Alert Blog Reviews

While there is always some information to discuss about how the news will be consumed via the free model online or through a myriad of paywalls another area of the news industry is changing just as rapidly. News reporting is still the domain (for the most part) of the professional journalist but the amateur news reporter is becoming more and more desired. YouTube recognizes this and is offering a service to help get the amateurs and the pros connected. The New York Times reports YouTube has signed up NPR, Politico, The Huffington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle for YouTube Direct, a new method for managing video submissions from readers. The new feature, (formally introduced) on Tuesday, is a tool to make it easy for YouTube users to submit clips that news media companies can choose to highlight. The site plans to sign up other media partners. “We’re trying to connect media organizations with citizen reporters on YouTube,” said Steve Grove, the Web site’s head of news and politics . How it works is that when a visitor goes to a one of the subscribing sites they will have the ability to upload a video to YouTube that will be flagged for review by the sites editors and powers that be. Pretty straightforward and direct. We like that. It seems like a good way to manage or even create a process that didn’t exist before or, if it was in place, was hacked together thus inefficient. With news agencies needing to cut back on staff and not being able to be in all places at all times any way this can create a new model that will be a supplement or complement to the existing news environment. Always thinking about where the next dollar is Google explains that the service is not just for the news set. YouTube also envisions uses beyond the day’s news. The site suggested in a blog post that businesses could use the tool to solicit endorsements and that politicians could “ask for user-generated political commercials.” Nice move in my opinion. Any organization that can provide some form or shape to the ‘wild west’ of user generated content will be helping everyone in the long run. What usually happens is that when you create something that actually helps people then the revenue will follow. Right, Twitter?

Continue reading here:
YouTube Helps YouReport

It seems like every month another news organization toys with the idea of charging for their content. But, we always rejoin, you’ll ultimately sacrifice your audience if you charge for news content. However, the Boston Consulting Group says that may not always be the case—in fact, even Americans are willing to pay for online news . Well, sort of. The average amount an American was willing to pay for news was $3—and not $3 a day, but $3 a month . Not exactly the profits Rupert Murdoch dreams of, is it? The survey also found that people were more willing to pay for news that was: Unique, such as local news (67 percent overall are interested; 72 percent of U.S. respondents) or specialized coverage (63 percent overall are interested; 73 percent of U.S. respondents) Timely, such as a continual news alert service (54 percent overall are interested; 61 percent of U.S. respondents) Conveniently accessible on a device of choice And good news for newspapers: “consumers are more likely to pay for online news provided by newspapers than by other media, such as television stations, Web sites, or online portals,” especially since these other media have so much free competition. Interestingly, while Americans were more likely to pay for sites that offered access to multiple papers, only national and local—not major metropolitan-based papers—have that level of appeal. (I’m not sure which category The New York Times and Washington Post fall into here.) Marc Vos, a Milan-based partner and leader of BCG’s media sector in Europe, tells newspapers that they “should be experimenting with paid online content. It will take trial and error to find what works.” The prospects aren’t so bleak everywhere. In addition to 1000 US respondents, the survey also looked at results in Germany, Australia, France, the UK, Spain, Italy, Norway, Finland. While Australians also wanted to pay only $3 (USD?) for their news, other countries saw higher rates. The New York Times said that this may be because Western Europe has more consolidated news offerings, where news in the US is a very fragmented industry. However, before Western European news sites get all excited, note that the highest amount on the survey, in Italy, was $7 a month. What do you think? What would you be willing to pay for news? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read this article:
Consumers Willing to Pay (Pennies) for News

The end of what you ask? The end of the newspaper industry? Sure, why not? That’s an easy one and we talk about that probably way too much. The end of free content? Now we’re getting warmer. Earlier this week we told of Rupert Murdoch’s master plan (or is that disastrous plan?) to remove his News Corp. content from the search engines like Google. That’s pretty big talk. Crazy talk possibly but big talk nonetheless. So do you just make that kind of threat then wait and see or do you then draw the line in the sand? You know, set a date as to when this grand gesture will occur. Well, let’s not get totally crazy or at least clear on that one. That smells too much like reality. So what am I driving at here? It’s the continued blustering of News Corp. about pay for content models. Now, they are talking about a sort of uprising that they will lead so that all media outlets will follow. The Telegraph reports Jonathan Miller, News Corp’s chief digital officer, said the media mogul was ready to block Google’s access to his sites soon and that the company would lead the media industry in this direction. “There is real tension surrounding the free versus pay debate,” Mr Miller told the Monaco Media Forum on Friday. “It will play out in the next two years. We believe that the value of high quality content is not recognised online [by giving its away for free) so something needs to happen. “I don’t believe the media industry can continue to exist in this way.” Soon. Well, that’s definitive. In an attempt to further clarify this threat of a pitchfork and torch uprising by the media industry Mr. Miller then gave the ominous threat of when this will all hit the fan. When asked how long it would be before Mr Murdoch took the step to block Google, which every media company relies upon to send them high levels of web traffic, Mr Miller said it would be soon – “months and quarters – not weeks” Pack up the plantation! They're going to remove themselves from the search engines in a couple of months or maybe like 6 or 9 or 12 months. I don’t know. Do you? Are you worried yet? Even Murdoch himself is back-pedaling on his own claims about when this grand gesture might / may take place. Last week Mr Murdoch warned that his plans to charge for access to content across all of his newspaper sites, by the end of next June, could now be delayed. During a conference call to discuss News Corp first quarter financial results, the media magnate said he couldn’t promise to meet his own deadline – but did say it remained a work in progress and “we are all working very hard” on delivering the pay solution. Oh for Pete’s sake! This is sounding more and more like the ramblings of a mad man than anything else. Why would you rile up the biggest boon to traffic that any news site has then be wishy-washy on the details and even throw into doubt if they have the nerve or, even worse, the backing of the rest of the media industry to pull this off? Also, in all of this talk they are confusing people about pay walls and search engine access. Will that happen together? Are they all part of the same plan? Here’s the final piece that is interesting. News Corp. is even calling out the quality of the traffic that comes from the engines as inferior because it may be one time visitors. Excuse me? What if that one time visitor actually had never expressed real interest in your publication but through the engines landed at your site and thought “Hey, not bad. I’m gonna keep coming back.”? This quote from Miller says a lot “The traffic which comes in from Google brings a consumer who more often than not read one article and then leaves the site. That is the least valuable of traffic to us… the economic impact [of not having content indexed by Google] is not as great as you might think. You can survive without it.” Ok, if you can survive without it then just do it already. Well, that wouldn’t be prudent now would it. However, Mr Miller admitted News Corporation could not make the bold step alone but was prepared to lead other media companies in this direction. “We will lead. There is a pent up need for this. There has to be a resolution for the free versus pay debate otherwise we cannot afford to pay for things like news bureaus in Kabul.” Looks to me like this whole thing is just keeping News Corp. in the news because there may not be any real news here since there is no plan and no definition coupled with vague threats and dates of even more vague threats. I say do it and let’s see what happens. There’s no way to predict how this will play out and some game of cat and mouse will just tick off more people than it’s worth. As Henry Rollins shouted years ago “Don’t think about it …. Do it!” Amen. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Visit link:
News Corp. Getting Ready to Get Ready

If you were the folks at Twitter and you are talking about offering commercial level services that are going to eventually generate the mythical revenue that everyone is yapping about wouldn’t hate to hear about enterprise unrest among the ranks? The issue of Twitter account squatting is nothing new. There has also been little mention of it in the news as of late. I actually made the mistake to think that maybe Twitter took control and really started to crack down on the practice. Apparently not. AdAge is reporting that Twitter is in the process of ticking off more than a few of the hands that might feed them in the future. Of course, Twitter may now be in the position to tell anyone, paying now or possibly later, for their services that they will just have to wait until Twitter is good and ready. While the argument exists that they are truly that powerful it would be a shame that if they used that power as an excuse to ignore the needs of corporate clients. AdAge reports On Twitter’s @Hyundai page, there is a collection of 140-character blasts in English and Korean about oysters, cellphones and the Yankees. Clicking on a profile photo reveals a collage of scantily clad ladies bearing cleavage and more, and a caption saying, “Have a Lustful Day.” This kind of stuff leaves the folks at Hyundai Motor America less than thrilled After having contacted the social-media site’s headquarters repeatedly to evict the squatter without success, the frustrated automaker has gone so far as to contemplate legal action. “They simply haven’t responded to requests,” said Chris Hosford, VP-corporate communications at Hyundai Motor America. “Our brand name is extremely important to us. … We’re very disappointed that Twitter has shown no interest in protecting brand names.” Unable to use the handle, the company has resorted to sending out official company tweets from @HyundaiNews. Ughh. The L word. No not that one you sick person but L for “legal”. Last thing any start up needs is the fun and games of legal issues to get in the way of putting together a better service and offering. The article talks in greater detail about how celebrities have been afforded special badges but the corporate side of the ledger (you remember, the one that could make money) is left to fend for themselves for now. Twitter’s policies are there but there is no guarantee of remedy in a timely fashion so some companies are left to get creative. Of course, one could argue that a big brand being late to the game and not securing these names years ago is on the company. There are two sides to every coin, after all. So what is Twitter doing, if anything? Twitter’s head of commercial products, Anamitra Banerji, said, “We understand brands’ frustration when it comes to account verification. We are working on ways to make the process easier and faster …. Given the volume of requests we receive, sometimes it might take a little while to close requests but we are trying to improve that too.” The social-media service, he said, is “[working] with business owners extensively to ensure that they own their trademarks/brand names on Twitter as our terms of service doesn’t allow name-squatting or impersonation.” Ahh yes. The old volume of requests complaint. That one might have worked when Twitter was the little start up that could but the recent influx of investmen t takes the air right out of that argument. HIRE SOME PEOPLE, TWITTER! So it’s interesting to see that not everyone is bent out of shape on this issue Not all marketers are ruffled, though. Pfizer doesn’t own the handle @Pfizer, and a mystery tweeter is regularity tweeting updates about the company. Ray Kerins, VP-worldwide communications at Pfizer, told Ad Age that the company isn’t planning to take any action. “We are obviously watching any site that discusses our company or our products,” Mr. Kerins said. “We’re going to continue to watch. These social communities are actually very self-policing.” Wow, now there is either great confidence in the ability of people to keep the street clean or a level of naiveté that will end up badly when the next brand firestorm comes up for Pfizer and the fake account is at the center of it. Maybe the folks who make Viagra are suffering from one of those side effects than impair judgment. Just a thought. What’s your experience with getting Twitter to help in these situations? Should Twitter care? Happy Monday Pilgrims, let’s hear it!

Read the original:
Twitter and Some Brands Not Getting Along

We could spend all day every day telling you about the latest and greatest flame out in the traditional media world. Every day a newspaper or magazine or some other bastion of the “old world media order” goes away but that gets kind of old. I would even go so far as to say that we on the online side of the world have gotten a little cocky and maybe receive a little too much joy from the tumble of the old media outlets. As a result it is possible that we clump all of these properties together and make a broad (and likely incorrect) assumption that eventually there will be no room at all for the traditional delivery of newspapers and magazines because everyone and everything will be online only. Not so fast says the new owners of BusinessWeek magazine, Bloomberg LP. Fresh off their namesake’s election for a third term as New York City mayor (congrats to Mayor Bloomberg) the company has announced some plans for the magazine that has a very unique place in the business and marketing world. Mediaweek reports Bloomberg’s chief content officer Norman Pearlstine revealed the plans for BusinessWeek’s future direction during an employee meeting Nov. 3. He said that Bloomberg would increase the number of pages in the magazine, upgrade the paper stock, double the story count and expand its global coverage, according to a source who was present. That’s not a “shrinking violet” approach by any means. While it remains to be seen how such an aggressive expansion of a traditional magazine will play out I think it may be a good move. Many who read the magazine have been slower to adopt the ‘online only’ mentality. In other words, they are older readers but who have money and influence so they are still very desirable. Sure they won’t live forever and eventually the printed version may have to go away but why ignore the market now just because everyone and their brother proclaims the death of the printed word every day? Is it possible that pundits may actually be wrong or at least a bit over zealous? Oh dear, not that! What about the online side of the ledger? It’ll be there and it will be a mix of the old ‘free content’ model and the new ‘pay wall’ approach. As for the Web, Bloomberg plans to keep most of its content free while creating deep, vertical content areas that paying users could access for roughly $100 a year. Sounds like a smart idea. Cover all of your bases. Make hay while the sun is shining. If done correctly traditional media outlets have more opportunities for revenue than ever before albeit a potentially short window of opportunity to take advantage of several delivery options due to the disparate make up of today’s business news consumer. The final indication that Bloomberg sees opportunity is the tact of actually charging MORE for the magazine subscription and adding Bloomberg to the magazine’s title. I have to admit that I think that this may be one of the few traditional titles that could pull this off while establishing itself in a high end market that marketers will love whether it’s in print or online or both. I am looking forward to seeing the new BusinessWeek and watching this model go up against the News Corp.’s ‘pay for it all’ mentality. Who do you think will win or is there room for both?

The rest is here:
Don’t Stick a Fork in All Traditional Media – It Ain’t Done Yet

Imagine just a few short years ago what a headline like this may draw out from the newspaper industry and newspaper readers alike. The shock of such a claim would be the first reaction followed by the naysayers that would predict the rapid decline and fall of the newspaper company silly enough to make such a move. Welcome to 2009. The newspaper industry is a shambles and no one is able to cover up the fact anymore. Online delivery of news and media of all sorts has changed the way consumers obtain and ingest the news. As a result the delivery is changing. In a way, it’s like a huge media train wreck that has people doing and saying things never imagined before. Are you shocked, though? Desperate times call for desperate measures and it looks like the Tribune Co. newspapers are ready to at least experiment with an idea that was unfathomable until recently. No AP news wire service for the week of Nov. 8. The Chicago Tribune and other Tribune Co. newspapers plan to utilize as little content from the Associated Press as practical during the week of Nov. 8. The goal, as the papers review costs and needs, is to see whether severing ties with the news cooperative next fall is a viable option, the Chicago-based media company confirmed Monday. The trial is scheduled to be conducted almost 13 months after Tribune Co. gave the AP a required two-year warning that it might drop the news service, effective Oct. 15, 2010. Tribune Co. said at the time that it was keeping its options open while weighing what role, if any, the AP would play in its future. While it’s not a complete removal of AP sources for material this is very dramatic considering how the news business has traditionally worked seemingly forever. So where are they getting their news from you ask? Is it all going to fall on the Tribune and its paired down staff? The short answer is no. Besides the content provided by the staff of its own titles, Tribune Co. newspapers will draw from such news sources as Reuters, the Washington Post, New York Times, Agence France Presse, Cable News Network, Global Post, Bloomberg and McClatchy newspapers during its AP-less trial. Not all of those sources are normally available to Tribune Co. papers. How does the AP feel? They’re not really letting on with statements like this one. “The Associated Press has been working with all members of the cooperative, including Tribune Co., to ensure that the AP news report retains its value to member newspapers and their readers,” AP spokesman Paul Colford said in a statement. If you read through the comment thread of this article you will find some pretty dissatisfied tribune readers with the current state of the paper so maybe the Tribune Co. figures it can’t get any worse. Or can it? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Link:
Tribune Co. Papers Set to Go Almost AP-less For Trial

I am still rubbing my eyes to see if this is one of those sleep-deprived, delusional, mirage type things that can play tricks with you. Nope, it’s real but you don’t need to peel back too many layers on this one to see that the newspaper side of the Washington Post Co.’s business is actually keeping that number lower. At least you can think that the paper can be propped up by the other media holdings for the time being. In a bit of irony it’s the New York Times that reports The company, which owns Newsweek magazine, Kaplan education services and television properties along with its namesake newspaper, said Friday it earned $17.1 million, or $1.81 per share. That compares with net income of $10.1 million, or $1.08 per share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue climbed 2 percent to $1.15 billion. The newspaper division, which includes the Post, The Daily Herald in Everett, Wash., and dozens of local weeklies, whittled its operating losses through buyouts and cost-cutting to $23.6 million, down from $82.7 million a year ago. So at least the Washington Post newspaper is cutting back on its losses. That’s good in a backwards kinda way isn’t it? This ‘positive’ movement did happen despite a steeper than expected 28% decrease in advertising revenue for the quarter. Industry wide the news continues to play like a cheap Halloween horror movie with the carnage still happening at a rapid pace and no real end in site for the grisly results. The Post’s decline was comparable to what has been reported by other big publishers — which also have managed to improve earnings by cutting labor and other expenses. The New York Times Co.’s advertising revenue plunged 27 percent in the most recent quarter. Ad revenue in Gannett Co.’s publishing division, which includes USA Today and more than 80 other newspapers, dropped 28 percent. So it looks like the best way to survive as a newspaper is to be part of a company that is diversified. If you are a newspaper only organization or the dependence on revenue is heavily weighted toward newspaper holdings the news is still grim. In a near throwaway line fro the Times, the story gets even darker since the idea that being online as a newspaper will ensure survival is not a sure thing at all. The Post Co.’s newspaper Web revenue, which comes mainly from Washingtonpost.com, also stalled. It fell 18 percent after showing a 9 percent decline in the previous quarter. They call that a stall? I call it a call for the lifeboats. Two consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy defines a recession so this indicator is that even the online side of the newspaper business is not going well at all. If that goes south as well as the print editions then what else is there? Nothing. Well, I like reading a paper in the right circumstances as much as the next guy but I wonder when the day comes that there won’t be one to buy and read? Any fortune tellers out there? Gotta a date for the end of the newspaper era?

Read more from the original source:
Washington Post Co. Posts a 69% Increase in Profits