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
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.
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.
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.
Newspapers, as a medium for delivering news, are dying. However the newsrooms that create content for the papers are crucial to the journalism industry, because they don't exist in any other media. TV news is fast, get some visuals, talk to a few folks and get it all done by 6:00pm. Newspaper journalists can pour more investigation and actual news reporting into a 2 column story than some anchorbabe can read on a teleprompter in 30-40 seconds.
The newspaper has to be kept alive, and if they figure out how to successfully produce enough revenue to continue to publish on the Web, great. But when you think about how much the work newspapers do influences all the other media, you start to wonder what how the profession as a whole would suffer if newspapers died out altogether.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I assume you mean that the *paper* delivery method is dying. As news gathering organizations, "newspapers" will survive (at least those that adapt.)
I canceled my subscription to my local newspaper around 1998, when they began putting their content online. I still use them as a source for news, however.
I'll be the first to say that the present state of the news media is sad. Still, there will always be a place for professional news gathering organizations.
"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