On a side-note, the article on Jessica Simpson is a total filler.  I’d be surprised if many magazines sold.  She hasn’t done anything with her career except forget lyrics and create bad CD’s.  As EW.com pointed out, her being on the cover at all, without promoting anything, is strange and unusual.

False advertisements give the media a bad reputation.  Misleading headlines and misguided comments are exactly what make people think  poorly of the media.  Once editors and journalists begin to correct this situation, perhaps the media can be seen in a good light.

This sounds like a terrible idea to me.   Why give consumers the option to get greedy?  The Wall Street Journal has created a name for itself and managed to save some of its profits.  Giving away content to even a few viewers is unethical and just dumb.  While it reaches another demographic, tech-savvy iPhone users, it cuts out an entire market.  The market that was willing and able to pay for the content.  If I paid for the Journal and found out some people could get it for free, I’d be so unhappy.  Phonecalls would be placed…that’s all I’m saying.

I think the Journal should just forget about the iPhone app.   While a lot of people have them, there is no guarantee that they will subscribe to it.  iPhone apps are great, but I think it will just make paid subscribers more upset than necessary.

I tend to agree with what Pasetsky writes.  Celebrity blogs are huge.  Perezhilton.com is hugely successful, gaining major advertisers who occasionally buy out the entire page.  The New York Times recently wrote an article about a new site, Wonderwall.com, with a slightly nicer tone than Perez.   Being an avid reader of Perez, I of course had to check out Wonderwall.com.  I like it.  It reads horizontally instead of vertically which is nice, in case you are an incompetent scroller like I am.  The stories are good (I think Perez might be updated more)  but overall, I missed Perez’ rude analysis of celebrities.  However, that might have to do more with my personality than the blogs themselves.

Either way,  tabloids need to figure out how to convert the success of celebrity blogs into print and make money off of them.

Picture from Google Images

The White House announced on Monday that it is not planning to bailout newspapers, despite Obama’s belief in a strong free press.  U.S. newspapers have begun closing around the country as advertising revenue has gone done, as well as subscriptions.  Many readers have started heading to online for the free content.

Breitbart.com ran this story early last week about the imminent demise of newspapers and the lack of government help.  Although I am scared for the end of newspapers, mainly  because I would like a job after I graduate, I can’t help but think that the government is smart to stay out of it.  Newspapers/Journalists  are supposed to the watchdog of the government.  What sort of conflict of interest would that be, if the government was paying to keep the papers alive?  While newspapers do need help, the government is not the answer.

While it will be hard to do, micro-payments or making newspapers non-profit, would be the best bet.

As the journalism industry attempts to withstand the tests of time and technology, new ideas emerge every day.  BeatCache.com is the latest idea to rock the world of journalism.  Providing consumers with a personalized up-to-date site based on interests will detract viewers away from flippinge through newspapers and magazines.   As readers become more interested in online content, the journalism industry must respond.  BeatCache.com is the answer

Business Plan

BeatCache is a specialized site based on one’s interests.  When entering the site, the viewer chooses what category they are most interested in, from tabs along the top of the screen.

The reader can choose from:

Top News Stories

-Regional

-National

-International

Fashion

Health

Environment

Sports

Music

1. The full story, although longer than a traditional text message, will be sent to the cell phone.

Audience&Revenue

The market for BeatCache is any news savvy consumer.  However, the group will specifically market itself to people between the ages of 18 and 34.

BeatCache’s main source of revenue will come through advertising.  When a reader clicks on a headline, before the entire story is displayed, a ten second advertisement will air.  Since the site is separated by interests, it will be easier to gain advertisers. For example, Powerade, Nike, and UnderArmour can advertise before sports stories.  Armani, Gucci, and even the Style Network, can air ads before fashion stories.    Even though advertising is slow during the recession, advertisers are more likely to work with BeatCache because people are forced to watch the ads before he or she reads the story.  In magazines people can easily skip the ads.  That is not the case with BeatCache, a characteristic an advertiser will find very appealing.

For the text messaging aspect of BeatCache’s business model, an advertiser will sponsor each story.  After a consumer receives a text, it will say “Sponsored by…”, further displaying the advertisers name.

BeatCache will receive a $25,000 grant from the Knight Foundation to help start the website and continue its growth.

Although specific brands and companies will advertise on the site, there will not be any favor shown to those companies. Credibility and accuracy are the most important qualities to the site and its investors.  Sponsors may not appreciate the lack of favoritism but viewers will.

Reporting Staff

BeatCache will use a mix of full-time and freelance staff.  The majority of stories will come from other websites but BeatCache will have its own freelance reporters contribute.  Reporters will be responsible for producing photographs and videos, as well as writing the story.  Since the content is only distributed digitally, additional media items are necessary to provide a complete and transparent story.

There will also be fact checkers and researchers, on staff full time, who are responsible for making sure stories are transparent.  The fact checkers will also provide links in the story.  The links will link back to previous stories BeatCache has posted about a topic.

Revenue Functions

BeatCache will be a publicly owned and traded company.

Expenses

A percentage of the profit, separate from labor costs for staff, will go to the news companies from which the BeatCache stories are taken

Timetable

BeatCache is set to launch within three months.  The most difficult part of debuting BeatCache will be gaining the advertisers necessary to make the site a success.  Although the articles will grouped based on specific interests, advertisers are necessary to make the site profitable.

Conclusion

In a time when a consumer’s interests have shifted from newspapers to online content, BeatCache is the perfect tool.  Allowing a viewer to focus his or her interest to a specific group will stop him or her from being overwhelmed by news.  The ability to check the news on-the-go is also a plus.  While a computer may not always be accessible, a cell phone always is.  BeatCache is the best way for a smart consumer to stay involved in the news, but not be inundated by stories he or she is uninterested in.

Picture from Google Images

After losing $74.5 million in the first quarter of 2009, the New York Times is cutting costs in every department.  In this round of cuts, the papaer is suspending its grant-making and matching gift program.  The company feels that cutting the program is necessary, as it attempts to manage costs throughout the entire newspaper.

The Times will continue to support its scholarship program, in a smaller format, as well as it’s Neediest Cases campaign.  Community development advocates are upset at the program cuts since the program benefited community projects around the city.

It’s sad that the Times felt it was necessary to cut programs that benefit the community.  During the recession, the poorer communities tend to suffer the most.  Without the Times advocating change, the areas could continue to fall.  Together, with the Boston Globe the Times donated over $7 million dollars to programs dedicated to journalism, education, culture, the environment, and public service.  Although the Times may be temporarily cutting the grant program, perhaps a wealthy benefactor will take over, so that all the good does not go undone.

Picture from Google Images

TiVo, essentially the key component in breaking the television business model, is working to gain advertisers back.

According to the NY Times article, TiVo allows viewers to record TV shows and watch them later on, while fast forwarding through commercials.  Now TiVo is trying to sell ad spaces on its screens. However, the ads will be different than usual.  They will actually be interactive, asking the viewer to do something, like having the viewer type a number into the remote.  Once a viewer interacts with the ads, they can choose to request more information on the product.  While the idea is still in its infancy, more companies are planning to adopt the idea.

This plan sounds like a great idea to me.  With people having the ability to fast forward or skip commercials, anything that will peak one’s interest is a definite plus.  The interactivity between the television and the consumers changes how people view commercials or advertisements.  Consumers will start to look at the ads as fun or interesting.  The more attention-grabbing and fun the advertising companies make the ads, the more successful the companies will be.

The agreement has been made with several entertainment heavy hitters including Sony, MGM, and Lions Gate.  YouTube is also planning to revamp its current advertising model.  In order to attract more advertisers to keep the studios happy, YouTube plans to “to place ads before, during and alongside the videos and split the revenue with its partners.”  This new model does not extend to videos produced by amateurs.

I am really excited that YouTube plans to put TV episodes and movies on its site. I cannot count how many times I’ve searched for missed episodes and usually find poor quality or episodes that are split into sections. The same goes for movies. I know the content was put up illegally so I can’t complain too much. But it is annoying.

From a business stand point, I completely understand why YouTube wants to charge for its content. For a site that is extremely popular, it should be making some sort of considerable profit. However from a consumer view point, I would definitely not want to pay for YouTube. If I wanted to pay to watch a missed TV show or to see a movie, I would go to iTunes or “Videos on Demand.” I think YouTube will have a difficult time convincing consumers to pay to see its content. YouTube also needs to prove to me that it is worth it for me to pay and, above all, show me WHY I should pay for it.

**This is the third time I’ve attempted to write this post. Every time I finish writing the post and go back to try to put a picture or link in, the entire article resets. So, unfortunately, there will be no links in this blog, but not for lack of trying. If you would like to read the article this blog is commenting on, it is from the 4/17/09 New York Times Business Section, titled Deal Brings TV Shows and Movies to YouTube.

]]> http://reiland247.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/youtube-adding-tv-and-movies/feed/ 0 reiland247 http://reiland247.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/magazines-to-consider-raising-prices/ http://reiland247.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/magazines-to-consider-raising-prices/#comments Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:12:07 +0000 reiland247 http://reiland247.wordpress.com/?p=100 ]]>

Picture from Google Images

Magazine subscribers pay considerably less per issue than what the magazine is actually worth.  Most magazines subscribers pay, on average, less than a dollar per issue.  Magazine companies are  realizing the mistake now.

When advertising provided the real revenue and subscription money was just extra, this model worked fine.  However, as gaining advertisers becomes more difficult, subscribers are becoming more important.  Given the hard times, a balance needs to be found between charging a higher rate and maintaining subscribers.  According to the article in the New York Times, sometimes an increase of just 50 cents can cause a decline in subscriptions.  Magazine companies are walking a very fine line.

People use magazines as an escape.  I don’t think a slight increase in prices will hurt anybody.  I remember a few years ago, Seventeen magazine was around $12.95 for a years subscription.   That’s the price of about 3 magazines off the news stands.  The pricing was ridiculously low and at the time, I would have glady paid between 20 and 25 dollars for it.   Unfortunately, my tastes in magazines have matured to the pricier Vogue and I can’t quite make myself subscribe to it.  I’m also probably a magazine companies worst nightmare.  I really dislike advertisements for the most part and that is part of the reason I don’t buy the five pound Vogue. I don’t like wasting my time leafing through boring ads.  I’d much rather read the articles.

Image from Media Weekly

Last week, in class, I talked about how the magazines were giving up on The American Society of Magazine Editors rules, and instead considering publishing ads on the covers.  I completely understand why this is not a good idea.  I realize that advertisements should be kept separate from news.  However, the magazine community is up in arms over the cover of US Weekly.

For the week of April 20th, US Weekly ran a mock cover promoting HBO‘s new movie Grey Gardens.  The false cover was only put on subscribers copies and had the word “advertisement” clearly printed along the top of it.  The logo and font were also different, making the magazine look like it was from the 1940s. Directly under the faux cover, was the actual cover-looking modern with Lindsay Lohan on it.  (Why?  No one likes her anymore.)

Although it seems like US Weekly took all necessary precautions to make sure it was not deceiving its readers, the ASME, released this statement:

“ASME firmly believes that advertising cannot obscure the cover in any manner whatsoever, especially advertising that mimics editorial.”-ASME CEO Sid Hoyt

I personally do not think there is anything wrong with what US Weekly did.  It took all the extra precautions to let the readers know that the mock cover was fake and not real.  The cover didn’t even reach every one that reads the magazine since it only went out to subscribers.  I don’t understand why ASME is making such a big deal about it.

I also think that magazines should be doing whatever it can to maintain readers and make money.  If that involves putting ads on the covers, so be it.   I realize the bad position this puts magazines in.  If magazines can maintain their transparency, balance, and accuracy when reporting information there really shouldn’t be a problem.