At first, I thought Hearst's new iPhone app division sounded cheesy, but the idea is gradually growing on me. The division, called LMK, short for "Let Me Know", is a lean operation. Five employees churn out apps that cost $.99 to $1.99 for a "few hundred dollars of employee time," said the division's executive vice president George Kliavkoff in an article by The Wall Street Journal. This thing is built with one objective, load up the App store with as many products as possible, as quickly as possible and wait for the money to flow in.The app generation operation seems to have emerged out of a destination site called LMK.com, originally built by Hearst Entertainment last year as a growing number of vertical channels supported by content aggregation and curation tactics.The apps are essentially mini content aggregators by themselves. Each is built within a similar template and collects links from a variety of sources on a particular niche topicâ€”specific celebrities, sports teams, etc. "LMK's five full-time employees simply dig up the best sources of information on each topic area and feed the sources into a common template," says the WSJ.com story. The only costs apparently are employee time and photo licensing as needed.It's a corporate approach to everyone's app creation lottery fantasy. (What if we created an app that didn't require much work, chucked it into the App store for 99 cents and see if we can sell a few thou?)It's an adaptable strategy. If it doesn't work, roll it up and move on. In the meantime, the plan is to eventually have thousands of apps available. At its heart, the plan acknowledges that the store is already bloated with 150,000 apps and aims to tip the ratio in its favor (reports note that Hearst has confirmation from Apple that the apps will not be barred from the store despite their volume and lightweight utility). Second, studies have pointed out that many apps are downloaded, consumed and then discarded shortly thereafter anyway. Why not keep the pipeline stocked as long as the demand continues? As one trend emerges, LMK produces an app. As that trend dissipates, LMK is close behind with another app based on the next trend. Rinse, repeat.Curiously, the strategy hinges on an automated, multi-source aggregation tactic that is reminiscent of similar tactics from other aggregators that frequently draw the ire of big publishers. It's also a light-weight product, a simple bet that consumers will value an aggregation tool at 99 cents that collects news about a favorite team or celebrity.But it's a low-cost, under-the-radar operation for Hearst and one that just might produce decent returns.
Adding up the revenue from GQ's 18,000 $2.99 iPhone app downloads is, for now, missing the point.Rather, publishers should be knocking on Charles Townsend's door with a list of questions about who those downloaders are and what, exactly, their behavior and engagement metrics are like. How many articles were read, how did they swipe and pinch their way to that article, how many jumped from an ad or story directly to a product and bought it?Yes, 18,000 readers at sub-$40,000 is chump change when held up against the print magazine's distribution and ad sales. But we're two months into wondering how readers are going to interact with a full-text and image magazine squeezed onto a device with a 3.5-inch screen with, I'm guessing, fairly minimal marketing muscle behind it. Let's see how that goes first. 18,000 people is a pretty good-sized focus group.I like CondĂ©â€™s move. They went all-in, offering the full magazine. No half-step, incremental, bite-sized experiments. GQ is a strong brand and CondĂ© put that strength to the test by seeing how it holds up and translates to a mobile environment.A spokesperson at CondĂ© Nast told me readers spent an average of 83 minutes with their iPhone GQ. That's a pretty long time.There's been a lot of discussion about whether publishers are missing the point by trying to shoe-horn a print product carbon-copy, and its business model, into a mobile context. But let's use the GQ experiment, and any others like it, as the control and first see if it has legs on the small screen. Let's understand how readers interact with the functionality. Let's see how many ultimately download it, if it's worthwhile to market it, how users interact with it after they get it. Then, beyond the initial $2.99 sale, let's look at how else to monetize it if the audience density is there.CondĂ© Nast chose the proprietary route and built, along with Adobe, their own reader app for the iPhone. But I'd also like to see the digital edition providers, like Zinio and Nxtbook, that are developing platform-neutral access to digital editions pile on with their app and mobile device usage metrics too.
UPDATE: Nxtbook Media's Marcus Grimm has offered up some interesting stats of his own, and rightly questions Conde's method of acheiving that 83-minute average. Is that stat survey-sourced or from actual metrics? In the meantime, Grimm notes that, for mobile device Nxtbook readers, the iPhone has the highest time-spent metric with a more down-to-earth 3.5 minutes. Blackberry readers were next at just over 2.5 minutes. For a full breakdown, read Grimm's post here.
UPDATE 2: A Conde Nast spokesperson said the 83 minutes was lifted from actual app metrics, it's not the result of a user survey: "[The metric] comes from the analytics package built into the app. In other words, it is a metric that comes from real-world app use and our measurement of it."
Where smaller publishersâ€”from b-to-b to consumer enthusiastâ€”form consortiums to attain economies of scale for materials and production services like printing, paper buying and distribution, the mass consumer publishers are setting aside their historically fierce competitiveness to tackle mass problems. Â
Across-the-board ad page and revenue drops, online-sourced subscriptions, pay wall models, and digital content formats and distribution are some of the latest battles that big consumer publishers think can be won through solidarity.
It's an interesting concept that can be traced back to then Hachette CEO Jack Kliger's outspoken calls for pre-recession unity to revolutionize rate baseâ€”magazines needed to stop competing with each other, come together as a platform and compete with TV, the Internet and radio. "Circulation-based metrics are irrelevant to proving advertising effectiveness," he told an AMC audience in 2005.
Now, sick of feeling the sting from getting spanked by "aggregators," "plagiarists," and "content kleptomaniacs," as Ruport Murdoch put it at a recent event in Beijing where he and the AP's CEO Tom Curley continued their rant against Google et al, big publishers are joining together to ostensibly regainâ€”or actually gainâ€”control of how their content and advertising models are consumed.
How crazy would it have sounded if, before the recession hit, Time Inc., Conde Nast, Hearst and Meredith all joined together to create a digital distribution platform to develop a proprietary content format and service eReaders?
How about creating an ad network? Up to now, publishers were leveraging and/or creating their own vertical networks. Martha Stewart Living, Meredith and Forbes were all creating them. Now, there's some background chatter about the formation of a multi-publisher ad network. AdAge reported on it, and PaidContent threw a wet blanket on the concept.
And then there's Time Inc.'s year-old Maghound, which offers custom subscription packages to a variety of publications from different publishers. 413,000 issues have been shipped so far, and Maghound's president Dave Ventresca told attendees at MPA's Innovation Summit this month that as the service moves out of its proof of concept stage, it will begin a more robust marketing campaign for all participating publisher titles, not just the Time Inc. ones.
Most recently, 15 British publishers formed a venture to promote their thinking person's magazines that apparently get lost in the crush of titles dealing with less weighty topics.
On a smaller publisher scale, but by no means tiny, Mother Jones is leading the formation of a journalistic co-op to tackle, in an investigative format, climate changeâ€”several magazines are sharing reporting resources. AdAge's Simon Dumenco spoke with MoJo co-editor Clara Jeffery about the project and her comments about the partnership can be applied to any area of the publishing business.
"We have complementary audiences, but even the biggest players seem to think they can benefit from having their work introduced to the core audiences of the other partners," she told Dumenco.
And, above all, it's the quickly-changing media world that's driving publishers to seek out ideas and and potential partners:Â "Secondly, everybody is really eager to use this as a way to test-drive collaborations, which everybody sees as a vital part of the emerging media landscape. On that front, we'll likely learn as much from what doesn't work as what does."
These latest rumblings about a publisher supergroup led by Time Inc. joining together in a dramatic effort to head Apple and Amazon off at digital distribution pass is significant news. You've got the country's biggest publishersâ€”Time Inc., Hearst, CondĂ© Nast, possibly Meredithâ€”in a bid for solidarity to fulfill this statement copped from a leaked PowerPoint: "Whoever defines the interface wins."That's a reference to a digital storefront that the consortium is to build, whether through a possible expansion of Time Inc.'s Maghound subscription site, which already offers subscription bundles from many of these same publishers and then some (yes, a la Netflix), or through a separate company created from a joint investment.iTunes and Hulu business models are reportedly in the works, or at least are generating comparisons to what unnamed sources think is in the works. One makes money off of small, per-item payments, the other makes advertising revenue, which, apparently, is too old-school when we're talking about paid digital content.So far, no one can hazard a guess at how the joint venture content will be formatted that's any different from what you get on a Web site, on an iPhone or in a digital edition. There's been some mention of personalization, but there is major balking at exactly how the consortium will get its content to be universally ported to devices that have proprietary formats.And let's not forget that so far, Apple's iPhone/Touch tablet is still a rumor, albeit a strong one, and so is its $700-$900 price tag, which is an awful pricey device for reading magazines on.Presumably (hopefully), Time Inc.'s John Squires and his colleagues have been busy working out the details on content formats, particularly if customers will be allowed to view on the variety of devices out there.One industry executive I spoke with says this is no easy task. The joint venture is reportedly targeting HP and the Apple tablets for their hardware distribution. But what about the installed base of Kindle and eReaders? Who's going to purchase another device any time soon to read magazine content on?Also difficult is asking consumers to mix and match and otherwise "personalize" their contentâ€”unless Time Inc.'s Mine magazine experiment has revealed something we don't know yet. Imagine the process a customer will have to go through to search and compile content from dozens of magazines? Maybe that's as fun as crafting a mix in iTunes, but songs have longer staying power than most magazine articles."We see things a little differently," said the executive I spoke with. "We believe that consumers will sign up for your magazine, but there's no way to know what device they'll be on the day you publish your issue. That's the publisher's problemâ€”not the consumers problem."Rather, he said, publishers should be thinking about seamless access regardless of device. "It's an important difference between solutions that require active 'management' and solutions that find the consumer," he said.I'm all for reaching the customer when and where they are, but is it possible to over-saturate a market with access points, especially ones that require effort to manage?
Notch this one for the gossip column, but it does raise some interesting Twitter etiquette issues and highlights the confusion over just what kind of role Twitter plays in journalsm.
On Tuesday morning Peter Ha,
technology editor for Time magazine, decided to ask his 1,000+ Twitter followers to confirm or deny a rumor that BusinessWeek was shutting down. The magazine has been on the block for a while now, and official bids are reportedly just being submitted. At this point, the last thing
McGraw-Hill needs is a shutdown rumor on the loose.
In any case, Ha's tweet got picked up by a couple BusinessWeek employeesâ€”Arik Hesseldahl, BW senior tech writer (3,500 followers), Ron Casalotti, BW director of user participation, Business ExchangeÂ (1,100 followers) and Steven Weiss, McGraw-Hill's corporate communications director (28 followers), who seemingly signed up to Twitter just for the occasion. Ha promptly had his wrist tweet-slapped for fanning rumor flames. Weiss went as far as urging Ha to "call me promptly."
Former Portfolio contributing editor and freelance writer Gary Weiss weighs in on what he thinks is some irresponsible behavior from Haâ€”and his post got picked up by Poynter.
It's a sensitive topic, to be sure, and one with significant repercussions either way. And sensitive particularly to those who work at the magazine, or used to, in Gary Weiss's case.
Seems to me, though, with the almost 5,000 followers between Hesseldahl and Casalotti, they might have been better off just ignoring Ha altogether.
Besides, journalists routinely use Twitter as a story-building tool. Ha may have been pursuing a story on the BusinessWeek sale, or he might have simply been curious about the tipâ€”he's since gone dark on the topicâ€”but what's the difference between using Twitter to confirm a rumor versus placing a few calls? Rumors still spread pretty quickly before we had Twitter. And reporters will still track them down.
Here's the exchange pieced together in one string, starting chronologically from the top.
Peter Ha (Time Inc.)Just caught wind that BusinessWeek is shutting down. Can anyone confirm or deny?8:10 AM Sep 22nd from TweetDeck
Ron Casalotti (BusinessWeek)@ThePeterHa Hadn't you heard?
BusinessWeek being sold, not to be interpreted as "shutting down" --please convey to all your retweetersabout 24 hours ago from Power Twitter in reply to ThePeterHa
Peter Ha@roncasalotti I know what's going on w/ BW. I'm simply inquiring about what I heard this morning, which I hope is untrue.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to roncasalotti
Peter HaI never said BizWeek is shutting down. I know they're looking for a buyer, but heard this morning that it was being shut down.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
Arik Hesseldahl (BusinessWeek)@ThePeterHa Caught wind? Would you care to elaborate what you caught wind about?9:55 AM Sep 22nd from TweetDeck
Peter Ha@ahess247 I heard that it was being shut down!about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to ahess247
Arik Hesseldahl@ThePeterHa then why don't you elaborate on what you heard this morning?about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
Peter Ha@ahess247 I heard it was being shut down and immediately ran back to my computer to see if something had happened.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
Arik Hesseldahl@ThePeterHa from whom? in what context? someone in a position to know something or the guy who shined your shoes?about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
Peter Ha@ahess247 bc my shoe shine guy would be a reliable source.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to ahess247
Arik Hesseldahl@ThePeterHa And tweeted it to 1,028 people, some of whom promptly re-tweeted it. Thanks for that.
Peter Ha@ahess247 It would be one thing if I stated that BW was shutting down, which I didn't. I was merely looking for a point
of clarification.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to ahess247
Arik Hesseldahl@ThePeterHa We'll soon see how good was the source of that breaking wind that you caught.about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
Peter Ha@ahess247 Is it because you're a Duck and I'm a Beaver?about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to ahess247
Steven Weiss (Corp Comm. McGraw-Hill)Â Â Â @ThePeterHa Want to discuss your irresponsible posts about BusinessWeek but you are not
in Time directory - please give me ur contact infoabout 22 hours ago from web
Peter Ha@SHWeiss01 and you are?about 21 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to SHWeiss01
Steven Weiss@ThePeterHa I run communications for McGraw-Hill which owns BusinessWeek.about 21 hours ago from web
Steven Weiss@ThePeterHa You now know my name and employer. If you are a responsible journalist intent on factual reporting you will call me promptly.about 21 hours ago from web
Peter HaÂ Â Â For the record: BizWeek is not shutting down. I never said it was shutting down. It was something I overheard this morning.about 21 hours ago from TweetDeck
Peter HaAnd that's all I'm going to say about itabout 21 hours ago from TweetDeck
There's an interesting discussion going on at a recent post on the Office of Inspector General, USPS blog, which is hosted by the OIG's Risk Analysis Research Center.The post is soliciting feedback on the pricing of periodicals class, which has long enjoyed a cap on price increases.The post goes on the offense, highlighting some striking contrasts between periodicals class and the rest of the mailstream:"In fact, in the final rate case in 2006 before the new price cap system of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act took effect, the 'markup' on Periodicals was only 0.2 percent. Periodicals prices were set so that revenue was only 0.2 percent above attributable costs. The average for all mail was 79.3 percent."and"In fiscal year (FY) 2008, Periodicals revenue did not cover costs. In fact, the cost coverage (the ratio of revenue to attributable costs) was only 84 percent. (In rate cases, the recommended prices had to be at least 100 percent of costs.)"The post does, however, offer good questions for feedback, including a polling feature. Currently, after 203 votes, the choice "Periodicals are an important part of the mailstream, and should be priced to stave off volume losses, regardless of underlying measured costs" has 51 percent of the vote.There are some great comments from Time Inc.'s Jim O'Brien, Watt's Jim Wessel and ABM's postal counsel David Sraus.Interestingly, O'Brien notes that periodicals are a "mail multiplier," increasing volume in other classes of mail including first class (bills), standard (direct mail promos and renewal notices) and parcels (football phones and other such premiums).Click here to read the post, vote and join the discussion.
The MPA wants to make a few things clear about the unfortunate string of magazine closures we've been experiencing.It's the economy, stupid. That's not what they said, exactly, but they'd like to remind everyone that the readers are still thereâ€”it's the advertisers that are jumping ship. A data sheet posted on MPA's site in early August attempts to point out that consumer interest, via circ levels, is maintaining while advertising declines correspond with shutdowns.Also, last year wasn't all that bad compared to other years. In fact, we didn't even come close to 2000-2001 levels.The MPA cites closure metrics from Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. Apparently, there were 54 magazines closed in 2008, which is 11 less than 2007 and, interestingly, 50 less than 2006, which was the peak for mag closings after 2001.None of this makes recent numbers any more tolerable, really. Closings and the subsequent job loss in any situation are horrible. But the MPA is attempting to take a big-picture view and attach the numbers to the economy rather than a specific loss of consumer interest, which would be really bad.PIB revenue declines, for example, occurred only in recession years. ABC average circ dropped during these same periods, but by far lower percentages. Therefore, concludes MPA, advertising is the "dominant factor in magazine closings."Yet looking at the Ulrich numbers only makes things more confusing. Yes, 2000 and 2001 saw unprecedented closure ratesâ€”125 and 166, respectivelyâ€”but that recession period was an anomaly, if anything. The years between the indicated 1991 to 1992 and 2008 recession years experienced much higher closure rates, and are comparatively high even to 2000 and 2001 standards.In other words, Ulrich's numbers don't necessarily jibe with the idea that closures are tied to a recessionâ€”there are lots of closings every year. As I mentioned earlier, 2006, not a recession year, had 104 magazine closingsâ€”twice as many as last year.Plus, it would make a lot more sense to dig deeper and examine the kinds of magazines that close. Say, big mass-market mags versus smaller niche enthusiast titles.
Time Inc., which publishes Sports Illustrated, home of the famed Swimsuit Issue juggernaut, announced today that one day after launch its "SI Swimsuit 2009" iPhone app is the number-one paid lifestyle application in Apple's App Store.The app, developed by Acton, Massachusetts-based Azuki Systems, retails at $2.99 and is the first one by Sports Illustrated. It offers photos and video of 20 models, as well as a calendar feature that allows users to apply photos for each month and track schedules and scores for six sports teams.Funnily enough, the top three apps in the paid Lifestyle category, for now at least, are SI's Swimsuit app, Ajnag's "Cannibis" app (which helps you locate medicinal marijuana collectives), and Digital Outcrop's "Mixologist - 7900 Drink & Cocktail Recipes." I guess this says a lot about who's currently cruising the Lifestyle category for iPhone entertainment.But the Swimsuit app has enjoyed a swift ascent to the top rungâ€”a Time Inc. spokesperson said the app shot to number six within hours, then went to number two, then hit number one by its first full day in the app store.
I'm all for the idea of supplementing online article content with videos, but doing it just for the sake of having some 'multimedia' can stretch the point a bit too far. Take the case of an otherwise great Atlantic story by contributing editor Michael Hirschorn called 'The Newsweekly's Last Stand.' In it, Hirschorn describes The Economist's teflon resistance to the ad crash and Time and Newsweek's struggles with obsolescence. Embedded in the middle of the story is a video interview between Hirschorn and Bob Cohn, Atlantic.com's editorial director, which follows the familiar format of editor and writer revealing a behind-the-scenes look at the story. The trouble with this approach is sometimes the conversation veers out of the safe confines of the reporting and into nutty conjecture. (Admittedly, the story and video have been up for almost a month, but Iâ€™m just getting around to them now.)In other words, this interview could have been about 44 seconds shorter. At the 5:45 mark, Cohn asks Hirschorn why The Economist didn't get "clobbered by the Web" like the other newsweeklies. This is where things get sketchy. Hirschorn goes on to say that because The Economist's Web strategy was so bad, people valued the print version more. Got that? The magazine is thriving today because it didn't jump on that crazy Internet train like all those other suckers.But wait, it gets better. Hirschorn continues by asking semi-rhetorically, "What would have happened if newspapers and magazines had not embraced the Web?"Amazingly, the video concludes as he answers his own question this way: "It's entirely possible that if newspapers and magazines had not embraced the Web, that newspapers and magazines would be doing a lot better right now."
Yesterday, the media lit up with news that Vibe, the R&B and hip hop publication, had abruptly shut its doors. Meanwhile, over at EbonyJet.com, Adrienne Samuels Gibbs reports that Quincy Jones [pictured], a distinguished jazz and pop music producer, artist, and Vibe founder, wants the magazine back. "I'm trying to buy the magazine back now," he told EbonyJet.com. And it appears he's not too pleased with the way the Wicks Group, a New York-based private equity firm that bought the magazine in 2006, handled the brand. "They just messed my magazine all up, but I'm going to get it back." Nor is he happy with the state of print: "I'm' a take it online because print and all that stuff is over."And while magazines from all markets are feeling the same pain, executives attached to the Vibe brand point out that the magazine's demise is particularly painful for ethnic media. "Unfortunately, you'll probably see other ethnic publications with similar fates in this economic environment," said former Vibe president Kenard Gibbs to Samuels Gibbs. While we were compiling FOLIO:'s report, Len Burnett, who helped launch the magazine and went on to become CEO of Uptown magazine, told us it's a "black eye" for urban media, and he worries how the famously navel-gazing media world will interpret the shut-down. "It's unfortunate, obviously for the magazine and the employees, but also for the urban media space," he said. "A lot of agencies and clients look at it as a reflection of the overall business. Whether we're competitors or not, we're all fighting to keep the sense of urgency top of mind in the clients who, more often than not, don't recognize the diversity of media or the power of it."Burnett continued, adding that Vibe was a launching ground for African American publishing execs. "There are a lot of African American media executives that came through the doors of Vibe, they've gone on to do tremendous things. So when you lose a magazine like Vibe, it's tough for African Americans to break into the business when there's not a vehicle that's speaking to them. It leaves a big void in the space."
I received my first edition of "mine" yesterday. It's a print and digital customized magazine concept being tested by Time Inc.
I went for the print edition because, logistically, I was more curious
how that would pan out. Plus, Time Inc. said they were only going to
print 31,000 copiesâ€”I wanted in on the print action.
Keeping in mind this is a test project, I still couldn't help
feeling constrained by the selection, especially when they say each
issue will "include stories tailored specifically to [my] interests."
Magazine choices include Travel + Leisure, Golf, In Style, Money, Real
Simple, Sports Illustrated, Time, and Food & Wine.
I picked Real Simple, Food & Wine, In Style, Sports Illustrated,
and Golf. My "mine" had 1-4 features from each magazine for a total of 36
pages including covers.
Content is pulled from 2007 to 2009â€”a
range that could prove tricky if time-sensitive material is featured.
An article about soccer from my SI selection has a "breaking news"
infographic that points readers to Euro 2008 online coverage. And a
profile of LPGA golfer Natalie Gulbis is a follow-on from her 2007
Evian Masters win.
This might be asking too much: I like sports, yet if I pick Sports
Illustrated, I can't then request specific topics from within that
brand. Same goes for the rest. The editors from each publication are
apparently doing that for me based on their own vetting process. Given
the breadth of coverage of these publications offer within their
mass-market verticals, the content selection process is still casting a
pretty wide net.
The entire issue is sponsored by Lexus and playing into the whole
custom thing, ad copy is tailored to where I liveâ€”New Haven,
Connecticutâ€”and to the content I chose: "We know how much you love sports,
and with our available voice-activated Navigation System, it's easy to
locate the best memorabilia dealers near New Haven."
The custom copy in the ads is a tinted version of the standard copy.
So, in the line above, "sports," "memorabilia dealers," and "New Haven"
are a different shade. Reading the ad copy is like listening to a
pre-recorded audio message that changes tone slightly when new options
Here's a look:
Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, keynoted the Newspaper Association of
America event in San Diego this week, just as newspaper executives were
dragging out and dusting off the old aggregator backlash, whining about "stolen" content.
But Schmidt, during a Q+A session after his address,
made some insightful remarks about online audience behavior with paid
content, search and news.
His address was obviously targeted at newspapers and news-oriented
content, but his takeaways can easily be applied to any online content
publisher. We're all struggling with online business models and how
visitors want to consume content.
Some key excerpts via Poynter, which has the full Q&A session transcript.
On online content models:
"I think from your
perspective you should assume that there's a category of information
you all produce that you'll want to distribute freely. There's a
category you'll want to have on a per click basis. And there's some
that you'll want subscription for. The reality in this model is the
vast majority of people will only want the free model, so you'll be
forced, whether we like it or not, to have a significant advertising
component as well as a micropayment and a traditional payment system."
On how newspapers were good at repurposing content, but missed the engagement boat:
act after [repurposing content online] is a much harder question. It's
how do you keep engagement? How do you avoid being just mediated with a
set of stories that are aggregated with your brand on them, which is
what's happened to some newspapers? So in the case you were describing, if I were involved in the
digital part of a newspaper, trying to understand what to do, I would
first and foremost try to understand what my reader wants."
On intellectual property rights:
"I disagree with your
premise that they will continue to erode. What I do believe is that all
these partially-thought-through legal systems are being challenged by
the ubiquity of the Internet. Just as free speech is being affected by
the fact that people are free to speak whatever they think even if we
really don't want to hear them. It's the same problem."
On online measurement:
"We look at clicks and we also
look at how long people stay on a page. And we can then infer interest.
Your question is so good because it shows you how early we are in the
industry. We don't have combined, accurate, audited ways of measuring
audiences, counting advertisers, all of which has to be developed as a
technology behind the businesses that all of us are going to build.
It took many, many years for the same business structures to be
designed for the audit circulation bureaus for magazines. The same
thing is going to occur and it will occur because it needs to. For our
purposes, we use our internal information which is accurate, but as I
agree, there is not a uniform standard."