Web Ads in Their “Adolescent Stage” Are Some of Journalism’s Few Prospects

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/10/can-newfangled-web-ads-save-journalism.html

Push-down ads, or ads that suddenly expand and push the content you are viewing  down the page, are offered in this article as the latest technique used by advertisers to glean money from the Web. Five other common techniques are listed, including those that magnify when your cursor scrolls over them, and interstitial ads that appear automatically as a sort of toll before you get to the content you are trying to view.

One needn’t surf the Web long to encounter several of these techniques. I have come across each of the six types mentioned in the article, and while some are more annoying than others, I always remember that they are a necessary nuisance.

One phrase mentioned in the story is “banner blindness,” or the tendency by Web users to ignore “unobtrusive” ads located along the edges of the viewing window. The concept is presented as a problem perceived by some marketers. I don’t see the difference between this and the ad pages in magazines and newspapers. I understand that Internet users may train themselves to ignore the ever-present advertising banners, but I’m not sure that print readers can’t do the same thing.

As more content is more exclusively available and sought after on the Web rather than other mediums, advertisers will have to accept the importance of Internet advertising as much as they now do that of TV and print. While different techniques should be experimented with, it will probably just take some time.

FCC Moves to Protect Internet Freedom

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366012-FCC_Votes_To_Propose_Net_Neutrality_Rules.php

The FCC voted last week to begin a process of rule-making for Internet Service Providers, or ISP’s, that the commission says are intended to “preserve a free and open internet.” The decision was unanimous, although the FCC’s chairman and other members agreed that there will be much comment and debate over the proposal. The official notice  has already been made available to the public and outlines the proposal’s directives, as well as laying a groundwork for the future legislation.

This is an encouraging decision coming from the FCC, which has in recent years attracted so much attention for its aggressive policing of decency laws in broadcast. It is good to see the commission voting to give its attention to a truly important issue - this is something that has great implications for user experience of the Web. The only interest the providers have in controlling content is making profit, and that at the expense of Internet freedom is unacceptable. Companies should not be able to manipulate or control the flow of information available on the Web just because they own the tubes that carry that information. It may seem unfair to these companies – as they are the ones pretty much making the Web available to the public, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do it profitably? The answer is that a line needs to be drawn as to how much power private companies can have over the information they make available.

One concern noted in the article was how other countries would interpret the FCC’s decision to officially discuss regulation. The concern, expressed by Republican FCC members, was that they may see it as a move toward government regulation of the Internet, or censureship, and use it as a precedent for their own restrictive policies.

I think this is an important and valid point. The chairman said he wanted to send a message that this was not an increase in governmental control of the Net, but the article didn’t elaborate on how else that message would be sent or if that comment is as far as it goes. This move could be viewed by other governments as a sneaky way to increase that kind of control, despite any “message” the FCC claims to have, so the commission should be careful to make extremely clear that its goal is actually the opposite.

NYT Co. won’t rule out staffing cuts as it thanks employees for turnaround

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/10/times_co_ceo_cr.html

Chief Executive Janet Robinson thanked the employees of the Boston Globe for their sacrifices – taking heavy wage and benefit cuts – which she said helped to save the Globe from being sold. Despite the message of gratitude, there was one of forewarning; more cuts could come as the paper continues to struggle. The response to questions about the possibility of reinstatement of some of what was cut was that it was “being considered,” but couldn’t happen if the paper’s financial standing does not improve. 

The article is short and doesn’t go into detail about what else was said, but it sounds like the Globe’s workers are being punished despite doing what they are supposed to do - and doing it well. The article says Robinson commended the employees for “continuing to produce outstanding journalism throughout a difficult year.” How long will they continue to do that with slashed salaries and the threat of layoffs always looming around the corner? This sounds like newspaper management short-sightedness at its worst. Put those who make the publication what it is on the chopping block in the face of imminent danger and claim triumph, then thank the sacrificed for allowing themselves to be.

That may be a harsh assessment, but one has to wonder how far up into management these cuts went. What sacrifices have the decision makers made? The reporters, copy editors, etc. are the ones really responsible for keeping the paper alive by producing the material that makes it a paper. Maybe it’s the management that should be held accountable for the paper’s financial woes as it is their decisions that are supposed to guide the organization to profitability. It doesn’t seem reasonable that an organization like this can expect that hurting  its own most valuable assets – its loyal workers – for a short-term gain is a solution that is truly in its best interest. 

Unfortunately there comes a time when cuts are necessary for a company’s survival, but to what extent does this apply to newspapers? It seems like instead of trying new things, maybe striving for better marketing or reaching out to younger readers somehow, management is simply taking the easy route because its guaranteed - for now.

NYT Co. Won’t Sell Boston Globe

After $20 million in union concessions and other cost-cutting measures, the New York Times Co. has announced that it will not sell the Globe or the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Both papers had been taking bids, but the offers were a fraction of what the papers were worth 15 years ago. It’s shocking that the Globe, bought for $1.1 billion just 16 years ago, could be taking bids well under $100 million.

I thought it was interesting that a former executive of the Globe, Stephen Taylor, and a former editor of T & G, Harry T. Whitin, were among the bidders for their old papers. I wonder what their motivations were for attempting to acquire the now money-losing publications which they used to help run. Taylor’s comments in the article sound like his is a commitment to his former home of 20 years and to its service to the community. It would be a noble undertaking to take on the risks of a floundering paper to try and keep it afloat, especially in a time when the entire newspaper industry is on a frighteningly rapid downward spiral.

The measures that were taken to save the papers from a sale were unsettling to me as a journalism student in that the cost-cutting was done at the expense of the papers’ employees. New union contracts that “saved” $20 million and “cuts in management compensation” were credited for helping the Globe out of its hole. That is not a good sign for anyone seeking a career in journalism, especially print. Instead of finding ways to bolster revenue, papers are shaving themselves down. The trend is that publications, from dailies to magazines, must shrink to survive. This seems to be leading to a future of publications that will be much, much smaller in size and content than we now know them.

The other measure taken was to increase the newsstand and subscription prices. While this does bolster revenue, it seems like a very short-term solution. How successful can hiking prices for remaining customers be when the main problem is a loss of customers to the free medium that is the internet? It is short-term solutions that have gotten most major print companies into the trouble they’re in. I think these are less solutions than they are a delaying of what may be inevitable - at least without some innovative new ideas.

White House/Fox News Feud

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?_r=1

This article deals with the White House/Fox News feud, discussing the White House’s  criticisms of Fox’s coverage of the Obama administration. It’s unusual for the president’s administration, and even the president himself, to target one news outlet so specifically, and probably equally as unusual for a news channel to take such a negative tone in its coverage of an administration. 

 Aside from the political angle of this story, I think it shows how profit can be so influential in how news is delivered, and how that can have a subsequent effect on politics. The article mentions Fox’s success in the ratings, being the most-watched cable news channel. It also says how Fox sells itself to advertisers: as being a channel trusted by its many viewers. Fox News’ ratings have increased as the feud has continued, giving Fox no reason to do anything other than to keep it going. I find it interesting and a little unsettling that the most popular news network on TV has aligned itself with, and been openly labeled by the White House as, an arm of the “opposition party.” It is such a different picture than the unbiased, fact-oriented newsroom that most legitimate media claim or strive to be.