Go to Dailyabuse.com

Newspaper websites make most of their money based on pageviews as well as how many unique visitors they get. A paywall would significantly reduce those numbers.

Online subscribers revenue will never grow or offset what papers have already lost. The strategy behind paywalls are often about retention of print subscribers more then it is new online revenue. In my opinion the amount of money that will come from subscribers online will not offset what is lost from the reduction in page views.

With the growing number of quality (neighborhood) bloggers, the use of location aware news services that are already starting to spring up. Then look at growing number of local competitors and sites like (AOL owned) Patch.com. This equals more and more places to find local content that might be “good enough”.

A good percentage of newspaper traffic comes from search (Sometime as much as half). More and more people start their search for news at google, msn or yahoo. One of the reasons is Newspapers have always had very poor search engines. The engines are already ranking AP and twitter very high. Soon they will start surfacing geo located news.

Yahoo is has received some slack from their Newspaper partners because they have been ranking Facebook content higher.  A major unnamed search engine is threatening to rank Pay wall news content much lower. It would take every newspaper in the country to bind together and fight this search engine. Hell will freeze over before you get all newspapers to agree.

All of these combined make me a scary fight against paid content. I do think there are paid strategies that will work but not the ones I’m hearing discussed.

/JustinMakler.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• 2010: The Year The Paywall Comes Down (revenews.com)
• Yusuf Mehdi’s Too-Candid Comments About Abandoning the Long Tail (domainmacher.com)
• Facebook Yanks #2 Spot from Yahoo (marketingvox.com)
• News Corp unveils pay-wall details for The Times online (v3.co.uk)
• Memo To News Sites: There Is No Future In ‘Digital Razzle Dazzle’ (contentsutra.com)
• Yahoo Wants Local Display Dollars (marketingpilgrim.com)

2009 is a year that most of us want to block out of our minds forever?

If we look at the past four years of Newspaper print advertising you will see a 47% decline ($47 Billion to $24 Billion). The year 2009 was the worst since the Great Depression, Magazines have seen major declines as well. 2010 is looking to be a much better year already. However, there still seems to be no hope of a total rebound.

Now more than ever Newspapers and Magazines are turning towards interactive media to offset the lost revenue. However, most are still using the old-school traditional revenue models that got them into the predicament in the first place.

Take a leader in the industry like the Wall Street Journal. They carried over the traditional print model over to the iPad. Look below at the price breakdown. Does this really make sense?

Wall Street Journal charges:

• $8.62 a week for www.Wsj.com
• $11.66 a month for a print subscription that is delivered to your door.
• $18 a month is what they are planning to charge for the iPad edition. I sure hope it comes with some buzz and whistles for that price.

My point of view: 10 things to consider

1. iPhone and iPad apps offer new revenue streams, but they will not save the industry. At least not anytime soon so don’t focus exclusively on them to the point where you drop what has been working.
2. Local newspapers should not be following in the tail lights of the Financial Times, the New York Times or the Wall Street. Their models will not transfer to a local Newspaper.
3. Forget what you know, it’s not working. Look towards sites outside of Newspaper industry to find revenue models that work.
4. Don’t forget about mobile. Very few Newspapers or Magazines offer a worthwhile product on traditional mobile devices, smart phones/iPhone. These are established mediums that reach mass audience today.
5. Don’t bank on one eReader device. Figure out ways to be device agnostic. Focusing on exclusively on one over the other might leave you behind. This should not be about Betamax or VHS.
6. Do not try to focus on every new eReader. Have your content and advertising in an agnostic format so that it can be delivered to any device with some help from the tech guys. - Today most Newspapers/Magazines produce and store their content in ways that makes it very hard to deliver to any device or b2b partner.
7. Focus on high value content/exclusive content. Trying to be to general with your content no longer works.
8. Web, Print eReaders should all cross promote each other. Each should have unique pieces. Pumping the same content in each will only make them compete with each other.
9. There is good and there is good enough. Know the difference because while you are tweaking a product to perfection, someone else is already out there making money.
10. STOP focusing on walled gardens. Do focus on exclusive paid products.

Why not try something different?

I don’t have the answers but I do have some ideas that people who are smarter than me should consider, tweak and try. Below are a few paid product ideas versus a true walled garden model.

6 Paid models that should be considered

1. Offering content that is highly targeted for the end user. Versus what they get in print or can find somewhere else online for free.
2. Warning radical idea: Why not offer a free eReader with a 2 year subscription that offsets the cost of the reader, maybe it even comes with a Sunday print edition. – Worked for cable and satellite companies.
3. Offer a product with exclusive content* and offer a high end eReader experience that people would pay for.
4. Have a free product that teases highly exclusive content/niche content with more bells and whistles for a small monthly fee or a onetime fee.
5. Free version but some of the exclusive content* has been embargoed. The free user will still get 100% of the content but select pieces have been held back for a few days.
6. Free product is only updated once a day or maybe think about day parting again. Upgrade the paid product and you will get it 3 hours earlier and up to the minute updates.

*Exclusive content means: Original content that can’t be found on the web for free.

More soon, next I want to talk about Advertising.

/justinmakler.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Does the Future Hold for Newspapers? (gigaom.com)
• Wall Street Journal App for iPad Confirmed (mashable.com)
• The Times’s paywall move does not begin to tackle the wider challenge (guardian.co.uk)
• Top British newspapers to charge for online content (computerworld.com)
• Print Publications Still Hallucinating That The iPad Will Save Their Asses (businessinsider.com)
• Financial Times’ iPad App Will Be Free For Two Months — And Then $190 A Year (businessinsider.com)
• WSJ iPad Pricing Model Is Bad News (themoderatevoice.com)
• How Not to Price an iPad Newspaper (slog.thestranger.com)
• iPad Wall Street Journal Subscriptions Priced at $17.99 a Month (appscout.com)

A lot of media companies are focusing all their efforts on iPad and iPhone development. Maybe they should be looking at ways of doing cross platform development (there are a few new promising tools out ther).

Today Neofonie is introducing the WePad, a German-made unit that promises “fast Internet connectivity, a complete world of ready-to-use applications and easy access to books and photos, as well as magazines and newspapers from various publishers via the WeMagazine ePublishing Eco System.

More info:
The WePad supports Adobe Flash/Adobe Air, all android applications, it multitasks, 2 USB ports, built in speakers, has a 2 Meg webcam, flash card reader, 6 hours of battery life and has a “WeMagazine publishing ecosystem”

More info for the geeks:
A screen of 11.6 inches (1366 x 768), an Intel Atom N450 at 1.66 GHz, GMA 3150, microfan for cooling, memory of 16 GB NAND Flash (or 32 GB internal + 32 GB optional SD card), a 2 Meg webcam, two USB ports, flash card reader, a UMTS modem, 3G, blue tooth and six hours of battery life.

My quick thoughts on the product

Both good and bad:

• It’s not Apple – No matter if you like Apple or not, you can’t deny their ability to create good interfaces and devices that don’t feel like something built in a offshore sweet shop.

The bad:

Related articles

• Android-powered Neofonie WePad Tablet (ubergizmo.com)
• Apple iPad? The Germans Have Other Ideas (techcrunch.com)
• iPad alternatives (computerworld.com)
• HP to Take On iPad (web2.sys-con.com)

First it was SEO, then SEM, now they tell me I have to worry about TP (Tweet Popularity)

This could mean that those already very popular to become even more so. Looking at the top 10 based on followers, following and Tweets I get a little worried that the news I get will come from the likes of Lady Gaga, Britney Spears and the Kardashians. Can we all yell, YIKES!

1.Ashton Kutcher
2.Britney Spears
3.The Ellen Show
4.Barack Obama
5.Oprah
6.Lady Gaga
7.Kim Kardashian
8.John Mayer
9.Ryan Seacrest
and number ten CNN – Thank goodness at least one non celebrity made it on this list. Also glad to see our President to make it even if it’s between Ellen and Oprah.

With that said, I’m sure Twitter will configure it as a way to sort the search results and not change what they were founded on, reatltime.

TheNextWeb.com brings up two very interesting questions, :Would people who originally tweeted something be given more importance than the popular account that retweeted that original tweet?“ and “Would the domain of the URLs within the tweet play a role in measuring tweet importance?“

The thing I can’t get past is that Twitter has always been about “realtime search” and ordered by time stamp. Google is about popularity and already does this with the Twitter posts (they do this by one of their secret algorithms.) Twitter will really have to think through how they introduce popularity ranking into their search so not to confuse their mainstream users or to diminish what they built their reputation on.

Why would one want to see Twitter sorted by popularity? – With over 30 Million posts a day it’s hard to find the worthy from the worthless. 30M is a lot of noise to sort through.

A lot of the comments coming in on the story discount the Twitter search all together. When posting about a trending topic I find Twitter search to be a significant driver of traffic/retweets and new followers.

Recently I tested this with a brand new Twitter account. I created on the morning of the Oscars and started tweeting during the pre-show. I tweeted about the event in realtime and included as many actors names and pictures as I was able to find. By the end of the night I had 220 followers, I had picked up on 18 trackers and had 119 retweets. How did these people find me? Search!

The competition to improve in the official popularity rankings will likely have the same effect that publicly displaying follower numbers—competition and ego-boosting will ensure even more rabid use of the service.

What does it mean to foundational media companies? It means that if you don’t start growing you Twitter presence and taking it seriously, that it will become more and more difficult to be the authoritative voice source in the Twitter realm. – Sure you can build a strong following with your own brand and billboard promotion, but getting new eyeballs is what the game is all about.

/JustinMakler.com

Story shortlink: http://wp.me/pOR8I-7C

Related articles by Zemanta

• Twitter Search Results to Show Popular Tweets On Top (Jennifer Van Grove/Mashable!) (techmeme.com)
• 140 Reasons We Love Twitter (mashable.com)
• Twitter Search Is About Popularity (readwriteweb.com)
• Twitter is a Great Service, if it Weren’t for Twitter Problems (entrepreneurideasclub.com)
• 7 Insanely Useful Ways to Search Twitter for Marketing (ducttapemarketing.com)
• Twitter to rank “most popular” tweets (vator.tv)
• Twitter Search Results to Show Popular Tweets On Top (mashable.com)

Are the Buzz ‘ards circling?

Twitter has been announcing a new deal just about every Monday since the begging of the year. They are growing at a pace that is just staggering, but are they growing to fast?

As Twitter grows in popularity will they be able to keep up with the technology to support it. Server capacity hasn’t been the only issue, mis-directed tweets and phishing scams have also been plaguing the system recently.

I think the two are very different tools and there is a need for both. Buzz is for crowd sourcing/feedback and twitter is where I call out to all my home boyz and tell them where the party is at.

BTW: It’s been pointed out to me that Buzz was down this previous weekend. I was out of town and hadn’t heard that. Still catching up on my large buzz stream.

Screen shots taken tonight at 11:33 PM

/justinmakler.com

These are the questions on everyones mind. However, I think the big issue is how will Twitter pull this off without pissing off their diehard users. Will this be seen as another corporate sellout or a job well done?

Not all the details are in but here are a few things we do know.

• You won’t see the ads in your twitter stream, they will only show up in search.
• Ads will be tied to Twitter searches, in the same way that Google did their original ads. Searching for a, “Plasma”, may generate an ad for a Sony Bravia.
• The ads will keep the same Twitter-140 or fewer characters and will be distributed via the third-party software and services that use Twitter’sAPI.
• The services will have the option of displaying the ads, and Twitter will share revenue with those that do.
• Twitter will work with ad agencies and buyers to seed the program, but plans on moving to a self-serve model like Google’s, down the road.

What we still can’t wait to know.

• Twitter search leaves a lot to be desired. Can Will Twitter refine search or maybe get a partner like Yahoo or Google to help them more useful to users?
• Google’s ads work because Google knows users’ intent and identity. Twitter knows so much less about its users.
• Will they ever be able to gather enough data to make its targeting more meaningful?
• And the number one question on everyones mind. How will advertisers buy and price the ads? Will they use a Google-like model and look at cost-per-click something else.

/justin

Related articles

• Details of Twitter Ad Platform Emerge (readwriteweb.com)
• A joke of a deal – Yahoo Twitter Integration ! (trak.in)
• Yahoo! is the latest to integrate with Twitter (browsermedia.co.uk)
• Details: Twitter’s Impending Ad Platform (mashable.com)
• Yahoo! turns! Twitter! firehouse! on! self! (go.theregister.com)
• Details: Twitter’s Impending Ad Platform (mashable.com)
• Twitter Plans Search Ads Like Google’s (wired.com)
• Details of Twitter Ad Platform Emerge (readwriteweb.com)

This has been something I have been ranting about since the launch of Buzz as you may have noticed. Buzz is not trying to be a Twitter, and neither of them are trying to be a Facebook. Only if we could get the press to stop making the comparison.

Full Story: http://www.activatedmedia.com/144845/how-weve-decided-to-use-buzz/

Related articles

• The Updating NYE Blog Post… (leftofsean.com)

The Twitter deal with Yahoo is similar to the deal that they struck with Facebook a while back. It’ definitely more interesting than the the Twitter search partnerships with Google and Bing.

1. Ability to update status/ view updates from your followers from Yahoo: This means that Yahoo will become your Twitter client, allowing you to update your status from multiple locations on Yahoo.
2. Yahoo Search and media integration: Public Twitter updates will be integrated throughout Yahoo Search, News, Finance and Entertainment.Yahoo will have full access to the Twitter data firehose, which means real-time updates in Yahoo Search, among other integrations. Goal is to improve relevancy, freshness and search results, and drive user engagement.
3. This means that Yahoo most likely will become most peoples Twitter destination and this makes Twitter become more of a function.Yahoo will be rolling out the first phase “immediately,” that will include the real-time search integration.
4. As for the other integrations, they will launch later this year.

Wonder what Msft’s Bing has in the works, their due for a “one-up”.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/02/24/yahoo-joins-with-twitter/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Details: The Yahoo-Twitter Partnership (mashable.com)
• Yahoo partners with Twitter to share the feed (vator.tv)
• Yahoo! and Twitter strike content-sharing deal (cnn.com)
• Twitter Coming to Yahoo Search, Other Properties (appscout.com)
• Yahoo! and Twitter give wings to your social world (ycorpblog.com)
• Tweets come to Yahoo search results and portals (arstechnica.com)
• Yahoo and Twitter Announce Partnership (marketingpilgrim.com)
• Yahoo and Twitter Are In Relationship (mwd.com)

Smart move or certain death?

The AP has made a move to link most of their Twitter updates into full stories being hosted on their Facebook Fan Page. It’s definitely not an SEO strategy but it could be a strategy to grow their online community?

Why would anyone do this?

They already has their content on Google which prevents any real traffic coming from Google to their own site. A failed SEO as a lot of the comments on Tech Crunch suggest. Using the power of Twitter to send people into the strongest social network we know seems like a great way to grow an engaged community. Facebook can be a great viral marketing tool if used correctly. When a FB user comments on a story, all there whole social network is notified. Thus growing the possible of growing their fan base which today looks to be 9,618. It will be interesting to watch to see if this works for them.

A lot of users can’t understand why they just don’t add comments and social media into their own site, or why not just use Facebook connect. The simple answer is that it would never drive the same amount of eyeballs that a Twitter/Facebook combo would. Facebook does drive traffic to ones site, but it drives even more traffic within their walls. If I was the AP I would push my Twitter type links to as many social networks as I can. I think people are confused by a strategy like this because it’s not one that revolves around www.MySite.com. It’s bringing the conversation to the people and not waiting for them to come to you.

Update February 23rd: Within 24 hours the AP has gotten 400 new “friends”. This is a pretty good 24 hour bump if you ask me.

At least this is my take on the situation. - Justin Makler

Quantcast has the AP at 8.1M unique visits & Facebook is at 124M. – Jan 2009

http://twitter.com/AP

http://www.facebook.com/APNews

The Shortlink: http://wp.me/pOR8I-6G

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google: Buzz not a Twitter or Facebook killer (slyvisions.com)
• What Do People Ask Their Social Networks? (gigaom.com)
• Google: Buzz isn’t competing with Facebook (vator.tv)
• What social media guidelines say about your company (socialmediatoday.com)