Archives for category: Making Money

By coincidence, Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine was also thinking money today.

In his latest post, Jarvis suggests everyone take a step back and try to summarize specific problems your business faces before charging ahead with strategies and solutions.

Engineers use this “define the problem, then create solutions” approach, Jarvis notes. So do lawyers and economists, and they’re coming up with creative, workable solutions all the time.

Think about it: What, specifically, are the hurdles your news organization faces? Don’t think of answers yet. Just carefully form the question and post it as a comment either here, or on BuzzMachine.

By the way, Jarvis is organizing a follow-up to last year’s Networked Journalism Summit

. This year’s event in May will focus on business models. Details TK.

I’ve been saying this for a while now: Websites can no longer rely solely on online ads to replace their shrinking offline revenue streams. What’s needed are smart acquisition and diverse partnering strategies.

Tim O’Reilly spoke about just that today at the Tools of Change conference. Joe Grimm sent an update. —Chrys

One of the most powerful words in the English language is also a buzzword at this week’s O’Reilly Tools of Change conference in New York. That word is free, as in free content.

Free content, or audience expectation of it, is bedeviling all media, not just book publishers like those attending the conference.

Tim O’Reilly Addresses Tools of Change ConferenceO’Reilly Media founder and CEO Tim O’Reilly – you might consider him to be the host of the conference – took the stage to talk about how his company deals with free and how other media can.

The big fallacy in free, O’Reilly said, is that the advertiser-supported model of free content is too simplistic. Free, O’Reilly said, is complicated. He attributed the observation to Dilbert creator Scott Adams, the first cartoonist to go to the Internet in big ways.

O’Reilly said it is becoming increasingly important for media companies to develop revenue streams apart from advertising.

His company draws revenue streams out of the pools of users its products – technical manuals, originally – create.

“I’ve been thinking about this for a long time because publishing is my original core business.” O’Reilly said.

In a reconfigured word, he said, his company’s core products are more abstract qualities such as mission, brand and community.

These pour out revenue through sponsorships content, events like this week’s conference, subscriptions to online information and big-ticket premium services and products.

People are driven to those products by free, used as a strategic tool.

“I probably spend too much time on my blog,” O’Reilly said, “but I am actually driving my overall business with free.”

The way forward, O’Reilly said, will be diversified companies that provide a range of services – some of them for free. “Don’t be afraid of free,” he said. “Figure out how to use it.”

This Sunday is the biggest U.S. TV broadcasting event of the year.

It’s not the Grammys, the Emmys or the Oscars — it’s the Super Bowl.

This year, the event also looks to be a huge online ad-play as well, though many of the Web spots will posted for free, according to WSJ.com.

AOL plans to make the ads available “soon,” but marketing consultant Ian Schafer came out of the gate today with an early peek of all the clips he could find.

Also, PCWorld reports HeyNielsen will use its youthquake focus group to rate and rank the ads. The results should be interesting.

OK! magazine broke the story heard ’round the world: Britney’s 16-year-old little sister is pregnant. Thing is, OK! chose to break it online.

Yes, every outlet eventually picked up the nut graf, showed the same Nickelodeon clips and set stills. But OK! magazine was cited each and every time as the organization to get the get.

The publisher trumpeted the scoop with an exclamation point-filled message to advertisers, and boasted of its celeb news primacy, according to Dylan Stableford at Folio.

It was obnoxious, maybe, but in the hypercompetitive world of celebrity news, perfectly justified.

The two things they got wrong? Nowhere in the message did the publisher talk about the online advertising opportunity. And, according to Stableford, OK! forgot to buy Google keywords:

“It also appears that People.com bought ‘OK magazine’ as a Google keyword, displaying a link under search results that reads “JAMIE SPEARS PREGNANT.”

To top it off? Ironically, the publisher’s message was sent by email.

In 2004, Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson wrote an article suggesting media should focus on the long tail — small niches — instead of the big subjects.

The idea took off in news, most often interpreted as a move toward hyperlocal coverage online. The Washington Post‘s LoudounExtra most often cited, but there are other niche examples as well, including WCCO-TV, the dominant network TV news station in Minneapolis, and KCRW-FM, public radio based in Santa Monica, Calif.

During a Second Life interview last year, Anderson stretched his “Long Tail” theory into a discussion about technology giving people the power to create information for free.

Most notably, Anderson said, “There are two (long tails) in content. One is broad appeal down to narrow appeal. The other is new vs. old. So the LT revenues that you describe as being slow mostly refer to the second, the monetization of archives over time.

“The other big point to make is that we’re not just talking about a monetary economy. Most of the content created in the LT these days — from blogs to web video — is done for free, with no expectation of financial return. There are plenty of business opportunities in *aggregating* that content, but the money doesn’t necessarily accrue to the creators.”

Earlier this month, Anderson talked about “the emerging market of free” at Nokia World.

It’s an interesting yet potentially scary idea if applied to the news business. Already, we know aggregators like Google, Yahoo, Digg, etc., are profiting from media outlet output, which Web users essentially get for free. But without some fundamental changes to the outlets’ distribution strategy, where will the money to pay news workers come from?

You could argue that journalists are aggregators, interpreters and analyzers of information, and the inherent value in what we can be translated into real dollars that users should be willing to pay at least something for. After Radiohead‘s “In Rainbows” experiment, though, I’m not certain how optimistic I should be.

Switch to our mobile site