If there was a bright spot in the latest quarterly results from the New York Times, it’s the fact that the newspaper’s metered paywall has attracted almost 325,000 subscribers willing to pay a monthly fee for the site. Despite all the celebrating from the pro-paywall camp, however, that bright spot was more than overshadowed by the other dark clouds in the numbers — including the fact that print advertising revenue continues to decline, and the paper’s former online jewel About.com got whacked by Google’s algorithm updates. Anyone who takes on the job of CEO at the media company is going to have to start thinking creatively about its business, because all the easy money has already been made.

Although the paywall and related print-subscription deals helped boost circulation revenue by almost 5 percent in the NYT’s media group — which includes the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune — and digital advertising revenue was also up by about 5 percent for the quarter, neither of those things were able to compensate for the continued drop-off in print advertising. Print ad revenue fell by almost 8 percent, which helped push the NYT’s fourth-quarter profit down by more than 12 percent, and for the full year the company reported a loss of million.

Paywall revenue isn’t even close to making up the gap

The New York Times didn’t provide any helpful charts that would make the reality of this situation more obvious, so one blogger decided to come up with his own. Paul McMorrow, an editor at CommonWealth magazine, put together a chart that shows the contrast between the NYT’s advertising revenue, circulation revenue and its total revenue:

According to newspaper-industry analyst Ken Doctor, the NYT is probably pulling in about million or so from its digital paywall — or “metered access,” as the paper likes to call it, since you get to read 20 articles for free before you get hit with a request for your credit card. But that’s not even close to being enough to make up for the decline in ad revenue, both print and digital, which dropped by 7 percent in the quarter.

One of the biggest problems for the Times is that its former online star About.com, which the company bought in 2005 for 0 million, has seen both its profitability and revenue-generating ability implode in the wake of an update to Google’s search algorithm — a change that was designed to penalize what the company called “low quality” content sites, or what some call “content farms.” In the most recent quarter, the NYT said About’s revenue fell by 26 percent, and profit fell by a staggering 67 percent.

As McMorrow’s chart shows, the Times is still far under water in terms of revenue, despite the benefit of its paywall. As I’ve argued before, there’s nothing wrong with having a paywall — although in many cases it amounts to building a wall of sandbags around the print newspaper edition, which provides most of the ad revenue — but if a paywall is your only strategy for responding to digital disruption of the media business, then you are almost certainly doomed, whether you are the New York Times or not.

Which way will the new CEO go — towards the past or the future?

So what should a new CEO be looking at to revitalize the NYT for a digital age? Ken Doctor suggests that the paper needs to look beyond just subcription revenue and focus on how it can target those 325,000 digital subscribers — since it knows who they are and where they live, and it already has their credit-card numbers.

I would take it one step further, however, and suggest that the new CEO think about some of the suggestions about “reverse paywalls” that have been made by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, and also by former Washington Post managing editor Raju Narisetti (who is now at the Wall Street Journal in a digital role). The main principle behind this idea is that regular readers should get more than just a sales rep hitting them up for a monthly payment — the fact that they are a devoted fan should entitle them to earn rewards, whether it’s money off their subscription for interacting with the paper, or offers that others don’t get.

The NYT has taken a few steps towards trying to build relationships with its readers through what I’ve called the “levelling up” process that it recently added to its comment section, where readers can achieve preferred status for good behavior. Those are the building blocks of a relationship that the paper could use to its own benefit in all kinds of ways, many of which could generate new sources of revenue — real-life events, for example, which has been one of the things that has helped turn The Atlantic around, or a line of e-books based on the newspaper’s original reporting.

Another thing the NYT could — and should — be thinking about is what the role of an information provider is in the digital age. Is it to act as a gatekeeper for certain kinds of data and try to reimpose the scarcity that used to exist in the print era? Or is it to find partners to distribute that information in as many ways as possible, and to think of the paper as a data platform, as The Guardian has with its open-platform project? One way looks to the past, and the other to the future. Which way will the NYT go?

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users jphilipg and Giuseppe Bognanni

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

YouTube announced new milestones in the amount of video uploaded and viewed by its users Monday. With 4 billion video views daily and more than an hour of video uploaded every second, YouTube not only continues to grow, but its growth is actually accelerating. Here’s how YouTube did it – and what Silicon Valley can learn from it:

Be open

The beauty of YouTube, and its greatest strength, is that anyone and everyone can publish to the platform. There’s no hierarchy of decision makers reviewing scripts and greenlighting projects. There’s no need for an agent. And most importantly, there’s no cost involved with participating on the site. All anyone has to do to become a YouTube publisher is to upload a video to the site.

That’s why YouTube gets an hour’s worth of video uploaded to the site every second. And it’s why people keep coming back, despite the fact that YouTube doesn’t have much of the Hollywood content that can be found on Netflix or Hulu. YouTube is a democratic platform for distributing and consuming content. Its stars are discovered not by a studio exec, but elevated and popularized by its own users.

Be global

Another strength of YouTube is that it is available to users around the world, who are able to enjoy all the same content regardless of their location. Anyone with an Internet connection pretty much anywhere can watch the same videos that you and I enjoy. That’s important, especially as most YouTube views come from non-English speaking countries.

It’s also something that Hollywood has been bad at managing as the world has gone digital. Much of piracy occurs simply because digital copies of films or TV shows are available online long before they make it to international markets. By geofencing or geoblocking certain content, today’s media companies are missing out on an opportunity to reach audiences directly that are turning to piracy instead. By being global, YouTube is addressing the largest possible audience at all times.

Be multiplatform

This is different from being global, and speaks more to targeting the wide proliferation of connected devices that have come into consumer’s hands than anything else. YouTube is seeking to make its content available on as many mobile and connected device platforms as possible, which will help its publishers reach audiences regardless of the platform they’re using.

That’s been another failing of today’s entertainment industry. On the studio side, there’s been no easy way to purchase movies that will work across devices until recently. While the UltraViolet initiative seeks to solve that problem, it still has a ways to go. And for the broadcast and cable TV networks, making shows available on new platforms means distributors generally having to secure new rights. That’s led to a hodgepodge of some networks and some shows being available on some devices, while others are not. Once again, the end result is that those publishers are limiting the addressable audience, at the same time that platforms like YouTube are enabling content to be viewed nearly everywhere.

Let’s not kill Hollywood, but offer something better

Some have suggested Silicon Valley should kill Hollywood. I think it’s naive to believe that technology companies can or should destroy the current entertainment industry. But at a time when the technology and media industries are grappling over the issue of piracy, the success of YouTube can be used as an example of how other technology companies could make something better.

After all, the advent of self-publishing tools like WordPress or Blogger hasn’t killed the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but has enabled a great number of independent blogs and technology news sites to also be influential in shaping the news. In the same way, YouTube is enabling video publishers to reach audiences at massive scale and creating a situation where in aggregate, those independents can rival the traditional Hollywood regime.

Being open, being global, and being multiplatform really just translates to being wherever the audience is. It’s about enabling viewers access to more content, not less — which is the real impetus behind YouTube’s accelerating growth. That could be a lesson to other tech companies seeking to offer an alternative to today’s entertainment offerings, or it could be used as a blueprint for some more innovative companies in the existing media regime. Take away the limits to accessing your content, and more likely than not you’ll find more people actually consuming it and more opportunity to monetize it.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Players and Strategies for Real-Time In-Stream Advertising
• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

The ripples continue to spread from a recent Oregon court ruling involving a blogger who was sued for defamation, and argued that she should be covered by the state’s “media shield” law. The judge decided that she didn’t qualify as a journalist, which in turn reignited the old debate over whether bloggers are (or can sometimes be) journalists. Some have argued that instead of this question, it’s more important to define what journalism is, and ensure that it remains protected. But in many ways, that is even harder to define than who qualifies to be a journalist.

To recap the case, Crystal Cox — who refers to herself as an “investigative blogger” — was sued for defamation as a result of some blog posts she wrote about a company and its CEO. The judge who heard the case looked at Cox’s blog and ruled that she wasn’t a member of the media, at least for the purposes of Oregon’s media shield law, because she wasn’t affiliated with any traditional media outlets. This caused a wave of outrage in the blogosphere from many (including me) who believe that bloggers can be journalists regardless of whether they work for a mainstream media entity.

We shouldn’t be protecting journalists, but journalism

In the wake of the ruling, several bloggers — including Kashmir Hill at Forbes and David Carr of the New York Times — noted that Cox’s behavior went way beyond what most journalists (professional or not) would describe as journalistic: among other things, she created domains aimed at tarnishing the reputation of her targets, and then apparently sent an email to the company offering her services as an SEO consultant to repair the reputation she helped destroy.

As Rebecca Rosen at The Atlantic pointed out, this allowed journalists everywhere to heave a sigh of relief and say to themselves: “She’s not a journalist; she’s just a crazy lady with WordPress! We don’t need to protect her.” But this avoids the real question, said Rosen — not who is or isn’t a journalist, but what is journalism and how do we make sure that it is protected? The framers of the U.S. constitution weren’t concerned with journalists, she said, because they didn’t even exist yet as we know them. Instead, they wanted to protect free speech regardless of who engages in it.

Journalism professor Jay Rosen has made a similar point: we should be talking about protecting journalism, he says, not just trying to figure out who is a journalist. But how do we define what constitutes journalism? The judge in the Oregon case tried to come up with some qualities that he said Cox didn’t exhibit, including:

• proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest
• keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted
• mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources
• creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others
• contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story

All of these are excellent examples of things that some journalists do — but there are plenty who don’t, and practices are all over the map. The point about confidentiality alone is probably ignored by more journalists than adhere to it (not to mention the confusion over the exact meaning of phrases like “off the record,” “on background” and “not for attribution”). Should licensing bodies be giving tests, the way they do for doctors and lawyers before they are accredited? Some think they should. Josh Stearns of the non-profit group Free Press, who has been tracking journalists arrested during the crackdown on the Occupy movement, argues that actions should speak louder than labels.

How do we classify “random acts of journalism?”

Andy Carvin of National Public Radio, who has been using Twitter as a one-man newswire about the revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere, noted that he wouldn’t meet many definitions of a journalist because he isn’t actually a reporter — and I doubt that he maintains detailed notes of the conversations he conducts with people in the Arab world over Twitter, or discusses confidentiality agreements with them in depth. He also does a lot of “assembling the writings and postings of others,” as the judge put it. But I don’t think anyone would argue that what Carvin is doing isn’t journalism.

When a Pakistani Twitter user posted observations about the Osama bin Laden raid while it was happening, a debate sprang up about whether what he did qualified as journalism, and Carvin argued that there are more and more examples of what he called “random acts of journalism,” where someone happens to be in a certain place and provides on-the-scene reporting — or takes a photo of a plane that has landed in the Hudson River, for example.

Are these people journalists? Not really. But what they are doing is clearly one of the crucial elements of journalism now — as journalism becomes an ecosystem that anyone can become part of, rather than a static concept associated with a specific group of professionals and a specific group of platforms. Learning how to work within that process, to add journalistic skills (however we define them) to the streams of information that are flowing over us, is more crucial than ever, regardless of what we call the people who do that.

I think we have to resist the temptation to restrict our definition of journalism, just because there is some bad journalism out there (something there was plenty of before the internet and blogging came along). As Jay Rosen argues, journalism gets better when more people do it, and we should think about how to make that easier, not harder.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Yan Arief Purwanto and Petteri Sulonen

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Internet of things: creating tomorrow’s health care
• Themes for a connected world: GigaOM RoadMap review
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

There seems to be a bit of confusion about Nokia Drive’s future in the Windows Phone Marketplace. News of its impending arrival — for a price — was originally tweeted by a third-party and then re-tweeted by Nokia India. Sadly, we’re told this was all just a mistake. We originally reached out to Espoo’s finest to confirm the story, and well, we met a giant brick wall in the process. According to the company’s media relations department, “Nokia Drive comes pre-installed on our Nokia Lumia range and there are currently no plans to make it available for Windows Phone based devices from other OEMs.” It’s a heartbreaker, indeed, but the crew at Navigon can certainly breathe a sigh of relief — for the time being.

PSA: Nokia reiterates Drive isn’t coming to Windows Phone Marketplace originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:14:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments
Engadget

No matter whether you want to give someone the gift of cable-free TV fun, or whether you are still looking for the perfect present for your own TV needs, we’ve got you covered with our Cord Cutters holiday gift guide. Check out our video highlighting our three favorite products for this holiday season, or read on for additional gift ideas.

Seven gift ideas for cord cutters

Roku

Roku’s family of media streamers offer a lot of value for price-conscious consumers. The Roku LT intro model only sets you back , and offers access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon’s VOD services and a bunch of other content channels. Spend more, and you’ll even be able to play Angry Birds on your TV. And the best thing: It’s really easy to use, so your parents will have fun with it as well.

Boxee Box

Boxee’s media streamer is a bit more expensive than a Roku, but the money is well spent if you want to find the perfect gift for the geek in your life: The Boxee Box integrates with Twitter and Facebook, plays video from Netflix and VUDU and comes with more than 200 apps for additional content. It also features a full-fledged web browser to watch video on almost any website and one of the coolest remote controls on the market. And the Box is gonna get even better soon: The next system update will feature a complete visual overhaul as well as an option to add free live over-the-air TV through Boxee’s interface.

Amazon’s Kindle Fire

No, the Kindle Fire doesn’t replace the iPad – but for 9, it’s a great value, offering access to both Amazon’s VOD titles and Prime Instant video subscription service as well as to Netflix. With the integrated web browser, you can easily watch videos on YouTube, and Android apps like Plex are going to offer access to your local media and countless other online video sources as well.

HD HomeRun

Turning your computer into a DVR for free over-the-air HD content is great, but plugging a bulky rabbit ear antenna into your laptop is not so hot. That’s where the HD HomeRun comes in: This TV tuner can be placed next to your home router and then stream live HD TV programming to any PC in your house. And software like Elgato’s EyeTV can even beam your favorite TV shows to your iPad, where ever you are. It’s TV Everywhere, but without the subscription fees.

WD Livewire powerline adapter

Watching HD video streams is no fun if the local Wifi network can’t keep up with the action. That’s where a powerline adapter set like the WD Livewire comes in: One adapter gets plugged into the home router, the other one connects to the Roku, Boxee Box or game console – and the data flows through a home’s electric circuitry. The WD Livewire adapter with its four Ethernet ports is especially handy for advanced cord cutters that have more than one device to connect, and its HomePlug AV standard is good enough to stream even uncompressed HD video.

Amazon Prime Instant subscription

Amazon’s Prime subscription started off as a way to get two-day shipping for a flat yearly fee of , but the company added access to thousands of TV shows and movies earlier this year. Amazon has been buys adding new content to its Prime Instant service, including shows like The Tudors and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The company recently also added the ability to borrow thousands of books for free, and free two-day shipping for all your cord cutting needs (or anything else from Amazon) is still included. Amazon doesn’t offer an easy option to buy a Prime subscription for someone else, but you can always give someone a gift card.

Netflix subscription

Netflix may have taken some heat in recent months, but it’s still the best premium online video service out there. Not only does it offer access to tens of thousands of movies and TV shows online, but the company is also increasingly investing in exclusive content, like a whole new season of Arrested Development. And the best thing is: Netflix makes it easy to give the service as a present by offering gift certificates for subscriptions of up to one year.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Spotify took a big leap towards the connected TV space Thursday by adding its music subscription service to the WD TV media player. This is the first time Spotify has been available on a connected TV device in the U.S., which means that device maker Western Digital beat both industry heavyweights like Apple, Google as well as hipper upstarts like Roku and Boxee to the punch.

Take a first look at Spotify on the WD TV in this video, or continue reading below:

Spotify launched in the U.S. in mid-July with support for various mobile handsets as well as connected audio players from Sonos and Logitech and a home theater receiver from Onkyo. However, only subscribers of the European cable TV operator TeliaSonera have thus far been able to enjoy Spotify on the TV screen.

Spotify’s competitors have been aggressively expanding into the connected TV space, with apps from services like MOG and Grooveshark being available on platforms like Boxee and Roku. Much of this has been spurred on by the success of Pandora in this space. Pandora is already the second-most popular app on platforms like Roku, and the company’s CEO Tom Conrad recently said at GigaOM’s Mobilize conference that he expects connected devices and car stereos to make up the majority of Pandora’s traffic in the near future.

Teaming up with Spotify before any of the other connected device makers is also a little bit of a coup for WD. The company’s media players haven’t been as popular amongst tech folks as their hipper counterparts from Apple, Roku and Boxee, but worldwide sales, a solid retail presence, name recognition and an actively maintained platform have helped the company to compete. Getting Spotify on board should only help to make WD TV more popular.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Facebook and the future of our online lives

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM