(However this debate got started, let me say that it is relevant, so thanks to _all_ of you)

I support some points above. Notably this:
‘state-funded media can be excellent, and when it comes to EU affairs there is a case to be made for answering market failure with public support, particularly if its oriented towards creating something which can live without support after a few years. Unfortunately, public procurement practices work against such projects.’
And this:
‘Now traditional public procurement results more in time-limited EC comms projects, rather than sustainable media businesses, so a Calls for Proposals would seem to be the better approach.’

Let me point to the example I know best (recall that French people don’t do self effacing coments as well as others!). EurActiv started on its own, then won a series of two calls for proposals (INFSO, eContent programme). This co-funded its whole multilingual and Eastern network developement, probably one of the best communication investments the EU ever made…

And much cheaper indeed than some consultancy projects, whne they lack continuity and value added. In addition to defining the target sharply, as Matthew suggests, I woudl also suggest to assess the results of projects…

On one occasion, for an innovative cross-institutionnal project, I suggested informally to consider a call for proposals, to make sure their would be competition not only on terms but also on concepts and on implementation quality: having at least two potential winners. Instead, a heavy call for tenders was triggered, and then the institutions involved tried to over-control, and fell out… The rest is (unfortunate) history…

Those who wish to continue the discussion offline can contact me directly.

Christophe Leclercq

You have now set the record straight in the comments since. I’m impressed that you got comments from Nepal!

But my criticism was based on what you had on your website, and the contents of your first comments and Tweets. While I didn’t mollycoddle you, calling my criticism unconstructive, and then accusing me of bad faith, seems a little unfair and out or proportion. It also reinforces the image that you are not actually that interested in what people have to say about the proposals. Probably not the impression you wish to give.

If you don’t take my mild form of criticism well, then you shouldn’t be discussing EU affairs online – you will get a lot worse as soon as you stick your neck out of the Bubble! For a foretaste, see my experience of launching Blogactiv.

Anyway, best of luck with your presentation to the EP.

I’m sorry but you show a little bad faith…

Maybe I should have right a post on the process in the website.
But another time, I explained you how the process followed several steps. Next step of consultation starts next week. I’ve told you we will be glad to take all your comments, all the comments into account and make theme progress or abandonate them !

I just put “for those who know us” because your comment refected the fact that the history of the processus wasn’t clear enough.
The discussions in 2010 vere shared by people from Belgium ( right most from Brussels) but also France, Spain, UK, Portugal, Moldavie, Romania, Italia, Germany… Since the Website, people from US, China and Nepal, for example, participated.

Let me tackle the last point first. You first engaged with me on Twitter. I couldn’t respond in 140ch so I posted something more substantial here in response to your request. You chose to respond to my post on your blog (a bit odd), and didn’t mention it to anyone, so I only stumbled across it by accident.

I responded to it there – i.e, on your blog – so I followed your lead. However, I suspected (correctly) that my comment was put in your spam queue, so I had no choice but to alert you on Twitter. Where you seemed to confuse the pingback with comments, and comments with posts.

Since then we have continued the conversation on your blog. So I was surprised to find you back here. Moreover, complaining that I was the one using too many platforms!?

Anyway, once again, thanks for your clarifications. I think the phrase “those who know us“, used repeatedly in your comment, confirms the impression that this is very much Brussels talking to itself.

Clearly, you and “the people who know you” understand your process, so to you it all seems crystal clear. I was simply giving you honest, unvarnished but (I think) constructive criticism about the impression your website gives a visitor who is not part of your inner circle.

This is called User Feedback. If you don’t like it (and you clearly didn’t), any of the platforms you are considering will fail.

Which brings us full circle, back to the point I made in my post. I was going to say that I would look forward to seeing your proposals, but given the way you react to criticism, I’ll probably not bother. What would be the point?

I already answered on your post on my blog. But you seem to like multiply the supports…

Those who know us since the begining know that the ideas of proposals posted on the website were elaborated by more than 50 persons, in 2010 (many journalists/students/ media specialists and NGO representatives).

The website didn’t exist and was created on their demand, to post the proposals and widen the debate. Until July the 15th, a forum was opened. The goal of the website (blog and forum) was to open temporary the debate. The 15th of July, the forum was closed and discussions continued with other organisations that have the same objectives.

The proposals were from the start elaborated with many free lance journalists.

Now that we want to submit them to MEPs, I think that’s normal that other organisations involved in the dialogue with the institutions, on the same questions, can be associated to the initiative. We are stronger together than separated.

The website should have been closed now. But you will be surprised… We were asked to continue. Because, beside the proposals, we also are interested in highlighting interesting media initiatives and legislations, in EU and abroad.

Now, the website’s just been changed. Peope who follow us know that this is a transitional phase.

If you think that our 2011 proposals ( 2nd step after the physical meetings of 2010 – more elaborated) aren’t good, we would be glad to receive your views and take theme in account for a next step.

Thanks

PS: If your goal is to discuss, please chose one support.

Now traditional public procurement results more in time-limited EC comms projects, rather than sustainable media businesses, so a Calls for Proposals would seem to be the better approach.

Thinking as I type, I see a more fundamental problem. The whole point of startup seed capital ventures like the mighty YC are that they take a stake in the company – they’re trying to make money.

Now imagine if the EC funded a startup. They’d then probably massively cooperate with it in terms of advertising, use of its services, membership, etc. It would become ‘the platform’ to be on.

The EC would then be a part-owner of the EU online public space. Not good – as well as sustainable, it has to be independent – and be seen to be independent.

Which is another reason why seeing the EP fund any of the projects proposed by the ECJ will probably fail. Funded by an EU Institution, they’ll face a credibility gap.

Thx for droppin’ by …

Maybe the European Commission should fund a startup seed capital initiative like what Y Combinator is for the Silicon Valley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Combinator

Imagine there would be a startup fund for media business giving away 10.000 – 25.000 EUR for every online/media startup dealing with EU affairs? As with Y Combinator, people could be invited/forced to come to Brussels and get started here.

What do you think?