Ever vigilant for hypocrisy in our modern era, the iconic Matt Drudge has done it again. He's got a link on his home page titled:
Blizzard Rearranges Announcement of Feds New Global Warming Office...
which links to this story on The Wall Street Journal's Web site:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/08/noaa-blizzard-rearranges-climate-change-announcement/
This is classic Matt Drudge and classic Drudge Report. Thanks, Matt, for keeping us sane.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Pax Venditum
Advertising peace
On today's Drudge Report, there's a link to a story about Newsday's efforts to sell subscriptions to its content on the Web, here. I don't know the full background of the story, but the gist of the article is that after three months, only 35 subscriptions were sold, traffic to the site is said to have plummeted, and with that drop in traffic it's fair to assume that the online ad revenues have fallen off as well because most advertisers are buying on CPM models.
To be fair, there's not a lot of information from Newsday, so they may be doing very well, and if so, that's great news, and they should be commended. There's not much discussion of Newsday's strategy in the article, either, so we are likely missing some pretty important information which could indicate that Newsday is succeeding.
Newsday, which has a tremendous reputation and is highly regarded, is not the subject of this posting; the ad-supported model vs. the subscription model is.
This story reminded me of how often we see a wave of this type of thinking in the online content world. Every few years, publishers start talking about how they're going to charge for access to their content, assuming that their traffic won't be tremendously affected, and that the combination of retained ad sales and new subscriber revenues will bolster their fortunes.
Well, then.
The Newsday example, if accurately reported in the New York Observer, once again proves that Web users are not interested in paying for most content. They know that they can find most any news or information for free on the Web. Why would someone pay for access to AP news on one site when they can get it for free on another?
I'm also reminded of my days in print publishing in which the publishers treated the ad sales business, and our clients, like second class citizens. I understand a lot of that had to do with lack of knowledge and weak experience, but it was definitely symbolic of the love/hate relationship between content providers and advertisers.
At some point, content providers need to make peace with the fact that it's okay to have advertising on their site. Some users are going to scream that they absolutely cannot read anything on a site because of that holy-awful 180x150 ad for--heaven forbid!--Taco Bell, and that they'll never, ever, ever visit the site ever again because of it. And they'll probably add an insult to the publisher's parents in their unsigned, anonymous email deploring the ads on the site.
But publishers have to keep in mind...these visitors aren't paying for the content, and if you ask them to pay in exchange for not showing ads, they're unlikely to take you up on the offer. If a user is that sensitive to advertising, maybe they need far more help in other, more profound ways, than by having a publisher switch their entire business model away from advertising supported content, to a paid subsciption model which has been proven time and again to not work.
I totally agree that there are some bad advertisements and some bad advertisers in the field, no doubt.
But on the whole, it's time to make peace with the ad-supported content model.
Let's be grand and call it "Pax Venditum" (Advertising Peace).
You read it here, first.
On today's Drudge Report, there's a link to a story about Newsday's efforts to sell subscriptions to its content on the Web, here. I don't know the full background of the story, but the gist of the article is that after three months, only 35 subscriptions were sold, traffic to the site is said to have plummeted, and with that drop in traffic it's fair to assume that the online ad revenues have fallen off as well because most advertisers are buying on CPM models.
To be fair, there's not a lot of information from Newsday, so they may be doing very well, and if so, that's great news, and they should be commended. There's not much discussion of Newsday's strategy in the article, either, so we are likely missing some pretty important information which could indicate that Newsday is succeeding.
Newsday, which has a tremendous reputation and is highly regarded, is not the subject of this posting; the ad-supported model vs. the subscription model is.
This story reminded me of how often we see a wave of this type of thinking in the online content world. Every few years, publishers start talking about how they're going to charge for access to their content, assuming that their traffic won't be tremendously affected, and that the combination of retained ad sales and new subscriber revenues will bolster their fortunes.
Well, then.
The Newsday example, if accurately reported in the New York Observer, once again proves that Web users are not interested in paying for most content. They know that they can find most any news or information for free on the Web. Why would someone pay for access to AP news on one site when they can get it for free on another?
I'm also reminded of my days in print publishing in which the publishers treated the ad sales business, and our clients, like second class citizens. I understand a lot of that had to do with lack of knowledge and weak experience, but it was definitely symbolic of the love/hate relationship between content providers and advertisers.
At some point, content providers need to make peace with the fact that it's okay to have advertising on their site. Some users are going to scream that they absolutely cannot read anything on a site because of that holy-awful 180x150 ad for--heaven forbid!--Taco Bell, and that they'll never, ever, ever visit the site ever again because of it. And they'll probably add an insult to the publisher's parents in their unsigned, anonymous email deploring the ads on the site.
But publishers have to keep in mind...these visitors aren't paying for the content, and if you ask them to pay in exchange for not showing ads, they're unlikely to take you up on the offer. If a user is that sensitive to advertising, maybe they need far more help in other, more profound ways, than by having a publisher switch their entire business model away from advertising supported content, to a paid subsciption model which has been proven time and again to not work.
I totally agree that there are some bad advertisements and some bad advertisers in the field, no doubt.
But on the whole, it's time to make peace with the ad-supported content model.
Let's be grand and call it "Pax Venditum" (Advertising Peace).
You read it here, first.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A different kind of don't ask, don't tell
With the holiday season upon us, charities are approaching us through the mail, telemarketing, email and on the Web. Representatives are in front of grocery stores and in shopping malls.
Now, I don't mean to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge, but it seems to me that a lot of these organizations assume that people don't make donations all through the year, and that unless asked, people wouldn't make donations at this time of year either.
That kind of goes against the reality of philanthropy and charity in the United States, which has one of the highest rates of giving of any country in the world. To prove the point, check out this story in Forbes.
Back in the "good old days," many people gave to charity anonymously, especially when significant contributions were made. But now, it's almost as if more money is spent on publicizing donations, particularly from companies, than in the actual giving itself.
I wonder if the ubiquity of the Web has fostered this profound change, because so much information is available, both accurate and inaccruate, that companies and high profile individuals feel that they have to "promote" their giving in order to combat various bits of information that may not be so positive about their companies or themselves.
So in other words, if it's not on the Web, then people assume that you or your company are not participating in charity or philanthropy. In the old days it was the opposite; you weren't asked and you didn't tell.
This is one of the many ways our culture is being influenced by the Web. My native approach is the old school way, don't ask and don't tell. But maybe the Web has made that go the way of the Model T, or Netscape.
Regardless, charity and philanthropy remain virtuous.
Happy holidays!
Now, I don't mean to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge, but it seems to me that a lot of these organizations assume that people don't make donations all through the year, and that unless asked, people wouldn't make donations at this time of year either.
That kind of goes against the reality of philanthropy and charity in the United States, which has one of the highest rates of giving of any country in the world. To prove the point, check out this story in Forbes.
Back in the "good old days," many people gave to charity anonymously, especially when significant contributions were made. But now, it's almost as if more money is spent on publicizing donations, particularly from companies, than in the actual giving itself.
I wonder if the ubiquity of the Web has fostered this profound change, because so much information is available, both accurate and inaccruate, that companies and high profile individuals feel that they have to "promote" their giving in order to combat various bits of information that may not be so positive about their companies or themselves.
So in other words, if it's not on the Web, then people assume that you or your company are not participating in charity or philanthropy. In the old days it was the opposite; you weren't asked and you didn't tell.
This is one of the many ways our culture is being influenced by the Web. My native approach is the old school way, don't ask and don't tell. But maybe the Web has made that go the way of the Model T, or Netscape.
Regardless, charity and philanthropy remain virtuous.
Happy holidays!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Giving Thanks: Tom Phillips
As we approach Thanksgiving, it's a good time to think about all that we have to be thankful for (apologies for the grammar). It's especially important during difficult times to be reminded of the good things, people, and events in our lives.
To start, I'm thankful for the experience of having worked for Tom Phillips at Phillips Publishing. Tom taught me entrepreneurship, the relentless pursuit of excellence, how to look at things from different perspectives, and to strive for perfection.
On a personal side, Tom was always friendly and had a kind word to share. He really made me feel like part of the family.
I thank Tom for the opportunity to work for him and learn from him. I thank him for the opportunity to learn how to sell advertising, and to delve into what was at the time a new-fangled contraption called the internet.
Today, our more than 24 employees, and many more stakeholders outside the company, benefit from the knowledge Tom provided.
Happy Thanksgiving!
To start, I'm thankful for the experience of having worked for Tom Phillips at Phillips Publishing. Tom taught me entrepreneurship, the relentless pursuit of excellence, how to look at things from different perspectives, and to strive for perfection.
On a personal side, Tom was always friendly and had a kind word to share. He really made me feel like part of the family.
I thank Tom for the opportunity to work for him and learn from him. I thank him for the opportunity to learn how to sell advertising, and to delve into what was at the time a new-fangled contraption called the internet.
Today, our more than 24 employees, and many more stakeholders outside the company, benefit from the knowledge Tom provided.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
ad:tech NYC 2009 observations
We just got back from ad:tech NYC, and here are our immediate impressions:
1. Attendance seemed lighter this year than in the past; the new venue at the Javits Center may have accounted for that because it is a much larger facility so the crowd may have been spread out over much more space.
2. There didn't seem to be the usual "euphoria" among attendees; there was definitely a sense of calm optimism.
3. It seemed that there were more attendees from the larger media companies than in the past.
4. It also seemed that there were more attendees from up-market agencies and advertisers than in the past.
5. There are still lots of opportunities in the online marketing world. As more budget dollars are directed online, advertisers and agencies will seek out more unique opportunities with established, well-branded and respected publishers.
Okay, I have to add that it was pretty cool being in Times Square when the NY Yankees won the Series. Intermarkets doesn't take sides in any of that, but the collective roar heard throughout Manhattan as the Yankees won on Wednesday night was a remarkable experience.
1. Attendance seemed lighter this year than in the past; the new venue at the Javits Center may have accounted for that because it is a much larger facility so the crowd may have been spread out over much more space.
2. There didn't seem to be the usual "euphoria" among attendees; there was definitely a sense of calm optimism.
3. It seemed that there were more attendees from the larger media companies than in the past.
4. It also seemed that there were more attendees from up-market agencies and advertisers than in the past.
5. There are still lots of opportunities in the online marketing world. As more budget dollars are directed online, advertisers and agencies will seek out more unique opportunities with established, well-branded and respected publishers.
Okay, I have to add that it was pretty cool being in Times Square when the NY Yankees won the Series. Intermarkets doesn't take sides in any of that, but the collective roar heard throughout Manhattan as the Yankees won on Wednesday night was a remarkable experience.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Hacking, parenting and the Intermarkets Way
As a parent, when your child does a great thing, there's always the conflict between wanting to brag about their accomplishment, while at the same time not wanting to seem like one of "those" parents who endlessly promote their child's every latest move as some form of monumental achievement worthy of the Nobel Prize or a place in the Guinness Book of World Records.
But sometimes, you just gotta brag.
Every day at Intermarkets, we strive to achieve greatness within the construct of the Intermarkets Way. This means going above and beyond what is expected, to achieve what should be done.
With a widely dispersed staff, working at various locations across the country, it's easy, however, for us to just take for granted the everyday heroic acts of our team. For me, it's native to not seek out commendations, and that can lead to not sharing them, either. And that's not a good thing.
So today that changes.
And we've got a great example to use as a starting point.
This morning, my colleague Mike S. was doing a routine check of one of our publishers' sites and noticed something peculiar with the Google search code on the site.
After some quick research, he contacted me and explained the situation. Someone had “hacked” into the site’s server and made changes to the site's home page. The site’s servers are the same that host another of our publishers. This set off major alarm bells, even though the issue was not directly related to Intermarkets.
We contacted the publisher and he and his webmaster investigated and found that there was a security issue. The issue was resolved, and the code was corrected.
Thanks to Mike's rapid actions, we saved the publisher lost revenue and identified a security issue that could have affected other publishers, too. We earned the appreciation of the publisher as well as the webmaster.
Thanks, Mike, for your actions today, and thanks to everyone on the Intermarkets team for contributing to our ongoing success, and building the legendary Intermarkets Way.
Like I said, sometimes you just gotta brag.
But sometimes, you just gotta brag.
Every day at Intermarkets, we strive to achieve greatness within the construct of the Intermarkets Way. This means going above and beyond what is expected, to achieve what should be done.
With a widely dispersed staff, working at various locations across the country, it's easy, however, for us to just take for granted the everyday heroic acts of our team. For me, it's native to not seek out commendations, and that can lead to not sharing them, either. And that's not a good thing.
So today that changes.
And we've got a great example to use as a starting point.
This morning, my colleague Mike S. was doing a routine check of one of our publishers' sites and noticed something peculiar with the Google search code on the site.
After some quick research, he contacted me and explained the situation. Someone had “hacked” into the site’s server and made changes to the site's home page. The site’s servers are the same that host another of our publishers. This set off major alarm bells, even though the issue was not directly related to Intermarkets.
We contacted the publisher and he and his webmaster investigated and found that there was a security issue. The issue was resolved, and the code was corrected.
Thanks to Mike's rapid actions, we saved the publisher lost revenue and identified a security issue that could have affected other publishers, too. We earned the appreciation of the publisher as well as the webmaster.
Thanks, Mike, for your actions today, and thanks to everyone on the Intermarkets team for contributing to our ongoing success, and building the legendary Intermarkets Way.
Like I said, sometimes you just gotta brag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)