MediaFlect

Interesting idea: a blog about just a single story, in this case a Financial Times piece on blogging.

A little bit of horn-blowing for one of my other hats. Did a report for Borrell Associates about how the local space is heating up: Newspapers even in so-called destination cities (places people want to travel to) have largely ignored the tourism market, and a lot of other sites are picking off that revenue.

Meanwhile, a lot of hyper-locals are nibbling from another direction. And you’ve got the Googles and Craigslists trying to eat the main portion of the newspapers’ lunches. What newspapers won’t survive? How long before we see one or two newspapers in single-newspaper cities go under?

Been talking to a bunch of owners of locally targeted sites that aren’t affiliated with any major media company, and am amazed by the profit margins: 50% in many cases. Almost pure revenue when they build new properties, and none of the zero-sum effect newspapers, TV or radio have, where dollars spent online steal from the mainstream property.

Hard to imagine how “legacy” media can compete in the space, unless they form a partnership. Or maybe there’s math I don’t understand.

Will say more about the report I’m working on relevant to this later.

Taking a break from posting over at Rebuilding Media, I come across some laments over the death of newspapers, and interesting discussion: everything from “good riddance” to how TV covered 9/11 very well, to the role of newsmagazines to blogs being a sorry substitute and that they rely on newspapers.

And find myself thinking how, in aggregate, these various and sundry posts add up to the arguments one would read in a typical newspaper or short magazine piece about whether the newspaper is dead, has a future, etc.

Meanwhile, I’m reminded of this video of the death of The New York Times, which is worth a look if you haven’t already.

We here have evidence people will pay for content on the Internet, but not news. Well, yes, but what about WSJ.com? Maybe it’s not news people won’t pay for, but rather news they don’t absolutely need. And maybe, then, there has to be another way to pay for what news organizations produce (whcih is the strategy of sites like MSNBC and CBS, which are going for advertising support.)

NY Times wants to “build a site that can sustain that level of journalism” that supports $250 million budget and 1,200 journalists, says publisher Arthur Sulzberger, answering a question at the Online News Association about whether the Times plans to distribute its info or try to get people to the site.

It’s about “building the NY Times site,” which means, I guess, ads and other revenues that accrue from clicks, and not a more wire service model.

Information “does not yearn to be free. Opinion, quality opinion does not yearn to be free.”

Sulzberger just learned from an audience member that Cheney’s chief of staff Libby was indicted. “What am I doing talking to you?” he jokes, meaning he’ll have to head back to the office, I guess.

WWD reports that Time chief Norm Pearlstine is doing a book that’s NOT an apologia for making reporter Matt Cooper reveal his sources in the Valerie Plame affair. Same page has a bit on Jon Stewart roasting sensitive magazine industry types at an event they paid him $150,000 to attend. Time managing editor Jim Kelly sounds less burned than others: “”If you hire a fire-eater to come to your party, the curtains are going to get singed.”

Get it now, while it’s free, at the normally subscription-walled WWD.com. (They are making some stories, especially media ones, free for a short period of time when linked from outside.)

Craig is reading the previous post, says ‘thanks” but that he couldn’t post a comment because it required registration. I think I’ve fixed that.

Last week, in San Francisco, was nicely invited to the book party for the new John Batelle book, “Search: How Google …” at a lovely Italian restaurant. Among the technorati there was Craig Newmark, of Craigslist, whom I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time. Craig seemed bemused by a post I had done months ago after a newspaper conference in Pennsylvania. I had asked a room of about 60 Internet people there how many knew of Craigslist — about half the hands went up. “How many of you are at least concerned about Craigslist?” The same 30. I found it intriguing that all those who knew of Craigslist were concerned or worried (because of the implications to their cash-cow classified revenue) and was very very surprised that Internet people at a newspaper could possibly not know of it. That was in April. I guess they know better know — or at least I hope they’ve looked into it.

I was also surprised that Craig had apparently read my post. He said he uses Bloglines to sift for mentions of him and his lists, and he and his publicist comb them, looking especially for any negative mentions in order to counter them. And Craig, if you are upset about this post, please do let me know and I’ll try to make amends.

Meanwhile, apologies to anyone who’s missed the postings (and hats off to anyone who’s glad I’ve cut down). Between the Executive MBA, consulting for TopButton, CNET and others who request anonymity, contributing to Rebuilding Media and occasionally PaidContent, and life — you know, eating and playing with my children and saying “hello” to the spouse once in awhile — well, I sure ain’t complaining. But I do apologize.

Layoffs at The New York Times and other papers are getting attention, and movies says this piece I found thanks to fellow Rebuilding Media poster Bob Cauthorn, says movies, too, are in trouble.

On the Media this week interviewed a former ABC News colleague, Richard Gizbert, about his accusations that he was fired there as a refusal to go to war for the network. This, too, at least as OTM sets it up, shows the times are tough for broadcast networks as well. In other words, it’s not just pontificating. The effects of diminished audience and competition are real. Even if the network — and I say this while fearing it is crass — no longer has to pay millions for Peter Jennings’ salary. That Tom and Dan left their networks, and weren’t replaced by such paycheck-heavy talent, also may be a sign of the need to save money.