On your site or in your paper?

Remember, too, that you've been watching the Web world from a more national viewpoint than a majority of us, if I'm not mistaken. You've got to bring this down to the 30, 40, 50K dailies and see where that's going (or not going), too.

 

I understand where you are coming from, Shot. I said the same thing two years ago. I also once said I would never carry a cell phone. Things change, and so did my thinking.

Much of the revenue generated by online advertising is for 'click-throughs', which means the advertiser pays per vistor driven from your site to theirs. In order for this model to succeed, Web sites have to maximize the number of visitors, thereby increasing the number of potential 'click-throughs'.

In order to drive traffic, you have to give the people what they want, and that is breaking news, insight and depth. I've analyzed enough Web numbers to know that breaking news written in compelling fashion and updated ASAP can drive traffic like nothing else.

If you aren't giving readers a reason to come back two, or three, or five times a day, then you are missing out. If you aren't giving them the chance to click two, or five or eight stories while they on on your site, you are falling behind. Update once a day and don't change anything, and I can tell you what you'll get — a spike in visitors between 8 and 10 a.m., followed by a precipitous tumble the rest of the day. The battle to become a successful Web site is fought between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., and you can only win that fight by updating and breaking news.

Why are advertisers shifting to the internet? Because they can target and audience and only pay for the results you actually deliver. It's a tougher business than selling an ad in the paper, but advertisers are getting better results per dollar. We've been telling them for years that their full page color ad in the paper reaches 'X' number of readers, but neither we or they really know how many people were driven to buy something because of the ad. With the internet they know, and so do we. Our earnings per advertiser may fall, but the number of advertisers could rise exponentially because it's not as big a gamble for them anymore.

Here are a couple of decent stories about online advertising at newspaper companies. These aren't the best out there, but I found these with a quick google search.

An excerpt from http://www.journalism.org/node/1271:
One way to illustrate the economics of online advertising is to talk about one sector. Newspapers are the biggest recipients of online advertising, and in 2005, it appears spending on them continued to surge. According to research by Borrell Associates, online revenue for daily and weekly newspapers owned by publicly traded companies grew by 47% in 2004, from $811 million in 2003 to $1.19 billion. For 2005, Borrell projected revenues would climb another 28%, to $1.52 billion.

More links:
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1786358,00.html
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7827135
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/business/media/06adco.html?ex=1307246400&en=b2e717aff6afca05&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Thank you, greenthumb. You've given me something to think about, that's for sure.

 

Sure, Shot. We all have a lot to think about, but at least we're discussing it now. For a bunch or smart, informed folks, we sure are good at sticking our head in the sand sometimes.

I do strongly agree with you - and daemon and jmart - on one point; it is absolutely essential we differentiate our products. You can't just provide the same thing on the Web site and in print. We have to give the reader something extra on the site - which is where video, slideshows, audio and blogs come into play. And we have to give them perspective and analysis in the print edition, while still continuing to provide the daily results our readers expect.

I don't have all the answers. No one does. But we sure as hell have to keep trying to find a way to make both products successful without one canibalizing the other.

 

I've flopped like Ralph Friedgen doing a cannonball.

My philosophy is to get the breaking news on the web immediately, and get the lengthier piece with multiple quotes, etc., in the paper. UNLESS it's of such important that it's going to spike up the hits, in which case, I'd approve a story to go on the website before it's in the paper.

To me, the newspaper is now a brand name. The web side is just as legit as the print side.

Which is why I'm optimistic about the future of newspapers, because once the media forms into one whole (newspapers doing video, audio, etc., more extensively than they already do), newspapers are much better positioned to handle that level of diversity than TV or radio are.

 

I really want to maximize blogging capability on our web site, and I think that we'll get there eventually. In football season, there are so many little details that never make it into the paper, whether it's for space reasons or other concerns. A couple of quick hitters on that blog every day makes the beat writer so much more relevant. I enjoy sites that use that capability. My paper's site is so archaic that it's basically useless. Hopefully, that will change.

 

I kick-started that concept this year with our prep coverage, which I think, is the best avenue for those little things that don't make a 15-inch gamer. Right now, it's print only, but the idea is for it to shortly morph into a blog we update when needed, then print the "best of" on our Friday prep football page.

So far, it's been a hit.

 

Depends.

If you know that you can release it at 1 a.m. ... if you KNOW that.... then you wait. Coldcock them on both sides.

But you still have to honor your advertisers by making your paper as valuable as possible.

 

Sticking it online at 1 a.m. does zero for your readers. The only benefit is that you can say you broke it first, an ego thing. If you're going to operate that way, you shouldn't bother.

You get news, it goes online, right then.

 

Cannot fuck your advertisers.

Cannot do it.

 

Good stuff, greenthumb. I said 5 years ago that the internet was becoming a victim of its own technology with regard to advertising. Circ numbers were hard to check and the advertisers just paid the rate. With click-throughs, the ability to quantify advertising down to nearly the exact number of people who saw (not paid attention to) an ad was available.

So, really, advertising as a whole has suffered because of internet technology. When that shockwave ran through the online world it dealt a sharp blow to internet and traditional advertising. Plus, the economy started to tank about the same time.

Ultimately, a newspaper is a media outlet and if its drawing readers, it will be able to sell advertising, either online or in print. Committing resources to either edition should be commensurate with the return each is producing.

I don't think it's wise to ignore the Web site as a potential revenue source and I think it's folly to provide free content and hope it draws the advertising wagon. Take baby steps with the Web while maintaining the print and its revenue stream and be willing to continue to change.

 

Very well put, Stupid. See, I think that's my sticking point. Listen to a lot of newspapers right now, and it sounds like they're putting all their eggs in one basket.