In case you noticed something different, I moved this blog back onto the Blogger platform. Actually, Blogger is where Content Here started back in 2004 (Wow! A little over 11 years ago!). Over the intervening years, I converted the site to Wordpress and hosted it on a number of different providers. Some of the formatting shows that the posts are a little worse for wear. And I need to do some theming work. If you notice any other major problems, let me know.
Data ownership and control were the primary reasons for moving off of Blogger. When my website was a core part of my consulting business, $20.00 per month seemed worth it. Now that blogging is back to being a hobby and Google has a "Data Liberation Policy," Blogger makes more sense.
Moving from WordPress to Blogger definitely feels like going against the grain but this article "How to Move Your Blog from WordPress to Blogger" gave excellent instructions plus a good explanation of why you would want to do it.
In addition to great utilities for both Blogger and Wordpress, one of the things that made migration easier was that I hosted all of my images and files on Flickr and other sites. That means that there was less to move.
My experience so far is that Blogger seems like a less cared for part of the Google ecosystem. It's clunky when compared to Wordpress or other web content management systems that I have used. I am sure that Google+ (and before that Google Wave) have consumed most of the attention. I can't imagine that Google would kill blogger, but if they do, there is always Google Takeout.
Chief Google Economist, Hal Varian, has an interesting post about online and offline newspaper economics on the Google Public Policy blog. Most of the ideas will be familiar if you read Clay Shirky: cross-subsidization of the news; specialized sites drawing away ad revenue; relative cost of production.
One point that I have been hearing less about was that online news consumption tends to be mostly from work while offline newspapers are read at home on leisure time. In itself, this is not a huge insight; all of my news clients know that they get most of their traffic during the workday. What I had not thought about was that reading time at work is significantly more compressed than at home. The article gives statistics of 70 seconds per day online vs. 25 minutes offline — and advertisers pay for a premium for that longer attention span. The article predicts some good news for newspaper publishers: tablets (like the iPad) and other mobile devices (like the Kindle) will increase the at home consumption of the news and lengthen time spent reading. This should even out the disparity between online and offline advertising revenue. I think the accuracy of this prediction will depend on a) whether advertising formats can effectively adapt to and leverage the strengths of mobile devices and b) the advertisers opinion of the value of online advertising changes. As for the latter, advertisers seem to illogically value the immeasurable benefit of print advertising over the more measurable benefit of online advertising. That is, they probably assume print advertising is more effective than it actually is because there are no statistics to limit the perceived value. There are some great posts about how online advertising is undervalued.. Until this attitude changes, it will be difficult for newspapers to burn their boats.