Brian Rich of Forbes thinks so:

"I would argue that with an appropriate capital structure, conventional media can take advantage of its brand, content and reach to dramatically expand into digital. Many of the existing “Web 2.0" business models are even weaker, even in the long term, than those of traditional media. Online advertising prices are extremely low, particularly for non-name brand Internet properties. Most Internet companies are alive only because they are propped up by cheap venture capital financing that is in the process of drying up. On a straight up basis, a traditional media company with a strong brand and digital product should be able to out-compete all but the best Internet-only companies. In the past, traditional media companies were weak online out of fear of cannibalizing the offline revenue and cash flow that sustained their valuations and debt loads. They will soon have a great deal less to lose, likely under fresh ownership and management. It's time for traditional media to rise up and exact its revenge."

Ad Age on "Why Forbes, Fortune Really Hope BusinessWeek Fetches More Than TV Guide Did:"

For all the challenges in the credit market, not to mention the tens of millions of dollars BusinessWeek is said to be losing, its competitors had better hope it can fetch a lot more than a lone greenback. Both Forbes and Fortune are profitable, but a token dollar transaction for their competitor would represent a vote of very little confidence in the future of their category.

That's because, despite specific circumstances that helped BusinessWeek slide into the red, they're all facing pretty much the same questions: If ad-page sales don't regain their old momentum, how well can they make digital compensate? Can they continue to meet the needs, and capture the dollars, of their particular advertisers, who are changing pretty rapidly themselves? What will be their story after the recession ends?

"Offline those brands have an opportunity to be around for some time, but I think they'll be smaller and smaller offline, while online they can be bigger and bigger," said Forbes.com CEO Jim Spanfeller last Thursday, following the news last week that he was leaving after nine years.

"Any business title that is not drawing most of its revenue from digital within, say, three years will most likely not be in business," he added later. "Even with a recovery, I simply do not see huge ad revenues coming back to print."

The last 20 years have been tough for print, in large part because print outlets have failed to become early-adapters to new technology. So, here is a new technology with the promise of solving a fundamental problem in newspapers and magazines - measuring response. Publications should welcome and embrace 2-D bar codes. At Mediabids, we have. We believe they will revolutionize how print ads are placed and even paid for.

Here is a good description from the most recent Forbes:

The codes, which are sometimes called QR codes for "quick response," are a sibling technology to the familiar bar codes found on product packaging. 2-D bar codes, however, store data in two dimensions, letting them stash more data than regular bar codes, including information like Web site and e-mail addresses.

Here's how it works: People scan or "snap" the codes with a cellphone camera. The phone's browser then activates and is automatically directed to a designated Web site linked to the code.

Though popular in Japan, where they are viewed as a simple way to pay bills and download videos, 2-D bar codes remain a very niche technology in the U.S.

Informative story in Forbes this week on the Yahoo newspaper consortium. Points out some issues we have addressed in this blog before - is this really the best deal newspapers can get? Excerpt below. Full story here.

In exchange for access to Yahoo!'s ad inventory, papers turn over half of the revenue from ads they sell on the portal. Since joining the consortium, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution expanded its local reach, the proportion of the regional population who hit its Web site in a month, from 15% to 85%, Yahoo! says. The Evansville Courier Press, an Indiana daily with a circulation of 60,000, sold $1.1 million in Yahoo! ads in a week-long "sales blitz." Yahoo! won't discuss the specifics of the revenue-sharing agreement, but newspaper partners confirmed the 50-50 arrangement.

But the partnership could have an even bigger cost for newspapers. In the offline world, newspapers have traditionally dominated advertising sales to local businesses like retailers, car dealerships and supermarkets. By introducing their local advertisers to Yahoo!, newspapers run the risk of turning over their best customers to a digital powerhouse as they try to rebuild their own businesses online.

At Mediabids, we are in a similar business. Granted, there are structural differences between selling display ads like Mediabids does and selling online advertising but splitting the revenue 50-50 seems like a very high price to pay for the right to sell on behalf of Yahoo. Newspapers have an unparralled salesforce- no one else does as comprehensive a job reaching local merchants. They should get more.

And has the increased reach among local markets helped inflate the rates publications can get on their own for ads on their websites? Or has the increased inventory diluted the value of the product and decreased the overall prices?

Side note: it would be extremely interesting to see what the rate of renewal among advertisers who buy into Yahoo via newspapers will be. My prediction - it won't be good.