This is probably a really bad idea for lots of reasons. Coerced leads are usually of low value for advertisers and story ideas that are funded by something as valueless as information, especially without any intention to buy, are likely to be below par. However, interesting idea. 

 

 

The blog post below, from the Suburban Newspaper Association of America, unintentionally offers the perfect illustration of the illogical thinking of many publications in regards to pay walls on web sites. On one hand, the author, Deb Shaw, points out that newspapers are the primary initiators of local content and that other mediums, including citizen-written efforts and blogs are ill equipped to displace newspapers in this role. On the other hand, the author ominously quotes a survey showing that most Americans want their news for free and would search elsewhere for content if it was not given away free by publications.

Search where? If local newspapers are not writing it, readers can search all they want, it won't exist. I want a new car to be free but no matter how many auto dealers I go to the darn things still cost money. Besides, am I missing something, hasn't the last 10 years taught publications that the cost of creating content and distributing it free on websites outweighs the revenue that can be generated by online ads of any form? On some level it is supply and demand- online advertisers are buying traffic and there are so many online opportunities that supply online has far outstripped demand, thereby deflating ad rates and that will make it tough for originally produced free content to be paid for entirely by paid advertising anytime in the near future. 

If you disagree with me and want to read more of the "give-it-away-free-because-someday-traffic-will-result-in-revenue" philosophy go to the SNA's website, here.

 

Weathering The Perfect Storm

By Deb Shaw
Editor, Suburban Publisher

While the news media industry has spent the last few years reeling from the financial pitfalls of the economic meltdown, declining readership and plummeting advertising revenues, small dailies and community weeklies have proved profitable, and are, increasingly, the dominant source for local coverage.

So concludes The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism’s State of the News Media 2010 report, covering two areas that are of particular interest to SNA members — Newspapers and Online.

As expected, the report reveals the challenging economic state of the newspaper industry, and paints a stark picture of the woeful economic realities at many metro newspapers. However, it points out that smaller, suburban and community newspapers are faring much better economically.

“The problems are not uniform across the industry. Big-city papers continue to have the worst of it in these difficult times. Small dailies and community weeklies, with the exception of some that are badly positioned or badly managed, still do better. The latter come closer to the late-20th century position of newspapers as the dominant source for local information and the place for local merchants to advertiseAnother noteworthy finding relates to online news consumption and pay walls. Any publisher thinking of erecting a pay wall should consider that, according to the report, just 7% of Americans express any willingness to pay for news content. Instead, large majorities said they would look for content elsewhere if their favorite site put up a pay wall.

In addition, the report addresses social media (now firmly established as part of the media ecosystem), citizen news sites (most are not in a position to take on the job of traditional news outlets), blogging (it’s declining) and user habits relative to news consumption (we’ve become grazers — on a typical day, nearly half of Americans now get news from four to six different platforms).

The entire report is available, free of charge, at www.stateofthemedia.org

 

Responded to an ADOTAS blog post today on charging for online content, let us know what you think:

To Pay or Not To Pay

ADOTAS – Only one in five U.S. consumers is willing to pay for online news, according to a recent Pew research study. Pay-per-article or subscription fees simply drive readers elsewhere. These findings are bad news for newspaper and magazine publishers intent on charging readers for online content. But the creative juices are flowing at such cash strapped publishing houses.

For example, the New York Times recently announced a hybrid plan in which readers will be able to view a certain number of free articles each month, but they’ll have to pay a flat fee for full access to the site. By comparison, the Wall Street Journal Online has a flat $79 per year subscription fee, which they are able to charge because their content appeals to a specialized and motivated readership. And that quintessential capitalist, Rupert Murdoch, has indicated his intentions to build pay-walls around News Corps. many other information outlets.

For consumers to fork over the cash, news organizations will have to offer “content that is unique, and this may require specialization and investment by news organizations,” Pew reports. A creative approach is obviously needed. To date, the advertising of online print media has been more closely related to the traditional print forms. But the online versions of broadcast television networks reflects their traditional video commercial advertisements.

Print media online has ample opportunity to expand beyond traditional methods of generating revenue for the invaluable service they provide to our public discourse. Readers may have the patients to watch a video commercial prior to being able to read a news story. But anything beyond a few seconds of attention and savvy online readers simply go around the pay-wall.

 My response:

I think you miss the point. Publications have to charge because the content most are producing is unique and expensive to produce. No other medium produces as much original news content and the free model isn't working because it allows for the delivery of that content beyond the publication's website. It also forces print websites to adjust online pricing to compete with the enormous amount of online inventory available, reducing potential revenue to levels which do not support the gathering and creation of original content. It is unfortunate but there is no choice, publications have to start charging.

Mark Cuban is right. This is why we take every opportunity in this blog to point out that newspapers and magazines need to stop giving away their content for free in the hopes that web traffic will magically result in revenue. It is not working and never will. There is too much online inventory for print pubs to ever realize a premium for their online products. The only ones benefiting are search engines and they make enough money without being subsidized by print.

Full story here

Excerpt from AdWeek:

Content aggregators and search engines are vampires, and newspapers are the chesty blondes who fall victim to their charms -- and ultimately get bitten.

That's the basic assessment of the traditional media business' approach to the Internet, according to Mark Cuban. During a keynote address today at the AlwaysOn OnMedia NYC 2010 Conference, the HDNet president/CEO and famed provocateur called for newspapers and magazines to fight back against sites that link to their content.

"Everybody wants to take your content," said the Dallas Mavericks owner before a room full of media executives gathered at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York. That's not going to change, "unless you put a stake through their gosh darn hearts."

Cuban particularly called out Google as a Web giant that continues to reap benefits off of the valuable content that traditional media companies produce. "Google is a vampire, and you run scared," he said. "There is no reason to be indexed in Google."

For too long, Cuban said, newspaper and magazines have viewed traffic to their Web sites the same way that stores view customers coming through the door -- and have been fearful of turning down any opportunity for more traffic. Yet, he said, readers who find headlines via Google rarely convert to traffic, and publishers have a hard time monetizing that traffic. "You haven't gotten anything back except that you've turned into zombies," Cuban said.

Plus, in his mind, Google reaps the branding benefit of that content when consumers access it through a search or through Google News. "Whose brand do you think [users] have in their minds?" he asked.

From SeekingAlpha, read full story here.

Mark Cuban makes some good points, He obviously isn't familiar with Mediabids- that's ok, I am not sure how the Mavericks are doing this season, so we are even. But seriously, worth reading and it is always worthwhile to read someone calling Google out for its hypocrisy.

Google (GOOG) is unquestionably the best at selling advertising online. They can sell Text, Display, Video at a level that is unparalleled anywhere. True ? The Newspaper industry obviously sucks at doing the same. Eric Schmidt said so in his editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

So why isn’t Google taking advantage of this unique opportunity ? Why not just offer a specially tailored version of AdSense for Newspapers ? They do what they do, create content. You do what you do, generate content and sell ads ?

Makes sense. Won't happen.

Why ? Because of the Google hypocrisy in play. This argument is no different than the same argument they made with Youtube and the music and film industries. All those movies, tv shows, music videos on Youtube were GREAT PROMOTION. The music and movie industries shouldn't blame Google if they don’t know how to monetize all the billions of views and impressions Google and Youtube provided the content industry. Right?

But a funny thing happened along the way. Google caved on Youtube. Their message is no longer “if you cant monetize the traffic, tough luck”. Youtube is now sharing revenue with as many music and video content sources as they can. They are even setting up VEVO a satellite music video site built around Universal Music Group content.

There is absolutely zero chance that the end of this discussion is Google saying “You will take our traffic and like it”. Google is posturing. They recognize they have the advantage. Particularly if MicroSoft/Bing (MSFT) do nothing with Newscorp (NWS). Its only a question of how they use it.

 

From MinOnline. Read Full Story here

Hearst Reveals Skiff E-Reader

By Steve Smith

The e-reader field is getting more crowded by the day. Hearst subsidiary Skiff offered up the specs and first images of its portable digital reading device before the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) was set to launch this week in Las Vegas. The Skiff Reader will try to distinguish itself from the Kindle, nook, Sony eReader, QUE and other e-ink devices with size and portability. The 9 x 11-inch unit will hold an 11.5-inch (measured diagonally) display, which does out-size the large Kindle DX and the Plastic Logic QUE. (More images are below.) This display uses a special ‘metal foil’ technology that offers touch screen interaction but does not require a glass protective coating. The 1200 x 1600 resolution screen will run at 174 dots-per-inch, which should appeal to print newspaper and magazine publishers looking for greater detail. The screen is still black and white, however, and it remains to be seen how quickly an e-ink display at such high resolution can refresh itself as it changes pages. One of the chief frustrations of the e-ink devices is their very sluggish performance and muddy display of images.

The Skiff Reader is putting a premium on paper-like portability. It claims to weigh just above a pound. The battery is expected to last a week under standard usage. The device also sports 3G and WiFi wireless connectivity as well as a USB port for side-loading content from a PC.

The Hearst-owned company is putting print publishers front and center in this model. The company says the Skiff will access an online store of newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and other content from a range of publishers. The Skiff is promising to host print brands with unique design attributes, interactive elements, and dynamic content updating “that help publishers differentiate themselves and attract subscribers and advertisers,” the company said in its statement.

Sprint will provide the cellular network for downloading content almost anywhere, but the wireless carrier will also provide a distribution channel. Unlike the Amazon Kindle (available online only), the nook (available in Barnes & Noble) or the Sony eReader (in bookstores), the Skiff will leverage Sprint’s 1,000 phone retail outlets. Other distribution channels will be announced later, as will pricing and date of release.

Finding the right distribution mechanism for the Skiff could prove its toughest challenge. Obviously, the B&N venue would favor its own device, even if it did open itself to multiple vendors. Borders Books retail stores have been featuring the Sony devices for some time. And Skiff has no brand recognition of its own with which to build much of an online draw to an e-commerce site. Relying on a tech provider like Sprint is dubious, since wireless carriers do not have expertise in selling content-centric devices. In fact, content partners to the major carriers have long complained how poorly these tech-driven companies merchandize mobile content.

To make matters worse, all of the e-ink readers are about to be eclipsed by the relentless hype surrounding the rumored release of an Apple tablet, which many expect to be announced later this month.

Nevertheless, the march of the e-reader devices continues, with voice-recognition innovator Ray Kurzweil announcing a new color e-reader, the "Blio," today at CES.

Sit back and watch the fragmentation begin.