I wrote about this previously.
Today the NYT is running an article that it interesting:
HOW much is this sentence – the very one you are reading right now – worth? Is it potentially more valuable than this entire column, this section, or the entire newspaper itself? This is not a play for a raise or a plug for the genius of my prose, but a riff on the latest mania in media-land: finding new ways to be paid for old material. Nearly every day, it seems, a new business strategy emerges that on its face may sound not only counterintuitive but also absurd. Then consumers start to buy it, and you can only say, "Who knew?"
and it continues
TWO lessons are apparent in all these attempts to revamp media business models. One is that the limits of what people will pay for personalization – getting what they want, when they want it – have yet to be tested. The other is that consumers are not nearly as pragmatic as they may imagine themselves.
In Attack of the Blogs (which attacks you with Ads when you try to read it) Forbes effectively became a fear monger for the danger of CGM (consumer generated media) to your brand. It was a very effective publicity stunt that worked and got the bloggers talking about Forbes. A cry for meaning that indeed confirmed they have meaning I suppose.
So what is the effect of long dead media being brought back to life for your brand? Can we write controversial blog posts in the hopes of actually selling them 10 years from now?