From Advertising Age - Full story here

Google Stocks Up on Print and Outdoor Ads for Privacy-Focused Campaign

'Good to Know' Will Run in USA Today, Wall Street Journal and The Economist

Great idea- 

Full story here

Why Not A Reverse Pay Meter?

By Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine

So try this on for size: Imagine that you pay to get access to The Times. Everyone does. You pay for one article. Or you pay $20 as a deposit so you’re not bothered every time you come. But whenever you add value to The Times, you earn a credit that delays the next bill.

»  You see ads, you get credit.
»  You click: more credit.
»  You come back often and read many pages: credit.
»  You promote The Times on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or your blog: credit. The more folks share what you’ve shared, the more credit you get.
»  You buy merchandise via Times e-commerce: credit.
»  You buy tickets to a Times event: credit.
»  You hand over data that makes you more valuable to The Times and its advertisers (e.g., revealing where you’re going on your next trip): credit.
»  You add pithy comment to articles that other readers appreciate: credit.
»  You take on tasks in crowdsourced journalistic endeavors: credit.
»  You answer a reporter’s question on Twitter and the reporter uses your information: credit.
»  You correct an error in a story: credit.
»  You give a news tip or an idea for an article The Times publishes: credit.

Maybe you never pay for The Times again because The Times has gained more value out of its relationship with you. If, on the other hand, you hardly do any of those things, then you have to pay for using The Times.

I’ve been thinking about this, too, in light of a few other trends I’ve seen with newspapers online. First, some that are trying meters are finding that very, very few readers ever hit the wall (which papers are setting at anywhere from 1 to 20 pages). That so few hit the wall is frightening. It means that most readers don’t use these sites much. That’s nothing to brag about. Engagement is criminally low. Second, I’ve seen many sites that get a surprising proportion of their traffic from out of their markets—traffic that is valueless (or even costly, in terms of bandwidth) to sites that sell only local ads. This comes from following a goal of pageviews, pageviews, pageviews—brought in with search-engine optimization—rather than valued relationships.

After hearing a few such stories, I suggested that a site with a meter might want to reward local readers by giving them more free content and charge out-of-market readers by charging them sooner.

You see, that values the local reader over the remote reader. My idea for the reverse meter values the engaged reader over the occasional reader — and even rewards greater engagement. And therein lies, I think, the key strategic skill for news businesses online: understanding that all readers are not equal; knowing who your more valuable readers are; getting more of them; and making them more valuable.

Now I’ll tell you why my reverse meter won’t work: When I spoke with all our journalism students at CUNY about their business ideas on Friday, I asked how many had hit the Times pay wall — many — and how many had paid — few. Abundance remains the enemy of payment. There’s always someplace else to get the news. The Times can make its present meter work because (a) it’s that good [the Steve Jobs exception that proves the rule], (b) it’s still sponsoring—that is, giving a free ride—to its most valuable readers, though that is supposed to end soon, and (c) its engagement is still too low and thus many readers don’t even confront the wall (that needs to change).

So never mind the idea of the reverse meter, but retain the lesson of it: Value should be encouraged, not taxed. Readers bring value to sites if the sites are smart enough to have the mechanisms to recognize, exploit, and reward that value, which comes in many forms: responding to (highly targeted and relevant) ads; buying merchandise; contributing information, content, and ideas; promoting the site….

The key strategic opportunity for news sites is relationships — deeper, more valuable relationships with more (but not too many) people. Engagement.

This post originally appeared on Jeff Jarvis’s BuzzMachine.

New York—The readers of Dow Jones & co.'s The Wall Street Journal have the highest median annual household income ($135,740) among print publications, according to Mediamark Research & Intelligence's MRI Fall 2009 report, which was released this week.

Twelve other print publications had readership with median household income above $100,000, which indicates a business-oriented audience. The other 12 are: Barron's ($126,710); The Economist ($124,701); United Hemispheres ($120,809); Washington Post Sunday ($120,400); The New York Times Sunday ($118,471); The New York Times daily ($115,816); American Way ($108,522); Condé Nast Traveler ($106,407); The Atlantic ($104,786); Southwest Spirit ($102,505); Architectural Digest ($101,159); and Yachting ($100,740).

Full story here

From today's New York Times comes this story of how newspaper web sites are having trouble attracting larger brand advertisers consistently.The reason boils down to two problems we have spoken about on this blog many times - newspaper sites are too expensive and the ability to target is poor.

Full story here.

Part of the story:

It was a good day for newspaper Web sites when Mercedes-Benz USA introduced its updated E-Class cars this summer. Mercedes bought out the ad space on the home pages of The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and had those sites create special 3-D ads for them, at an estimated cost of $100,000 a site.

The days after were not as good. While Mercedes was happy with the newspaper sites’ performance, it shifted money to cheaper, more tightly aimed ads bought through networks, which bundle ad space from many Web sites.

When Mercedes advertises its more basic models next year, it will largely avoid newspaper Web sites and rely on networks. That lets Mercedes “be very targeted and efficient with our dollars,” said Beth Lange, digital media specialist for Mercedes-Benz USA.

But that also explains why newspaper sites are not holding on to ad dollars, even while overall Internet advertising is creeping back. Newspaper sites are the patent-leather stilettos of the online world: they get used for special occasions, but other shoes get much more daily wear. The beneficiaries of this behavior are networks and exchanges like Advertising.com from AOL and DoubleClick Ad Exchange from Google, which dominate the buying and selling of extra space.

This story in the Wall Street Journal on the pressure being placed on large ad agencies by their clients to reduce fees is really worth reading, if for nothing else, because it gives some insight into the attitude many large agencies have concerning their self-importance and the value of their services. This quote in the story, sort of sums up their general attitude: "The reality is that clients want more for less," says Maurice Levy, chief executive of Paris-based Publicis. "It's something that is unfortunately becoming quite common."

What is surprising is that it took Maurice (who allegedly is an advertising professional with a pulse on what consumers in general want) this long to figure this out. Isn't more for less one of the driving forces of our economy? Wal Mart, Target and Sam's Club have done pretty well operating under this premise. Why does Maurice think that his customers want more for less when it comes to the toilet paper they buy or the clothes they wear but not when it comes to the services of Publicis? It appears that he really thinks companies should pay Publicis more just because they are Publicis. At no point in this article does anyone from any agency say that clients should pay the same or more because they are doing a better job, or driving more sales for their clients. They just believe they should make outrageous commissions because that is the way it has always been. Good luck fighting against the tide, Maurice. Maybe Maurice's dreams will come true and once the economy recovers advertisers will come to their senses and get back to the good old days where they were willing to pay more to the people with the coolest clothes, regardless of the services they provide, but I wouldn't bet my Target jeans on it.

Here is part of the Wall Street Journal story:

While ad companies have historically lagged behind in economic recoveries, this time their rebound may come even later, and be less convincing. Not only have marketers slashed what they spend on ad time and space, but many companies have also significantly reduced what they pay their agencies for ad services, such as creating TV commercials.

Ad executives say marketers have slashed the fees they pay by 5% to 30%. Some companies have even asked that fees be reduced retroactive to Jan. 1, meaning firms are paid less for work they have already completed, say two ad executives.

The New York Times says it will decide this summer whether to offer online content through a subscription model, metered model or a pay as you go micro-payment model. Full story here.

One thing is clear, it is going to start costing money to read the New York Times online. Hopefully, more publications will follow and begin charging for the content that is so expensive to produce. As we have said before, the model, so pervasive among newspapers and magazines that traffic generates revenue, isn't working.