Survey: people go to traditional media for breaking news

ClickZ - A LexisNexis survey comparing traditional media to the Web and citizen journalism places user-generated content toward the bottom of the pecking order — at least when it comes to major news events that could affect people’s lives. For more laid back content, such as entertainment news, the Web does better.

The study finds half of consumers turn to network television for breaking urgent news, 42 percent rely on radio, about a third look to local newspapers or cable news outlets, and a quarter use the Internet sites of print and broadcast media. Blogs, Internet user groups and chat rooms are a source of immediate news for only 6 percent of consumers.

As might be expected, the Web ranks higher for entertainment news. Internet sources, and in particular blogs, user groups and chat rooms, exceed radio and magazines as preferred places to go for such content. “Traditional lifestyle media” were named as the most trusted sources of entertainment content.

Asked which sources of news they expect to rely on in the future, 52 percent said they will “primarily” or “mostly” trust traditional news sources over emerging sources, and 35 percent said they expect to confer “equal trust” on both types of news outlets. Thirteen percent said they expect to put more trust in emerging sources.

“It speaks to the point that consumers don’t view the channels the way marketers and media partners use channels,” said Jim Nail, chief strategy and marketing officer at Cymfony, which provides traditional and consumer generated media measurement services. “I thought it was fascinating that blogs and online sources were number two for entertainment. That says a good and reliable source for entertainment news is people like me, and I think if you’d gone back a few years they’d say the traditional media guy.”

LexisNexis surveyed over 1,500 people aged 25 to 64 for the purposes of the study. Respondents, who were divided into “business professional” and “consumer” groups, were asked which news sources they trust to provide information about news that matters most to them.

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.）

Study: netsurfers avoid flashy banner ads, prefer text ads

Clickz.com - An eye-tracking study conducted by the Nielsen/Norman Group finds Internet users avoid viewing banner ads. Text advertising is read more often than display ads, according to the research.

Banner blindness means Internet users focus on the content on a page and ignore the advertisements. This is especially true for bright, flashing ads, and other units that are not relevant to what the user is interested in reading, the researchers found.

"People are not looking at the typical blinding, graphical ads," said Nielsen Norman Group Director of Research Kara Pernice Coyne. "They are not [looking] enough time to absorb a complex ad or branding message."

There's still hope for online ads. Pernice Coyne said graphical ads with text and contrasting colors, like white text on red, is less likely to be disregarded. "They're looking at them if they're text," she said. "I hate to sound boring, but [it is best] if you can make sure your ad is something simple, text or a recognized logo, and it needs to be relevant to the page."

Pernice Coyne suggests the behavior may be due, in part, to experience with ads that direct users to sites with malicious code or other undesirable results. "There are too many unscrupulous advertisers," she said. "Users are not going to click on something they think will annoy them or hurt their system."

While the study's finding would seem to threaten the rising Internet ad spend, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), at least, isn't concerned.

"There literally have been thousands of studies now on online advertising's effectiveness," said IAB President Greg Stuart. "All the evidence is in: smoking kills, online advertising works. There is no more information to be had. We can deny the information, but that's all it is: denial."

Stuart points to the IAB's cross media optimization studies (XMOS), which demonstrates the value of online advertising. While the research doesn't observe usability, it measures the medium against other channels.

"All of those studies indicate that online advertising is effective and that in most cases it is the most cost-effective medium in a marketer's mix," said Stuart.

Stuart agrees that things could work better. "I believe very strongly that we can still continue to make online advertising work even harder," he said.

Though the eye-tracking study casts doubt on banners, it supports the effectiveness of one category: search. "People do look at sponsored links on search pages and images on search pages," said Pernice Coyne. "They really look for words that match what they are searching for. If you have a strange title to the page, people will skip over it.

"It's so important what you call your links in search results. Users don't give you a lot of chances," Pernice Coyne said.

Previous reports have shown sponsored listings can succeed beyond the first position. The NNG research finds it is important to be placed among the first few.

"In search results, people look mostly at the first few links on the page," said Pernice Coyne.

Sponsored links need to closely relate to search terms to be successful. "When you look at [the sponsored links] and they're not related to the content, users look away quickly, almost like you're slapping them on the hand," said Pernice Coyne. "These types of advertisers doing this type of advertising, I feel like they're going to ruin it very quickly. People are incredibly good at blocking things out they don’t like."

The researchers also found that people read Web pages in an F-pattern, narrowing their focus as they scroll down a page of content. Pernice Coyne said readers fixate or focus on the content at the top of a page, read a little bit further down, then give up and go back to the beginning of the same or subsequent page.

Images that appear in the middle of the page, a spot for advertisements, are considered "obstacles" and annoying.

The usability study was conducted on a group of about 230 people. Participants were asked to surf the Web to their own destinations. They were also given tasks such as finding out how to tie a bowline knot and researching getting a mortgage. Participants carried out these tasks while a camera tracked the pupil as the eye engaged what was on the screen.

Online readers will buy online

最新研究，82%看網上報紙的人會從網上購買東西；不看網上報紙的人，只有55%會在網上購物。

這個訊息非常重要，因為顯示了網上報紙對產品有促銷作用，廣告就有效了。

現代的辦報人，如果還在拘泥多賣幾多份報紙，計較無法增加買報的人數，就實在太短視了。開闢網上市場，才是正確路向。
Online Newspaper Readers Younger, Buy More, than Non-Users
By Jennifer Saba
Published: June 16, 2006

NEW YORK People who read newspapers online buy more products online, a new study from the Newspaper Association of America found. Eighty-two percent of "power users" purchase products online compared with only 55% of individuals who don't frequent newspaper Web sites.

The study conducted by MORI Research on behalf of the NAA surveyed 1,501 Internet users by phone as well as 9,576 online newspaper users via an online “pop-up” survey on 10 newspaper Web sites.

"Power users" are defined as readers who visit Web sites on an average day. The mean age of a power user is 39 compared with 42 for non-users. Forty percent are between the ages of 18 and 34. Fifty-two percent hold college degrees versus 35% of non-users.

The research also found that 72% of newspaper online power users browse for products on sale versus 48% of non-users. Additionally, 43% of power users download coupons compared with 14% of non-users.

"Online newspaper readers are a unique class of highly engaged consumers who have made newspaper Web sites an integral part of their daily lives as they seek information, conduct research on products, and execute transactions," John Sturm, NAA president and CEO, said in a statement.

Power users are more likely to use online services: Seventy percent pay their bills online compared with 28% of non-users, for example.

The study found that power users are going to online newspapers more often than they did in 2004. Those who "visited yesterday" advanced from 12% to 16% in 2004. Twenty-nine percent visited newspaper Web sites in the past seven days.

The 10 online newspapers that participated in the study include: AZCentral.com, Boston.com, CJOnline.com, Cleveland.com, DelawareOnline.com, KnoxNews.com, MySanAntonio.com, Sacbee.com, TBO.com, and TwinCities.com.

The importance of RSS

Just An Online Minute... Growth In RSS
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

A new report from JupiterResearch finds that 63 percent of big companies plan to syndicate content via Really Simple Syndication by the end of 2006. The report "RSS Comes of Age: Budgeting, Deploying, and Measuring RSS," indicates that currently only 29 percent of large companies (with more than $50 million in annual revenues) publish content via RSS technology.

Since RSS users are heavier consumers of online media than traditional online users are, they represent a prime demographic for online publishers. The Jupiter report suggests that marketers can either modify their RSS feeds to individual users through individualized RSS (IRSS) or create traditional broadcast feeds. IRSS feeds are subscriber-centric and created in much the same way as targeted e-mail campaigns, including all of the measurement benefits associated with e-mail marketing.

The growth of RSS is underscored by the fact that 48 percent of current RSS publishers are spending $250,000 or more to deploy and manage syndicated content. However, JupiterResearch has also found that spending at this level is inconsistent with the current rate of adoption.

"Despite low perceived adoption rates and definitive measurement standards, site operators are increasing spending on RSS deployments," said Greg Dowling, senior analyst at JupiterResearch. "In order to maximize their investment in RSS, site operators should leverage emerging tools and technologies specifically tailored to RSS."

"The primary challenge to greater adoption is a lack of experience with RSS and resources to deploy it," said David Schatsky, president of JupiterKagan. "However, recent offerings from e-mail service providers and RSS service providers are lowering the barrier for feed management, deployment and measurement."

Sponsored Clicks Increasingly Important

Sponsored Clicks Increasingly Important（這裡）
by Jack Loechner, Friday, May 5, 2006 7:45 AM EST
Sponsored Clicks Increasingly Important

According to just released comScore qSearch data, and analysis and commentary by comScore, Peter Daboll, President and CEO of comScore Media Metrix, said "With the number of sponsored clicks representing a significant driver of search engine revenue... approximately 11.4 percent of Yahoo! and 11.8 percent of Google's searches resulted in a click on a sponsored ad. These click-through levels are substantially higher than those seen with traditional banner ads..."

According to the report:

• The total number of searches conducted on Google rose 36 percent to 2.7 billion in March 2006, versus year ago
• Searches conducted on Yahoo! Search totaled 1.6 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the prior year
• In March 2006, 1.4 billion searches conducted on Google included a sponsored ad, (up 50 percent versus year ago)
• 942 million searches conducted on Yahoo! Search included a paid ad (up 30% versus the prior year)

今年網上廣告市場增長料達28.7%（這裡）

MERRILL LYNCH RAISED ITS FORECAST for this year's online ad market to 28.7 percent growth--up from its previous estimate of 27.5 percent growth, based on a stronger-than-expected first-quarter showing by Google. In a report issued Monday, Merrill Lynch predicted that search advertising alone would grow 32.7 percent, up from the prior forecast of 31.6 percent. Merrill Lynch now estimates that the U.S. online ad spend will total around $16.15 billion this year, or 5.5 percent of total ad spending.

報紙要生存就要變

Quebecor行政總裁也說報紙要生存就要變，跟隨消費者的行為模式變。

Quebecor overhaul
Globe and Mail

Quebecor Inc. is shaking up the slumping Sun newspaper chain as some of its flagship dailies are increasingly being squeezed by the growth of free commuter papers, including its own publication, 24 Hours.

The Montreal-based media giant is embarking on an ambitious digital strategy aimed at breathing new life into its television, newspaper and Web operations, starting in Toronto where the company's biggest newspaper has seen its reader and circulation numbers eroding.

Quebecor chief executive officer Pierre Karl Péladeau said the model for newspapers needs to change if publications want to attract younger readers.（full speech here）In a pair of moves Tuesday, the company announced plans to link its newspaper, Web and TV network in Toronto more closely than any other company has in Canada so far.

If successful, the strategy could be spread across the company's operations.

Quebecor also installed a new publisher at the helm of its largest newspaper, the Toronto Sun, which has seen its readership and circulation erode faster than its competitors in recent months.

The company plans to stream broadcasts from its Sun TV network in Toronto over the Internet, letting viewers contribute their own video footage to news programs, while also allowing them to see inside editorial meetings at Toronto Sun offices where news decisions are made.

"I think there is no other future for conventional media . . . than to migrate to this model," Mr. Péladeau said after the presentation. "Probably this was something that [media] convergence was all about a few years ago."

The change in tack comes less than a week after industry data showed weekday readership sinking at some of Quebecor's biggest daily newspapers.

Audience numbers have fallen in both Toronto and Montreal, where paid newspapers have contributed significantly in the past to Quebecor's profit.

Circulation in Toronto has also dropped faster than at its rivals, an industry study revealed last week.

"Certainly something needs to change that will make newspapers interesting for a younger generation," Mr. Péladeau said. "Doing commodity news like the way the newspapers were doing previously is certainly not a model of the future."

Mr. Péladeau said Quebecor will spend the next six months testing the digital revamp.

Analysts have suggested the company has found itself at a crossroads where the rapid growth of free daily commuter papers over the past year, including Quebecor's own 24 Hours, has hurt its paid publications.

Weekday readership at 24 Hours in Toronto has soared more than 13.5 per cent in the past year - more than any other daily publication in that market, according to Newspaper Audience Databank Inc.

But a considerable portion of that growth has come at the expense of The Toronto Sun, analysts suggest, because the publications are both chasing similar commuter audiences.

"They were the ones that were most at risk," said analyst Carl Bayard at Desjardins Securities in Montreal. "And I think what we're seeing now is bearing that out."

Weekday readership of the Toronto Sun fell more than 17 per cent in the past year, while weekday circulation dropped 4.7 per cent. The company saw a similar slide in Montreal, where readership at Quebecor's commuter paper 24 Heures also rose faster than the company's paid publications.

"They are trying to do things to reverse the momentum," Mr. Bayard said. "The readership and the circulation figures are very poor. And that is definitely a cause for worry."

Mr. Lee is a 17-year veteran of the company who recently served as corporate controller.

One industry analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the move may suggest an increased focus on the newspaper's costs, at a time when its profit has also fallen.

The Toronto Sun recently reversed a weekday price increase from 50 cents to 75 cents in an attempt to jump-start readership.

Mr. Péladeau said the company has not considered giving the paper away, but suggested some publications may eventually take that route.

"We're not there yet. And I'm saying yet because we don't know what the future will be all about," Mr. Péladeau said.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Media sources merging
Consumers want greater access to information, Quebecor boss says.

TORONTO -- Recognizing the changing media landscape, Quebecor is converging its resources to create a new and exciting path to a successful future, its chief executive said yesterday.

Consumers of media want control over when and how they access information -- "it's empowerment," Pierre Karl Peladeau said in a keynote address to the Canadian Media Directors' Council.

Toronto's competitive media market is indicative of what is happening around the world, he said.

Consumers want access to new information and content quickly, Peladeau said, and like Quebecor, other media companies must be prepared to tackle that challenge.

"Our plan is to build on the experiences we have had so far in combining different media into successful ventures," he said, "and capitalize on the journalist skills and other strengths of Quebecor's media operations."

Quality journalism is still crucial, Peladeau said.

"I believe that great journalism -- with virtues such as independence, skepticism, tenacity in digging out a story, balance and checking for accuracy -- is now and will continue to be a valuable quality in media," he said, adding Quebecor employs more than 1,200 journalists.

"Success will be measured by being more closely connected to our consumer than ever before -- and listening intelligently to what they want," he said.

"Print continues to be a strong vehicle for advertisers," Peladeau said.

"Newspapers have enormous power to influence purchasing decisions."

Quebecor is going to be well-positioned to address those changes by converging its newspaper, TV and Internet resources, he said.

Quebecor is integrating its Toronto newspaper and television divisions for a new current affairs program on Sun TV and streaming live on canoe.ca, Peladeau said.

Among other initiatives, Quebecor will use input from "citizen journalists" with cellphone cameras and other digital technologies.

The program, to be called Canoe Live, will be launched in May, and will include reports from journalists at the Toronto Sun newsroom with interactive feedback from the street and other sources.

"We want to create a dialogue with viewers, readers and website visitors to evolve and improve the product," Peladeau said.

網站收益救電視台

wow! CNN.com的收入，已經超過電視收入！CNN看到未來電子媒體的市場在互聯網上，美國看電視的人數正在日漸萎縮，各大電視巨人現在搶的，是互聯網用家市場。（電視猶如此，報紙可想而知）

根據New York Observer比較多家傳統電視大老的電視及網站收視率，發現電視上CNN輸給對手FOX，但網上，則CNN稱王。

Quietly, on the Internet, the terms of the cable-news ratings battle have been reversed: Web audiences flock to CNN.com and MSNBC.com, while FoxNews.com trails badly.

Even more quietly, that Web traffic is rescuing the finances of the trailing networks—supplying tens of millions of dollars a month.

For all its struggles in the TV ratings, CNN is still reporting revenue growth. That’s due to money from online advertising, according to CNN.com senior vice president and general manager David Payne.

At MSNBC, the MSNBC.com Web site sometimes earns more in monthly ad revenue than the cable channel does, said Kyoo Kim, the site’s vice president of sales.

On Feb. 3, BusinessWeek reported that MSNBC and CNN have been beating Fox on the Web in Nielsen online ratings.
On Feb. 6, CNN supplied The Observer with its own internal traffic-tracking numbers: According to the site’s data, CNN.com had 1,313,592,095 page views in January 2006.

Those numbers translate into money. <—最緊要啦！

CNN.com charges between $9 and $30 for 1,000 page views of a display ad. (For comparison’s sake, a 30-second spot during Anderson Cooper 360 costs around $10,000, according to one television buyer. That means an advertiser would pay around $16 to reach 1,000 viewers.)

Assuming the cheapest rate, $9, and assuming a single ad per page, the site would make $12 million per month, at the very minimum.

And that doesn’t include the priciest part of Web advertising: video ads. Last month, users watched 26,862,029 clips on CNN.com, according to the network. At prices between $35 and $45 per thousand views, the 10-second ad spots attached to each clip would have brought in an additional million dollars, at least, for the network.

All of this makes up a growing share of the networks’ total yearly revenue. In 2005, CNN grossed $794 million in revenue. Fox made $574 million; MSNBC made $258 million.