[Upd-discuss] Wired on BBC Creative Archive

[David H. Rothman]

> Obviously I'm not an expert on NYT, but I'd have though more than 10%
of
your entire revenue was rather significant! I know if my company (a
publisher) lost 10% of its revenue it would be in very deep trouble.

But what about the ad revenue that the NY Times is missing out on,
especially through the lack of permanent links. Many people use the Web
as a database. Well-linked sites like the NYT are prime real estate for
reaching that audience. A page associated with nytimes.com will fare
much better on Google than one from an obscure site.  Remember, too,
that we're talking about more than 10 percent in the here and now. As
Net usage grow, the ad market will be more profitable, and subscriptions
may not grow as quickly. Blogs with permanent links could just add to
the possibilities for advertising. If nothing else, consider the
built-in overhead of those expensive information services.

> I should also point out that publishers who rely heavily on advertiser
revenue are in serious danger of losing editorial control. I think we
have had advertisers pull their accounts because we've been critical of
their products. We can afford to do this, but if we really relied wholly
on advertiser revenue, we could not.

I applaud your desire for editorial independence. One possible solution
would be to woo many advertisers from many different industries--I don't
know whether or not that would work in your case. 

If you must charge--well, I do like the twist of at least keeping the
older articles online for historical reference. Your company might also
charge for reports that go beyond articles that appear on the Web. 

What's the nature of the publication, if I may ask? Maybe you can email
me privately with the name of the company, which I'll keep confidential?
That might give me some ideas.

Caveat: I'm hardly an advertising expert. But commonsense suggests that
a walled-off site may lose some significant advertising opportunities.
Depends. I don't pretend to know the situation at every publication.

David 

David Rothman, for TeleRead.org | 703-370-6540
Web log: http://www.teleread.org/blog

-----Original Message-----
From: upd-discuss-admin@lists.essential.org
[mailto:upd-discuss-admin@lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:37 AM
To: upd-discuss@venice.essential.org
Subject: RE: [Upd-discuss] Wired on BBC Creative Archive


On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:26:56 -0400, "David H. Rothman"
<davidrothman@pobox.com> said:

> Meanwhile here's some more info, from ClickZ
> (http://clickz.com/news/article.php/3327031). Online revenue for the
NY
> Times company appears to be $13 million for Jan.-Feb. of '04, up 40
> percent from the same months in '03. I suspect that means well over
$50M
> a year, allowing for seasonal variations.
> 
> So that $6M from Lexis and others, even if it's just for just the
actual
> NYT site, rather than Boston Globe, etc., is not the be-all and
end-all.
> What's more, it's going to be less and less important--much less. 

Obviously I'm not an expert on NYT, but I'd have though more than 10% of
your entire revenue was rather significant! I know if my company (a
publisher) lost 10% of its revenue it would be in very deep trouble.

> In fact, the Times over the long run would fare much better with a
pure
> advertising model, with the content woven solidly into the fabric of
the
> Net and blog links *encouraged*. - David

Do you have figures for this? I'm not trying to poke holes, I'm
genuinely interested if there's evidence that ad revenue can improve on
revenue from syndication and subscription for major publications.

My company has long provided one of their key publications on the web
for free, and is considering charging for it. They are looking at the
NYT model with a difference - articles less than a week old are free,
articles more than x years old are free, anything else is subscription
only. This provides two important areas of free access - breaking news,
and historical references. Obviously, we feel that add revenue alone is
insufficient.

I should also point out that publishers who rely heavily on advertiser
revenue are in serious danger of losing editorial control. I think we
have had advertisers pull their accounts because we've been critical of
their products. We can afford to do this, but if we really relied wholly
on advertiser revenue, we could not.

Jon
-- 
  Jonathan Peterson
  jon@snowdrift.org

_______________________________________________
Upd-discuss mailing list
Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss