -- let&#039;s say $10 -- and in return they&#039;d have full access to the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times and any other paper that wants to be part of the consortium (the more the merrier).&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/28/los-angeles-times-itunes-proves-newspapers-can-and-should-charge-for-online-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chicago Tribune: Rescuing print journalism: Does Cable TV have the right idea?</title>
		<link>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/24/chicago-tribune-rescuing-print-journalism-does-cable-tv-have-the-right-idea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/24/chicago-tribune-rescuing-print-journalism-does-cable-tv-have-the-right-idea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[del.icio.us Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paywall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eric Zorn floats yet another paid content idea: &#34;I&#39;m now a believer in the cable TV model. News organizations that generate significant original content should band together for their own survival and sell group subscription packages for unlimited access to their stories, photos, videos, archives and other offerings. For, say, $10 a month, a subscriber would have a choice of, say, 50 participating local, regional and national newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations. Another $5 might buy an additional 50 outlets, and so on.&#34;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Eric Zorn floats yet another paid content idea: &quot;I&#039;m now a believer in the cable TV model. News organizations that generate significant original content should band together for their own survival and sell group subscription packages for unlimited access to their stories, photos, videos, archives and other offerings. For, say, $10 a month, a subscriber would have a choice of, say, 50 participating local, regional and national newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations. Another $5 might buy an additional 50 outlets, and so on.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/02/24/chicago-tribune-rescuing-print-journalism-does-cable-tv-have-the-right-idea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

