A new model for getting rich online

Investors Not Needed, Just a Site With Ads

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 28, 2006; A01

For hundreds of thousands of people, the dream of making an Internet fortune works like this: Earn pennies at a time in exchange for allowing Google Inc. or Yahoo Inc. to place advertisements on a personal or small-business Web page.

Take Andrew Leyden, former House Commerce Committee counsel and founder of a dot-com venture that failed, who started PodcastDirectory.com, a search engine for podcasts. As the site’s popularity rose from a hundred hits a month in 2004 to nearly a million now, Leyden started making the equivalent of an entry-level government worker’s salary — $30,000 to $40,000 a year — simply because people clicked on ads. That allowed him to work at home in Chesapeake Beach, Md., trying to make more money by attracting still more traffic to his site.

“I went from literally 26 cents a week or something like that to several dollars an hour,” he said, by using Google’s AdSense software, which solicits bids from marketers who, in turn, pay to run ads on his site. “I get paid while mowing the lawn. I get paid while cleaning the garage. I get paid driving my wife to her office, buying groceries, seeing a movie, playing video games, or just surfing the Internet. That’s really the nice thing about AdSense: No matter what I’m doing, people keep clicking and I keep getting paid.”

A decade ago, the Internet dream was to score through venture-capital financing and by raising cash in public stock offerings. Now, people with creative ideas can get rich relatively quickly by permitting advertisers to piggyback on any Web site that attracts a lot of viewers. Technology can direct ads to more and more specific audiences, rewarding entrepreneurship on the smallest scale — even Web pages filled with obscure and homemade content.

“We have a segment of customers called hopeful hobbyists” who have Web sites devoted to anything they might care about, from crochet to sailing, and who hope to eventually make enough money to quit their day jobs, said Willan Johnson, vice president of Yahoo Publisher Network, which launched a test version of its software last year.

David Miles Jr. and Kato Leonard, two 20-year-olds in Louisville, say they collect $100,000 a month from their year-old site, Freeweblayouts.net, which gives away designs that people can use on MySpace social-networking pages. One couple blogged about their home reconstruction and made money to help pay the mortgage on their new house. Jock Friedly’s business, Storming Media LLC, allows users to download public documents; he used the money his Web site made on ads for new online ventures.

Companies like Google, in turn, also find profit in such sites. In the second quarter, Google got $997 million, or 41 percent of its revenue, through the network of Web sites that host ads through the AdSense system. Its software, like Yahoo’s, prices ads based on popularity. When users click the ads, the software keeps detailed records, including the number of page views and the amount of commission the site’s host earns from the ad — all of which Web site owners can keep track of by logging on to their accounts. Every month, Google pays publishers by check or direct deposit.

Ad publishers must be approved through Google, to ensure that the ads don’t subsidize pornography or gambling, or contain material that is racist, violent or related to illegal drugs. Among other things, Google says it watches to make sure people don’t inflate their revenues by clicking on their own ads — a practice known as “click fraud” that has plagued online marketing.

The popularity of making money this way also has led to creation of “made-for-AdSense” Web pages that contain little content and lots of ads, which critics say clutter the Internet and divert online searches.

The system depends on the cooperation of advertisers, who have to see that their money is well spent, said Jennifer Slegg, an online publisher who is a consultant on AdSense and Yahoo Publisher Network, and who makes roughly half her income from AdSense ads.

“I hear tons of stories about people who were facing bankruptcy but now are able to pay off their houses in full,” she said.

The biggest moneymakers tend to be people who started sites to document their passions. Matther Daimler, 28, developed an obsession with finding the most comfortable seats on the long airline flights he took for business. He would look at a better-situated traveler and think: “He has more legroom. I want that seat next time.”

In 2001, he took to cataloguing on his SeatGuru site all the seats on his usual United Airlines flight, rating them for best legroom, the most recline, access to video and audio entertainment, and proximity to different types of laptop power sources. Soon, at the request of people who read his site, he started taking information on other flights. He now keeps track of seats on 34 airlines.

Daimler and his wife now work full time on SeatGuru, which gets 700,000 visitors a month. About half of the site’s revenue comes through AdSense — $10,000 to $20,000 a month — and the rest comes from ad deals that Daimler makes with companies directly.

Tracking clicks and the money they earn itself has become a passion for Leyden. “In the middle of the night I’ll wonder how much I made,” he said, so he’ll check his page’s status every 15 minutes.

The money that comes in acts like microfinancing for many sites, said Kim Malone, director of AdSense. “We’re enabling creativity, 5 cents at a time.”

Friedly, for example, started his company in Washington in 2001 to make it easier for contractors, scientists and researchers to find, download and purchase public documents. He reluctantly signed up to put ads on the site. “I was skeptical because when you sell something, you want to focus on the product, not refer people to other Web sites,” he said.

But with more than 10,000 hits a day, the income started adding up. “I was surprised by how much we made. It was an excellent supplement to the business, because we didn’t have to do a lot.”

Friedly has since started PatentStorm LLC, a site where businesses can search patent records, without outside investment. “In essence, Google has turned into a venture capital or an angel investor in my business.”

But if Google giveth, it also taketh away, Friedly said. As people put up more sites that compete with his for traffic, the number of hits on his main site has declined.

Rupert Murdoch surprised by MySpace growth

Reuters - Twenty years after Rupert Murdoch upended the status quo in television with the launch of Fox Broadcasting Co., News Corp. is in the vanguard of another media revolution with its recently acquired Internet assets including MySpace.com.

The News Corp. chairman and CEO recently spoke about his company’s interactive expansion and what it augurs for traditional media giants.

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHAT HAS SURPRISED YOU THE MOST ABOUT THE MYSPACE EXPERIENCE?

Rupert Murdoch: The speed at which it has grown. It has had no marketing. Not a penny has been spent marketing it before or after the purchase, and it just grows faster and faster every week. Now we’re taking it out to other countries.

THR: DOES MYSPACE OFFER A TEMPLATE THAT CAN BE ADOPTED TO UPGRADE ALL OF YOUR CORE BUSINESSES?

Murdoch: MySpace demonstrated what we felt but now really drives it into us that the world has really changed — that the average person who is computer proficient is self-empowered in their lives in a way they never have before.
THR: HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU WITH ALL THAT PHENOMENON THAT COMES WITH IT, FROM PEER-TO-PEER SHARING TO USER-GENERATED CONTENT? MEDIA COMPANIES UNTIL VERY RECENTLY WERE USED TO DICTATING POPULAR CULTURE.

Murdoch: I’m quite comfortable with it. The important thing is that you have to realise it. You have to accommodate and change. We are like other media companies in that we are still reaching for ways to do it. We wouldn’t claim to have all the answers today. The Internet is about giving lots of people lots of choices. Everything we’ve ever done is about giving people choices.

THR: DO YOU THINK THAT WILL BE A CHALLENGE GIVEN WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN UP AGAINST BEFORE?

Murdoch: Probably not. It will be a little bit different in each country. The English-speaking world will be easy. We will have to think about going with a slightly different model or architecture in Japan or Germany or some other countries. It will be driven by exactly the same principles. Young people are the same everywhere. They are curious. They want to take control of things. They want to live in their own world.

THR: ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THIS MAY BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL AND MARKETING PLATFORM YOU HAVE EVER HAD?

Murdoch: No, but it certainly is a very powerful one. It played a large role in the successful opening of (”X-Men: The Last Stand”). On the other hand, we can’t underestimate what “American Idol” did for it, too.

THR: WHERE DO YOU ENVISION TAKING MYSPACE IN THE U.S. OVER THE NEXT YEAR?

Murdoch: We would have to keep making it a better experience, whether it was instant messaging or voice or what. We’re looking at all the alternatives to make it stickier. There are crazy proponents who contend that it is just a young person’s craze and it will all go away. We’re having to see that it doesn’t. We have to find ways, without destroying its character, of getting more advertising revenue.

THR: DO YOU FORESEE BUILDING A COMMUNITY AROUND MYSPACE THE WAY APPLE’S STEVE JOBS HAS DONE WITH THE IPOD?

Murdoch: Oh, absolutely. There will be a big community around MySpace but also subcommunities within it.

THR: COULD MYSPACE OR WHATEVER YOU BUILD AROUND IT OR ALL OF FOX INTERACTIVE MEDIA BECOME A CORNERSTONE OF YOUR PORTFOLIO RATHER THAN JUST THE LINE FOR “OTHER” ON YOUR LEDGER?

Murdoch: It will be more than just the “other” line. A key cornerstone? It’s too early to say that.

THR: YOU HAVE SAID YOU WILL LIKELY Realise $350 MILLION OF REVENUE FROM INTERACTIVE NEW MEDIA IN THE CALENDAR YEAR. CAN SEE YOU TRIPLING THAT BEFORE THE END OF THE DECADE?

Murdoch: Well, for that we need to take into account search revenues, but certainly there will be those kinds of revenues, one way or another. It might be everything from downloading television series and selling minor items in mini payments. There will certainly be more advertising — more transactional advertising.

THR: ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT MYSPACE MIGHT BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE IN THE ELECTION YEAR BECAUSE POLITICIANS ARE LOOKING FOR THINGS TO COMMENT ON, AS THEY ARE WATCHING WHERE

YOU THROW YOUR SUPPORT?

Murdoch: I am not throwing my political weight around. I am remaining what I always was. There are concerns not on the political level. Our people have become very good at explaining it and many things about the Internet to politicians. And when a phenomenon like MySpace emerges, it naturally tends to attract more attention.

THR: WHAT PARAMETERS WILL YOU SET FOR PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER FIRMS, PARTICULARLY IN THE SEARCH AREA?

Murdoch: Well, we don’t know yet. But if we were to have a search partner, I think we’d look for someone who gives what AOL gets with Google. They can do a lot of the search and sell a lot of the advertising and get a commission of 10% or 15% of the advertising they sell. We’re not at that stage of decision-making yet.

THR: GOOGLE ALSO MADE A $1 BILLION INVESTMENT IN AOL. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AN EQUITY INVESTMENT AS WELL?

Murdoch: No. They have the chance after two years to put it back to Time Warner at the sale price, so that’s hardly a risk.

THR: IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE DISCOVERED IN OWNING MYSPACE THAT YOU CAN APPLY TO YOUR MORE TRADITIONAL CORE MEDIA BUSINESSES?

Murdoch: Broadcasters will be more successful if they commit more to local, (and if) they do a lot more news, and they do it a lot better. We’ve been at that for more than a year now at our own stations, and we’re getting some movement in the ratings. The future of local stations is very good provided they remain true to their roots, be very local, have their own local Web sites and do all that properly. And if they are aligned to a leading television network, they are going to be in good shape.

THR: HOW DO BROADCASTERS BECOME INTERACTIVE AND ESTABLISH A TWO-WAY LOOP WITH THE CONSUMER THAT IS CRITICAL FOR INTERACTIVE

BROADCASTING AND FEES? IS THE ANSWER FOR FOX WORKING WITH MAJOR CABLE OPERATORS OR WITH DIRECTV SO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A WIRELESS BROADBAND CONNECTION IN PLACE YOU CAN MAKE YOUR STATIONS MORE INTERACTIVE TO ENGAGE IN ADDRESSABLE ADVERTISING AND ALL THE REST?

Murdoch: Well, once you can hook into a proper broadband service, that’s pretty easy. And that’s what we’re spending a huge amount of time and effort on with DirecTV because we clearly have to have some answer to the cable monopoly.

THR: BUT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH DIRECTV ABOUT THIS, CORRECT?

Murdoch: Yes, and we can pull something off. And there is no reason why that shouldn’t link in with everything. I would expect to have wireless broadband advanced in at least two or three cities before the end of this year, and then it might take two or three years to build it out across the entire country.

THR: AND THAT COULD BE DONE THROUGH DIRECTV AND THEN PLAY BACK THROUGH THE ENTIRE COMPANY?

Murdoch: I would hope so.

THR: WHEN DO YOU LINK TOGETHER THESE VERY DIFFERENT SATELLITE OPERATIONS FOR THE GLOBAL LOOP WE ALWAYS EXPECTED OF YOU?

Murdoch: We’ve got to find where they gave common interests because we do have for historical reasons, not of our choosing, a lot of outside shareholders in (BSkyB) and same with Direct. Whereas (with) Star TV and Sky Italia, we’re at 100%. Star satellite has a lot of partners in India that is coming in about a month.

THR: HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT WHEN YOU CAN FINALLY MAKE THAT GLOBAL SATELLITE LOOP?

Murdoch: There should be great advantages that have to do with the ability to buy programs and your ability to develop programs and buying hardware. . . . We’re at a point where DirecTV and Sky Britain and Sky Italia are working together more and more on technical and management issues and sharing techniques and how to cut down churn more than programming … We’re thinking all the time about broadband. Broadband is going to be ubiquitous to the world, and all of our products, to some extent, are about global — with pay-per-view, IPTV or even newspapers. I’m not saying it’s going to wipe out our newspapers. But already there are growing audiences of people. We can argue that many more people read our newspapers today than they did three or four years ago. Some are reading them online.

THR: SO THAT MAY SAVE THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY, SO TO SPEAK?

Murdoch: Well, it will take time to change the economics. Classified advertising in newspapers is under violent attack. In other things, not so much so.

THR: CAN YOU ALREADY SEE WHERE YOU ARE MAKING MORE MONEY MORE QUICKLY THAN YOU HAD EXPECTED FROM SOME OF THESE NEW AREAS TO HELP OFFSET WHAT YOU MIGHT BE LOSING IN OTHER AREAS?

Murdoch: Yes. Well, I wouldn’t want to quantify it. But we’re certainly very concentrated on that.

THR: SO YOU’RE NOT CONCERNED SO MUCH ABOUT THE SHIFTING BALANCE OF BUSINESSES?

Murdoch: Yeah, we’re going to ride it and be with it and plan to be on the leading edge of it.

THR: MOST ANALYSTS SAY THEY EXPECT YOU TO USE HALF OF THE CASH YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR STOCK BUYBACKS, LIKE THE ONE YOU RECENTLY EXTENDED, AND ACQUISITIONS. IF YOU HAD YOUR DRUTHERS, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO OR NEED TO ACQUIRE TO COMPLETE THE PICTURE? YOU JUST INDICATED YOU DON’T HAVE TO ACQUIRE WIRELESS BROADBAND; YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU NEED THROUGH PARTNERSHIP.

Murdoch: Yes, but you have to contribute your part of the partnership. We’re talking about a lot of money there. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be opportunistic as before. Great opportunities occur around the world; we’ll act on them.

THR: YOU DON’T SEE YOURSELF MAKING A MAJOR ACQUISITION ANYTIME SOON?

Murdoch: No.

THR: IN THE AREA OF GAMING, YOU HAVE IGN SELLING DOWNLOADS OF GAMES, YOU’RE MAKING A MOVIE FROM MICROSOFT’S XBOX “HALO” GAME, AND YOU HAVE DIRECTV WITH THE VIDEO GAME CHAMPIONSHIPS NEXT YEAR. SO YOU HAVE LITTLE PIECES OF THE GAME INDUSTRY. WHAT IS YOUR OVERARCHING STRATEGY?

Murdoch: We keep looking at the games industry. We know it’s a very big factor in life, but we believe that the available games companies to buy in to are grossly overpriced. We are trying to find another way into it, but we haven’t yet. But I think IGN is certainly a beginning.

THR: BUT YOU ARE NOT TALKING TO ANY POTENTIAL GAMES PARTNERS, SUCH AS SONY OR MICROSOFT?

Murdoch: No, no.

THR: THIS IS A REMARKABLE TIME. YOU HAVE CALLED THIS THE GOLDEN AGE OF MEDIA. WHAT WILL IT EVENTUALLY MEAN TO THE INDUSTRIES YOU ARE IN AND TO YOUR COMPANY?

Murdoch: There are new capital advantages to get things done. You go to these conventions and see all the new technologies being rolled out. But they are all meaningless unless they have content. There is going to be more and more demand for content, and there will be more ways for us to develop more content. And we’ve got to use these platforms to monetise all of our existing content.

THR: DO YOU THINK YOUR NEW FISCAL-YEAR BUDGET CALLS FOR WAYS OF DOING THIS YOU HAVEN’T TRIED BEFORE?

Murdoch: Yes. We will be doing more with mobile telephones — everything from short episodes of television shows to news flashes to ringtones — and we will sell them to all the telephone companies that will take them on a shared-revenue basis. But we will be doing the creativity ourselves.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Web for ‘News’ — Print for ‘Stories’

Telling people news they already know is not a good business model, so, if newspapers are to remain relevant, interpretation is the only way to go in print — especially in the sports department.

By Greg Bowers

COLUMBIA, Mo. (July 20, 2006) — It was 6:30 p.m. on a Saturday. I was talking to my wife on the telephone and trying to figure out how the next morning’s sports section at my paper should look. By all accounts, it had been a big sports day.

Barry Bonds had hit home run No. 714, tying him with Babe Ruth for second place on the all-time list. Even though Major League Baseball had chosen not to commemorate the achievement, it was a big story — possibly made even bigger because of the steroid allegations swirling around Bonds. Love him or hate him, people paid attention when he came to the plate. And, truthfully, it was hard not to, with sports television networks breaking into scheduled coverage for every Bonds at bat.

If that wasn’t enough, there was the heart-breaking story of the Preakness. Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner, came up lame in the opening dash of the second race of the Triple Crown. Not only, did the racing industry take a loss instead of what could’ve been the bonanza of the first Triple Crown winner in years, there was the drama that took place right in front of the grandstand in Baltimore.

“A lot going on today,” I said.

“I know,” she said.

“You know?” I said.

“Yeah, Bonds hit No. 714 and Barbaro broke down in the Preakness. It was terrible,” she said.

“You know?” I said.

She knew.

The realization came just seconds later. If my wife, who is not a huge sports fan, already knew the big sports news of the day, then real sports readers, I could assume, knew that and more.

And we wonder why nobody wants to buy newspapers anymore? And if sports readers out there knew that and more, what should I put in the Sunday morning sports section, scheduled to hit their driveways 12 hours from now?

It’s like this: In one dream, I am a magician with dove feathers dropping out of his tuxedo sleeve. The audience is laughing, the trick ruined. In another dream, I am a sports editor breathlessly telling readers what they already know.

They are the same dream.

Sports journalism, actually journalism in general, is in a state of paralysis. Two things that have been constant companions in journalism through the years, have split apart.

The first thing is reporting, getting out the news. The second is telling good stories, interpreting the news. They once went hand in hand — news and writing. Now the first one is out and about before the second one can get its coat off.

Getting information to consumers has become a race. And it’s a race that newspapers, by definition, are losing. Newspapers need production time. Newspapers have to be written, sometimes crafted, and designed. They have to be printed and delivered. Tomorrow morning, once so close, now seems so far away.

And newspapers, once essential, are now low on the information food chain. In sports, this has become particularly problematic. Sports on the Internet, it seems, is second only to pornography. Scores scroll across the bottom of the TV screens on a handful of channels on my cable. I live in Columbia, Missouri , and if there is a night that I go to bed without knowing exactly how my hometown Baltimore Orioles did, it’s because I didn’t try at all.

Gamecasts and MLB-TV are things that students watch while they’re laying out pages here at the Missouri School of Journalism. There is no such thing as not knowing. There’s just not caring.

Even local news, local sports, is covered by local television and radio. The University of Missouri scores are readily available in any number of places on the web.

So again, what do you put in the newspaper?

“So what do you want to know?” I asked my wife.

“I have a lot of questions about Barbaro.”

She wanted to know how often this type of injury happened. What could have caused it? Could it have been prevented? What was the horse’s full prognosis? How many places in the country could deal with an injury of this kind?

So I went back into the newsroom and starting searching for stories. The “news” was already out there. Now I needed “stories.” I needed not only narratives, good storytelling. I also needed depth. Perception. Interpretation. It was the only way to go.

The truth is, newspapers are in a particularly good position to play this new game. They just haven’t realized it yet.

Newspaper staffs continue to be the largest newsgathering organizations in their communities. But they also have another unique feature: They have real writers, writers who can tell the stories, interpret the stories and put the stories into context. They have the columnists who can cajole and entertain.

Sports departments have to do both. Instead of waiting until the next day and dumping all content to the web, sports staffs have to re-purpose.

In other words, now we’ll tell you the news. Tomorrow morning, we’ll tell you the stories.

This will take re-structuring. Perhaps sports departments have to be split in two. One group of tech-savvy reporters whose job it is to get the news out, win the race with cell phone text-casting, webpage shorts, even blogs. Then another group of writers and columnists who will use their extra time wisely, providing the depth and entertainment that bring readers to the next day’s paper.

The same people doing both would split the focus that is required to do either one very well.

Promote the print product with the on-line, immediate product. And, even more importantly, provide exclusive print product: the next-morning stories.

Two products. Each approached in radically different ways. And both valuable to readers. The on-line product is for news. The print product is for stories, depth, interpretation, and narrative.

The problem is larger than sports. A similar scenario played out in entertainment a few days after that Bonds/Barbaro day, when the “American Idol” television show held its finale. An estimate 36.4 million people watched Taylor Hicks become the fifth American Idol.

Some newspapers led the next day’s editions with Hicks. But why? Everyone who wanted to know, and even most who didn’t, already knew. The news was out. Where were the stories?

The reality? Telling people news they already know is not a good business model.

Greg Bowers (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is also the sports editor of the Columbia Missourian, a six-day a week community newspaper managed by professionals with writing, editing and photography by students at the Missouri School of Journalism.)