[...] and could use that advantage to create superior tools and guides. (Check out the comments on this post I wrote last month for some great discussion along these [...]

[...] the Times monetize its platform by sharing it with other outlets? Could kitemarksoffer an answer to the monetization problem? Does it all come down to supply and [...]

I thought about this some more, and realized that a proven analogue to this model — namely, Amazon’s integration of small to medium third party retailers inside its storefront. The sellers get access to the benefits of Amazon’s standardized interface, review system, payments system, integrated user accounts, developer APIs, etc., and can focus the bulk of their resources on product stocking and shipment and customer service, instead of each mom-and-pop shop trying to build out their own platform. This is especially given the fact that, on average, smaller outlets don’t have the domain expertise to know who to hire, what to build, how to assure quality, etc.

Granted, Amazon is a very different business than the Times, but the same logic applies. And while I think usability is often undervalued, and the Times does a really good job of it, it’s worth emphasizing that they have a lot more to offer than just layout and stylization: a series of very rich interfaces custom built to suit different needs (ie: Election Results, Sports Scores, Local Reviews, and many others), the APIs which they’re now rolling out and all of the third party applications they enable, potentially their internal CMS (can’t speak to it’s current value), and so forth.

Regarding brand dilution, it would have to be properly designed, but I think ultimately it would be a boon to the brand by giving it a broader reach. Just the look and feel defines the identity, but every page could also easily be cobranded with a small times logo, or a ‘Hosted by The New York Times’ tagline.

And here I disagree with Jeffrey. If building even a conventional news site was as rudimentary as he contends, newspapers presumably wouldn’t need tech consultants to help them do it. But they do, as one can surmise by looking at their sites, which on average greatly lag the functionality of sites run by bigger papers. Clearly, many smaller, even regional papers are struggling to stay alive, let alone devote resources to building out their sites.

For instance, Roger Fidler at the U. of Missouri J-school has had success with eMprint, a white-label presentation platform for digital publishers. Why? Because it’s hard for smaller pubs to do it themselves. Also, beyond eMprint’s excellence (this isn’t an ad–I’ve used it), they like that it was developed by an organization that specializes in journalism. I imagine the NYT would enjoy the same advantage.

Joan may have a point about the risks of brand dilution. But it’s equally possible that syndicating the platform could help the brand by putting the paper before readers who might not ordinarily see or be inclined to read it.

But note that many of the same people who developed Django have gone on to build Ellington, which is a CMS designed for news organizations — and which is something they get paid tens of thousands of dollars for by news organizations.

Let’s look at it another way. I love open source web tools. I’m willing to muck around with something like Drupal. But how many news organizations build their sites on them? Versus how many buy CMSes that, frankly, suck because they don’t have the technical expertise or the desire to do it with free software? I’d wager 95%+ of American newspapers pay for their CMS. So there could be a market for something like what Michael is talking about — just as there’s a market for Ellington.

CMSes that do this today: Django, Drupal, Campware, Alfresco. Cost of all of these systems: $0. Content management and online publishing systems is a crowded market, and it’s far from clear what the Times could possibly bring to the table here.

Django, by the way, was written by my former colleague Simon Willison specifically for the Lawrence Journal-World, so if you’re looking to see what a CMS spun out of a newspaper operation looks like, you might want to start there.

Well, duh. But nytimes.com is not what the vast majority of news-gathering sites need. And it’s not what they’re actually doing.

If a newspaper retained us to give them advice on building a platform, the last thing we’d advise them to do is spend what little money they have left on building something like what the Times has.

Since you’re calling my personal credibility into question (great debating tactic, by the way), I should mention by way of introduction that I’m a former news reporter who switched over to software development 15 years ago and has since written books on the subject, in addition to working for the largest web sites in the world (Yahoo and eBay). I know what it takes to make a web site on both a business and technical level. What the Times is doing isn’t what the vast majority of news organizations need. In a world in which the Times is losing money, it may not even be what the Times should be doing.

@Jeffrey – while I agree that “their software is not why the Times is valuable”, it might be diversification that helps them maintain value – who knows? A CMS that can handle the load and publishing schedule on NYT’s level might have value. Its definitely not a bad idea.

And if setting up a platform were so cheap and easy, why would anyone hire your firm to “provide strategic and tactical assistance to technology businesses looking to create, support, and adopt platform products”? —Zach

Has this guy checked lately to see how much it costs to set up a web site these days? (Hint: it’s $0.) Even if the Times had some sort of software product that one couldn’t obtain anywhere else, this simply isn’t their core competency (to put it another way: their software is not why the Times is valuable). And to top it all off, they would (once again!) be competing against “free”.