Yule Heibel's Library tagged jim_brady →  View Popular, Search in Google

the Post did a terrific job -- supported at the highest levels -- transforming itself from a site that was "on the Web" to one that was "of the Web." We were pretty aggressive on opening the site to readers, experimenting with new storytelling forms, embracing database journalism and trying to experiment with new sites and platforms that emerged over the years.

But I do firmly believe that the pace of experimentation has to increase. Launching blogs in 2009 isn't innovative anymore. Launching comments on articles in 2009 isn't innovative. But a lot of sites are just getting to that point now.

Among all the discussion lately about revenue models, some argue that the news industry should reverse course and start charging for content online. Was it wise for news sites to embrace a free content, ad-supported model?

Brady: I was there when this all started, and I can tell you that the second-guessing on not charging misses some key facts: 1) I don't remember this for sure, but I'm relatively positive we didn't have the technology in-house to charge people for content when we launched washingtonpost.com in 1996. 2) Almost no one was willing to enter credit card information in 1996, so adoption rates on charging probably would have been low. 3) If half the papers had charged, the other half probably would have gone free for competitive advantage, so the idea -- as I've heard it posited -- that "we all should have charged" ignores the basic fact that media organizations would never have agreed to act unilaterally. And as long as any good sites were free, the pressure would have been on all of us to pull down the pay walls.

People working on news sites with vastly fewer resources than washingtonpost.com may think there isn't anything they could learn from how your site operated. Can you tell me three successful strategies or methods of running a news site that could be emulated by a site with a limited budget?

Brady: I've heard that a lot over the years. My belief is that the ability to experiment in new areas isn't really a function of staff size, though scale is. We can produce 20 to 30 original video pieces a week; I realize many news sites can't do that. But there's no reason a site can't do four to six a week. So I don't think small staff size is an excuse not to experiment.