While both Techcrunch and 'Huffpost' can be described as blogs - indeed it is exactly what they are - there's something about the connotations of the word that render it somehow simultaneously inappropriate as a label for the two sites. This, I think, stems from the fact that popular conceptions of blogging have not yet caught up to the ever-present reality that, while 'blog' can mean an online method of voicing personal thoughts on this or that for free, used by millions of people the world over - it can also be something much closer to a more mainstream media organisation such as a national newspaper (albeit without the print version).

What the two recent AOL deals illustrate perfectly well is that while the blogosphere is extremely diverse, densely populated and often operates with a certain (relatively loud) background hum (i.e. it is sometimes hard to notice the good stuff simply cos there's so much out there) - there is real potential for established blogs, usually with teams of professional full-time writers and all the other things that you'd find at any 'traditional' print title (newspaper or magazine), to rival print titles not only in terms of reader numbers and advertising potential - but now also in terms of the economics of mergers and acquisitions.

Of course Huffpost and Techcrunch wouldn't have come with such a price tag if they didn't have all those readers - and they wouldn't have all those readers if they weren't doing something right. That thing most likely is a recognition of the importance of maintaining a certain standard in the quality of their output. This is done by genuinely sourcing stories (rather than simply commenting on what others have noticed or found out) and observing some sort of professional stance towards referencing etc. (N.B. I'm more of a Techcrunch reader than a Huffpost one, so my observations are more derived from the former - though I belive they hold for both - and also various others out there...)

This is not to say that mistakes don't happen or that daft stories don't get published - but just that, by having in place a mechanism for sourcing, editing, and referencing which approaches some way towards being on a par with quality newspapers or magazines (I'm not talking about the tabloid press, which - at least here in Britain - often falls well below any respectable benchmark for professionalism and self-regulation), Huffpost and Techcrunch have also been able to rival/match more traditional media in terms of authority and reliability. These really are the two values which then translate to great user stats, advertising potential and big takeovers. No matter how good your CEO staff are, they can't really do much if the authority and reliability of the content is constantly questionable, imprecise or derivative.

So, with these two high profile blogs proving that such qualities which used to be solely the preserve of print media are now entirely attainable online if one sets up to do things in a certain way, perhaps it's time that the popular perception of blogs were updated somewhat to reflect this new situation. Today's $315m deal, and the deadlines it is inevitably attracting will probably go some way towards this. Finally, it's surely a good thing to see that blogging remains a media format where the refreshingly low barrier to entry doesn't necessarily imply reduced potential for reach, growth, and success.

It should be noted however that this is based on the BBC's own figures for how much it spent on its online service - which doesn't take into account the fact that much of the material is sourced from its news or radio arms for example, and is paid for by their budgets. So, probably the true figure is a fair chunk higher than the £8/annum above, but it's simply impossible to calculate (if a show is delivered across multiple platforms, including the website, how to split the costs of its production for such a calculation?).

In a way though, it doesn't matter too much for what I would like to discuss here - which is the overwhelmingly positive response from users to the reports of the website's cost. This is perhaps not surprising, as, due to the aforementioned distortion, the BBC's 'implied paywall' is roughly 10 times lower than similar(-ish) competitors such as the Times website.

However, I would venture to say that, even in the hypothetical scenario of the entire license fee being used solely for the website, it would still represent pretty good value for money when compared to other competitors for similar news and media. Indeed, judging by the comments on the aforementioned article, people are more than comfortable with the idea of paying for online content, and the notion that the majority somehow expect online media to be free is thoroughly contradicted.

Nonetheless, the BBC system does suggest that when it comes to the paywall model, economies of scale are better placed to deliver value. In short, the BBC offers so, so much through its various services that I doubt anyone would be turned off from paying for the license fee simply due to a slight year-on-year increase for example. Smaller providers on the other hand have a lot less wriggle-room regarding price - a few pounds can make all the difference to user numbers.

I suppose what I'm getting at is the fact that, judging from the discussions following the BBC's accounts publications, BBC website users are strongly indicating that they would happily pay for the service, even if it was offered through a more standard monthly paywall model (rather than the beeb's rather unique license fee payment system).

Paywalls therefore are not inherently unworkable, as some commentators have suggested - though they usually can only work well as part of a strategy that mixes up free and premium (paywall) services (Spotify is a great example). On the other hand however, such a system would not work for every online media provider - some, unfortunately perhaps, must make do only with ad revenue or go under (the general rule is, of course, the less unique you are, the less users will be prepared to stump up for content).

Perhaps this is why even Google CEO Eric Schmidt refuses to condemn paywalls, despite the relatively high profile disagreement between Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp and Google over the UK newspaper, The Times's, online content (which now has a paywall as a result of the spat). The concept is certainly one which we can expect to see more and more in the future, particularly as publishing - in its traditional guises - continues to decline. The golden era of 'free' is, and has been, drawing to a close for some time with regard to online media content. In its place there is currently the priced mobile app, the paywall and other such revenue models, of which we can expect to see more and more in the future.

Dejan Levi