<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JEEcamp: online revenue models - the Waghorn way</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/</link>
	<description>Online journalism news</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:40:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Journalism.co.uk Editors&#8217; Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Goodbye with a bang - another football site to go</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-6555</link>
		<dc:creator>Journalism.co.uk Editors&#8217; Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Goodbye with a bang - another football site to go</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-6555</guid>
		<description>[...] In March, Journalism.co.uk reported that while Waghorn&#8217;s Norwich United site attracted 33,000 unique hits in January 2008 alone, Waghorn emphasised that the important thing was to create a ‘melting pot’ of revenue from Google, local advertisers, subscribers and content syndication.  In January Waghorn told Journalism.co.uk about his hopes for myfootballwriter.com to expand into the US with proposals for sites covering American sports teams. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In March, Journalism.co.uk reported that while Waghorn&#8217;s Norwich United site attracted 33,000 unique hits in January 2008 alone, Waghorn emphasised that the important thing was to create a ‘melting pot’ of revenue from Google, local advertisers, subscribers and content syndication.  In January Waghorn told Journalism.co.uk about his hopes for myfootballwriter.com to expand into the US with proposals for sites covering American sports teams. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver Luft</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4770</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver Luft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4770</guid>
		<description>Thanks chaps - have corrected the figures.
Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks chaps - have corrected the figures.<br />
Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rickwaghorn</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4772</link>
		<dc:creator>rickwaghorn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4772</guid>
		<description>If only it were 400 million; 400,000 page impressions and $180 bucks... the word paltry mind was spot on...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If only it were 400 million; 400,000 page impressions and $180 bucks&#8230; the word paltry mind was spot on&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Wardman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4771</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Wardman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/14/jeecamp-online-revenue-models-the-waghorn-way/#comment-4771</guid>
		<description>Hi Laura

Good to see you. I think "400 million" should be "400 thousand". 400 million and he'd have done it by videolink from Monte Carlo.

Cheers
Matt Wardman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Laura</p>
<p>Good to see you. I think &#8220;400 million&#8221; should be &#8220;400 thousand&#8221;. 400 million and he&#8217;d have done it by videolink from Monte Carlo.</p>
<p>Cheers<br />
Matt Wardman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
