I sent this pitch into 4iP the other month, which was rejected for the following reasons: “This idea is great, but it would more likely be a print publication that would be interested in supporting the development of such a tool, rather than 4iP or Channel 4 which is investing only in multimedia platforms and content. There is also a risk that the idea is highly copiable by existing competition, at relatively low cost. Justifying the technical outlay for the basic shortening of URLs is therefore hard to justify. Do check out the aims of the fund and our submissions guidelines (http://www.4ip.org.uk) and please keep submitting your proposals.”
I agree with this rejection, but just thought I’d post my pitch on here to see what other people think of it.
Description
Similar to miniature URL generators like TinyURL, but allowing individual newspaper and magazine publishers to generate miniature URLs using their own publications’ web domain. The Guardian currently uses http://tinyurl.com to send print readers to online sources. This proposal would allow The Guardian to generate miniature URLs using its own domain. I.e. It could use http://guardian.co.uk/j0t9 rather than http://tinyurl.com/j0t9 to send a print reader to http://apple.com
Allows publishers to use their own domain to control how and where it is sending print users to online sources, without relying on third party websites (which may go down, become unreliable, or potentially become malicious). Increases branding opportunities for publishers. Allows synchronisation of web and print-based content.
Approach
Reaching out to major print and online publications directly. Providing a free service for blogs and other content websites to make miniature URLs on their own domains. Social Media Marketing on blogs and social networks.
Competition
Several miniature URL websites are currently available, including TinyURL, SnipURL, NotLong. Ours is better because it allows individual publishers to control the domain name being used, and protects against the potential for 3rd party services to go offline, become unreliable, or become malicious.
C.K. Sample III | 29-Jan-09 at 4:30 am | Permalink
It’s a fair idea, but you’re basically saying “Hey. Why depend upon 3rd party services like TinyURL, when you could hire me/us as another 3rd party to develop your own customized version of TinyURL, which you would not fully understand any more than you understand TinyURL, because I/we built it rather than you/your developers.”
It’s an in-house idea that they’ll probably just take and run with on their own. No need to support others. No real appeal in helping the competition use anything other than TinyURL.
open source software | 08-Oct-09 at 8:58 am | Permalink
well ur idea is quite good and i really like it..but just 2 things..first u forgot to mention twitthis.com for creating miniurls and 2nd one..which is important one…this will make the websites more complicated..as will the search engines count those types of the tinyurl as the part of the sub-domains and ranked too in their ranking and how can be these types of url be hosted…or is it possible to make a mini url of the same website but hosted or presentd by yet the other hosting server.