Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Ad Network Shuns Google, Yahoo, MS
Ian Lamont writes "The New York Times, and the Tribune, Gannett, and Hearst companies have launched their own ad network, called QuadrantOne. It will let advertisers place ads on media sites in 27 major markets, and let them target readers by content type, demographic information, and online behavior. Notably absent from the deal: Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Both Google and Yahoo have their own ad networks focused on newspapers, but, as the article says, 'if newspapers develop better ways to sell their own online ads, they may not have to share revenue with their Web counterparts such as Yahoo and Google.'"
One one hand, the last thing that my life needs is more sources of advertising to clutter life up.
On the other hand is a glove... wait..
No, on the other hand is the fact that this creates competition in the online advertising arena. I had not thought that to be a problem before, but so it goes. Let them at it. It will either help keep print media afloat a bit longer or send them down the toilet that much faster.
Personally, I'm all for having a bit more competition in the op-ed and fact-checking areas of mainstream media... MAYBE... and I'm only saying MAYBE one of the MSM outlets will attempt to keep themselves alive and relevant by becoming a TRUSTWORTHY source of news...
I'm sure I'll wake up soon and wonder what this dream was all about, so go back to your regularly scheduled programming. Have you ever wondered why they didn't just say program? or show? or entertainment?
Freudian slip perhaps?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
But all I can think about is how they seem to cry monopoly when some kind of new competition shows up.
I hate to say it, but I expect them to call for some kind of investigators in on this one too if they haven't already...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Web sites have ads? Who knew?
Anyway, good luck with your failing business model, newspapers! I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers will have some words of comfort for you.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
What's a newspaper?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Apparently, the news industry is hurting. But the problem is that anymore they are all the same. More and more, they all spout the same thing, and will not cover what is news worthy (bad reporting, spin, whatever). These days, I have been turning overseas to find out exactly what America is up to, and then MIGHT see the article buried about a month later. That is NOT how we are suppose to get the story. This AM got into a discussion with another about reporting and at some point it was mentioned that if not spin, then it was shoddy reporting. For the last 5 years, I have seen nothing but increasingly shoddy reporting.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That makes sense.
A big problem with Google's "content network" is that most of the ad sites have no real content. The newspaper industry at least has something worth attaching ads to. Google is taking a 50% cut of ad revenue without doing very much for it.
This may push Google ads towards the "bottom feeder" made-for-Adwords sites, especially if the news media become very aggressive about going after anyone copying their content. This will make thosse ads much less valuable; that's where the low-value clicks come from.
as if MS needs another reason to try buying a competitor, along comes a new ad platform. the markets may not be a popular as some of the portal aggregators, but there's more than enough market to go around.
does anyone have an ad platform broker, that manages your ads on multiple platforms for you? i mean, thats the spirit of the web - encapsulate and aggregate, right?
Open Adblock control - insert domain... and there you have it, another empty space where annoyance used to be :D
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
The old monopolies are dying out.
This is true freedom and they don't like it.
...start your ad blockers. Don't forget to add: quadrantone.com.
quadrantone.net and quadrantone.org are link farms.
And I say let them die. The Internet has really replaced the newspaper.
First the newspaper was the only real source for news.
Then Radio Came along and TV. And the news Paper still did pritty good. Because the News on them would only cover particular topics and usually gloss over details... and they still do.
Now with the internet it changed the rules for good.
You can get more news on the Internet then with news papers. The news is always up to date, and you can drill down to the real details if you wanted to, even more then the news paper will cover. For example The primaries You can see in Real Time what everyones status is. Then you can break it down by state and on some sites by county. As well you can get more information on the deligate system if you are unclear on how something works. It just gives you more when you want more. And less when you want less.
Next I always hated News Papers because they were hard to read. Big sheets of paper with smugy text and the pages that will fall apart if you hold it wrong. Then withing a week you have a bunch of pages that are junk and will need to be cleaned. Vs. Just reading news on your laptop. and when you done no mess.
News Papers are just prolonging the inevatible, they will go away like the telegraph.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Hopefully this will launch a long drawn out feature war. Remember we are talking about Google and Microsoft here. They have their hands and are flush with so much cash that they can just outflank newspapers in so many ways by simply blocking entry or buying it out.
This is probably a good thing for the publishers and advertisers.
I gleefully welcome the destruction of the mainstream media. Why? Despite touting itself as a watchdog, the media is quite possibly the single biggest enemy that "democracy" and liberty have in the United States. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that whatever can be said of Bush and Cheney, the mainstream media beats them by a wide margin. It doesn't criticize the government except a few politicians, it almost never holds corrupt and abusive government employees accountable, and it rarely provides a voice for actually holding the government by the short hairs and making it fess up.
There is a case that, for me, was the last straw. It was written in the Pilot, which is a major Virginia media outlet. I have a write up here showing how much of a f$%^ing lapdog the media was in not questioning how the police carried out this raid. The reports have only gotten worse, including it appears to be that the police conducted this raid after knowing that their own informant committed a felony against the poor guy by breaking into his home 3 days before the raid (might explain why he was trigger happy when the police raided the house 3 days later at night while he was in bed).
The media has two modes when it comes to their traditional role of watchdog: lapdog and psychotic attack dog that turns on the children. They'll either damn near cover stuff up, or make a mountain out of a molehill, when there are plenty of good examples that would get the public furious for good reasons.
What is this? Some bullshit concept of "journalist ethics and social responsibility" at work? I don't buy the corporate angle that much because if they reported half of the shit that makes it to civil libertarian blogs and kept up with it, they'd have more naturally occurring controversy to sell ads with than the law should allow.
So, I say bring it on to the mainstream media. There are plenty of lightweight media outlets that aren't barely more than Associated Press resellers, and they're going up against Craigslist, a 800lb gorilla in the classifieds market now.
You neither hate to bash Google nor do you hate to say that you expect them to call for some kind of investigation. If you hated those things, you wouldn't have bothered to post them on slashdot.
If something fits, or is likely to fit, the definition of a monopoly, then Google is well within their rights to request an investigation. Similarly, when and if Google itself fits that definition, it should also be investigated.
Personally, I would be very happy to see more members of industry cartels start calling "monopoly" on one another. Sure, the investigation costs a lot of taxpayer money, but if it results in real monopolies being broken down into smaller companies that have to actually compete against one another, then our entire economy gets stronger because of it.
And I do not "hate" to say any of that.
From the http://www.quadrantone.com/ site:
"Access to sophisticated audience targeting by context, behavior and demographics".
I can see how they can target by context (selling to specific websites), but how can they target by behavior or demographics? Will they be looking at the cookies on user machines to try to determine behavior? How will they get demographic information?
They are finally figuring out this thing and that they are the ones publishing the current and continuously updated content. Why do you need a middle man like Google, Yahoo, or MSN to get in the way? These guys have been selling advertising longer then founders of those three companies have been alive.
The New York Times is dying.
Even the New York Times confirms it.
I don't block Google ads because Google has avoided obnoxious ads. I won't block Q1 ads unless they decide to make them obnoxious (e.g. flash, animations, large, pop ups, etc). Given the history of the newspaper business not keeping up with the world, I worry that I may end up having to block them. Then I'd become some kind of news freeloader.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'm not surprised that the average person doesn't remember the rise and fall of New Century Network, but at the very least some of the newspapers involved in this debacle-to-be should -- they're about to make all the same mistakes over again!
"target readers by content type, demographic information, and online behavior."
Yeah, OK. When I created logins for the NYT and the Washington Post websites, I'm pretty sure I told them I was born in 1901, live in ZIP code 90210, and am female.
Good luck with that advertising, guys.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
Google is KNOWN for their search engine and for how targeted their ads are between the end viewer AND the site. In the denver post or rocky mountain news, when I see ads beside some article, they have NOTHING to do with the content. ABsolutely nothing. I noticed that when I was reading about the butchery at NIU, that I was being shown ads about dating women on the east coast. I am not single, and I have nothing to do with the east coast, and what does dating have to do with an idiot running around murdering ppl? All in all, the newspaper have less and less news, and unless they hire some good ppl on, even their ads will remain worthless. Off hand, I believe that the "news" papers are heading towards being the bottom feeders.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
By coincidence, I have launched my own network of local roads for access to the rest of the world.
Notably absent from the deal: The highway and freeway systems.
I'm sure I'll have lots of visitors.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I read some of the comments and it seems like people are saying that this is a desperate attempt to save the newspaper industry. I don't think it's desperate at all - I think it's actually a wise choice. The players are engaging in what's called a "vertical market" - in case anyone overlooked this fact - in order to serve the needs of the core business.
They're not trying to save the ship: they're building a better ship.
"It was hell!" recalls former child.
I'm right there with you. There's still a place for small-town papers because all those decisions being made by your local politicians affect your daily life more than what you'll read in the New York Times. And who's going to cover those exciting meetings? Maybe that can get outsourced to India, too.
I grow tired of all the people who are quick to toss out accusations about the media as "lapdogs," "writing crap," "shoddy reporting," "one-sided," etc. Fair enough, but I find those accusations usually get thrown out by people who simply don't like what they read, and shoot the messenger. I ran into this this week. Our local sawmill is closing, putting hundreds of people out of work. Big news. However, I learn that some of those laid-off employees, if they choose, could take a job at the pulp mill next door, bumping pulp mill employees out of work because of an arcane agreement that is 14 years old. I report this fact and get blasted for it. But it's a fact. I could do what the other newspaper here in town did -- whose employees are in the same union as the sawmill -- and ignore this little fact to ingratiate myself to the union, and cover my own ass while appearing to be sympathetic. But instead my credibility has been questioned, I have pissed-off people phoning me at home to be abusive and I ask myself, why do I bother? I don't get paid enough for this crap.
How many other reporters are asking themselves that same question?
And for anyone who tries to argue that journalism is some idealistic calling, save the evangelism for the Sunday morning edition.
...there we go. I suppose "quadrantONE.com" will do. Strangely enough, when you go to the site, it doesn't give you a tracking cookie. (Yet.)
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Anyone got the FQDNs and nameservers for the domains these bozos want to use yet? I've got null zones for most of the major ad servers, i.e., 247realmedia.com, doubleclick.com, atdmt.com, amongst many others, already set up on my nameserver. This change is going to cost another 20 minutes of my time to craft null zones for their domains so I don't have to see their idiotic crap.
first I've never seen the NYTimes do anything technologically right that wasn't accomplished 4 years prior. but that aside, the real value to advertisers is knowing a ton about the viewer and being able to work on them over time by impressions. Thus those that can serve advertisers best are those with the broadest knowledge about the viewer and those able to serve up ads to that viewer across a variety of sites and impressions. So, the NYTimes will fail because they'll only know about people's behavior as far as they can learn from their site and affiliated sites, while Google collects vast sums of info about the user from a large swath of sites - think of how cross mashing data from the nytimes with google search, google groups, urchin tracker on everyone's blogs, etc all can be slammed together to create a very robust profile of the viewer. Then you take that info and coordinate advertising serving to all the affiliated sites for that viewer that are in the google ad serving network. So first impression is at some random blog with urchin tracker on it, second impression is at NYTimes who is serving google ads and has mashed their user profiles with google's, third impression is back at your political google group. You finally go to search for a new laptop on google and the ads at the top take you to ebay on the model they just hit you about three times. Or actually run that in reverse a bit. You searched for a laptop - it all these affiliated sites - where they just happen to repeatedly serve up laptop ads.
Let me conclude with this thought, although you can make a pizza on your own at home, its never going to be as good as the pizza from the guy who's family has been making pizza for 30 years. Every day Google is dedicated to learning more about user patterns and interests and how to best target them with ads for the highest conversion rate. The NYTimes on the other hand does this as a hobby on top of writing news. Who is going to is going to get the best conversion rate? If I'm an advertiser I'll be asking for Google every time.
Screw you guys .. I'm .. going home.
and as soon as they start the adservices, I'll block them :)
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
The three (two) potential purchasers of this service are shockingly absent? Shocking. You'd think if you wanted to make money selling something to someone you'd ask them if they wanted to be in on the ground floor. Yes, they want to sell it to Microsoft or Google.
MSM is not content. Like doubleclick they've made it trivially easy to block their ads which I appreciate.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
It's many sheets of paper made from dead trees with distilled lies printed on it using soybean ink. It's really useful as fuel and as a liner for small animal cages.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty