????本周，The Daily Dot官網(wǎng)正式上線。這是一份網(wǎng)絡(luò)出版物，它計劃像一份“家鄉(xiāng)報紙”一樣報道互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的相關(guān)資訊。也就是說，它只關(guān)注報道互聯(lián)網(wǎng)世界的人物的一言一行，尤其是社交媒體網(wǎng)站上的人物。

????該網(wǎng)站編輯歐文?托馬斯是科技博客VentureBeat和八卦博客Gawker的前任編輯。他接受《廣告周刊》雜志（Adweek）采訪時說：“如果我們能為網(wǎng)絡(luò)賦予人性，到時候我們就比其他人有優(yōu)勢了。因為他們要么把網(wǎng)絡(luò)要么看成是一樁生意，要么是一套技術(shù)，要么只是一套應(yīng)用程序集合?！?/p>

????這個做法有新意，但有點冒險。風(fēng)險在于，它會變得矯揉造作，讓人難受?！緮?shù)年前，我工作過的一家科技新聞網(wǎng)站刊發(fā)過《戴安娜王妃之死網(wǎng)上掀波瀾》（Internet Reacts to Death of Princess Di）這類報道?！窟@個網(wǎng)站也有一些這類內(nèi)容，但總體上，那些純粹的無稽之談似乎不見蹤影。比如，有篇報道是關(guān)于一段瘋狂傳播的YouTube視頻的。這段視頻拍攝了一個小姑娘捧著一只死松鼠進行愛撫。報道深入分析了人們?yōu)楹螘l(fā)布這類內(nèi)容？它們?yōu)槭裁磿艿阶放酰?/p>

????托馬斯有個觀點是正確的，就是我們太多人都只把互聯(lián)網(wǎng)看成是數(shù)不盡的商機，或是一個技術(shù)競技場，而且我們很多人都傾向于粉飾網(wǎng)上日復(fù)一日正在上演的形形色色的活動，無視它們的商業(yè)意味。

????這并不意味著商人無法從The Daily Dot中獲利。這個網(wǎng)站能展示了人們使用媒體的方式，以及他們的期望所在。人們對骨肉藝術(shù)（meat art，用動物的肉類制作各種藝術(shù)品的一種新興藝術(shù)形式——譯注）和糖果橫截面照片的熱衷也許并不是顯而易見的財源，但它們確實能讓我們深入了解人們的網(wǎng)絡(luò)行為，以及他們對網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容的反應(yīng)模式。

????盡管網(wǎng)站編輯托馬斯對網(wǎng)絡(luò)商業(yè)性有不同看法，但并不妨礙這家網(wǎng)站報道商業(yè)動態(tài)。周二商業(yè)版塊的主打文章就是有關(guān)星巴克公司（Starbucks）運用Facebook推廣新飲料的做法。其他版塊也會涉足商業(yè)，并且報道手法更為活潑有趣。比如，有關(guān)Twitter垃圾郵件（Twitter spam）就有數(shù)篇上乘報道。對Twitter公司，用戶和其他將社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)用作推廣工具的公司來說，垃圾郵件都是個很現(xiàn)實的問題。另外有一篇數(shù)字藝術(shù)剽竊的報道則以獨特的方式表明，在線媒體給人們的版權(quán)觀念帶來的改變。當然，網(wǎng)站上大量報道都是關(guān)于Facebook公司，新聞網(wǎng)站Reddit和其他社交媒體網(wǎng)站的。

????據(jù)《廣告周刊》雜志透露，The Daily Dot沒有外部融資，起步資金僅為60萬美元。盡管網(wǎng)站上線準備工作歷時數(shù)月，但除了一套獨特的夸耀在本站做廣告如何有利的自家廣告外，網(wǎng)站還沒能拉到廣告。

????網(wǎng)站的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼首席執(zhí)行官尼古拉斯?懷特稱，這驗證了創(chuàng)辦一家靠廣告支撐的網(wǎng)站的“22條軍規(guī)”（意為左右為難的困境——譯注）。他說：“當你沒有受眾時，很難賣得出廣告，”而沒有廣告資金流入，又很難獲得受眾。他還說，正式上線前，網(wǎng)站“絕對是”努力爭取過一些廣告主，但當前的環(huán)境對在初創(chuàng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的廣告業(yè)務(wù)十分不利。

????據(jù)懷特表示，網(wǎng)站計劃努力爭取一些已證明對網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告投放駕輕就熟的大品牌。他甚至明確提到了其中一些公司，如通用電氣公司（GE），喜力啤酒公司（Heineken）和百事可樂公司（Pepsi）等，雖然目前尚無跡象表明其中任何一家愿意買賬。他說：“這樣的品牌是不會滿足于只擁有一個Facebook頁面的?！?/p>

????譯者：清遠

????This week saw the official launch of The Daily Dot, a Web publication that intends to cover the Internet like a "hometown newspaper." That is, it's all about the people on the Web, particularly on social media sites, and what they're doing and saying.

????Editor Owen Thomas, formerly of VentureBeat and Gawker, told Adweek: "To the extent that we can humanize the Web, that gives us an advantage over people who look at the Web as a business, as a set of technologies, or as a set of APIs."

????A refreshing approach, if somewhat perilous. It runs the risk of coming off as painfully contrived. (Years ago, I worked for a tech news site that would publish stories like "Internet Reacts to Death of Princess Di.") And there is some of that, but overall, it seems to steer clear of outright fluff. For example, a story about a viral YouTube video that depicts a little girl hugging and petting a dead squirrel offers fairly deep insight into how such things come to be posted, and how they manage to become popular.

????Thomas is right that too many of us see the Internet as merely a vast array of investment opportunities, or as a technological playground, and too many of us tend to gloss over the very human activity that takes place online every day without regard to the business implications.

????That doesn't mean businesspeople can't derive some value from The Daily Dot. The site shows how people are using the medium and what their expectations are. People's obsessions with meat art and cross-section photos of candy bars might not be an obvious source of profit, but they do offer insights into what people do online and how they react to what they see.

????Despite what Thomas says, the site does cover business. On Tuesday, the main story in the business section was about Starbucks (SBUX) using Facebook to promote a new drink. Other sections touch on business as well, and in more interesting ways. For example, there are a couple of good stories about Twitter spam, which is a real problem for Twitter, for users and for companies that use the social network as a promotional vehicle. A story about theft of digital art highlights in a unique way how online media changes our conceptions of copyright. Of course, there is plenty of coverage of Facebook, Reddit and other social media sites.

????According to Adweek, The Daily Dot has no outside financing, and has started with just $600,000. Despite having spent months preparing for launch, there are no ads yet, save for a set of unique house ads extolling the benefits of advertising on the site.

????This represents the "Catch 22" of starting an ad-supported Web site, says Nicholas White, The Daily Dot's co-founder and CEO. "It's hard to sell ads when you don't have an audience," he said, and it's hard to build an audience without ad money flowing in. The site "absolutely" tried to drum up some advertisers before launch, he said, but the current atmosphere isn't conducive to taking a chance on Web startups.

????The plan, according to White, is to go for big brands that have proven themselves Web-savvy. He even mentioned a few – GE, Heineken, Pepsi – though there's no indication that any of them are ready to write checks. "These are the kinds of brands that are going beyond just having a Facebook page," he said.