Jun 10, 2010

Share and share alike

As I’ve said previously, I enjoy speaking with fellow hyperlocalists and learning of their own adventures in entrepreneurial journalism. Part of that enjoyment stems from the fact that I work from home with little to no human interaction during the day. And then there’s my genuine interest in what’s going on in other people’s lives.

Recently I spoke with one hyperlocalist whom I’ll call Loretta for privacy’s sake. Loretta operates a popular hyperlocal website and was invited to join a regional network that shares advertising revenue with its members while collecting a cut for itself. Currently, the network doesn’t have an umbrella site for aggregating its members’ content or directing readers to its members’ respective websites.

Despite that, there are definite advantages to Loretta’s participation in the network. First, this particular network carries name recognition, though it’s still too fresh out of the box to call it a brand. (Details of its business practices couldn’t be confirmed, so it shall remain nameless in this post.) Next, it stretches across an entire region, which should help reel in large advertisers and their large ad budgets. Last, there’s the notion that all boats will rise with the revenue tide, even those that aren’t as seaworthy as the rest of the fleet.

There’s only one thing about this arrangement that makes me leery. Revenue sharing assumes revenue, and when talking about advertising, that usually means page views. This network is so brand-spanking new that it doesn’t yet have an audience of its own and is relying on Loretta’s site and others to drive traffic. In other words, it can’t deliver page views to Loretta’s site. Instead, Loretta’s site will deliver page views to the network, which will then take its cut of the ad revenue.

The way I see it, if Loretta and other hyperlocalists are doing all the work to drive traffic, then they should reap most of the revenue. The network still deserves a cut for using its name and relative size to leverage ad sales, but the fact is, those ad sales won’t happen without the hyperlocalists’ hard-earned page views.

I don’t know the numbers of Loretta’s revenue-sharing arrangement, but I hope she gets her fair share of the deal. Best of luck, Loretta!

Photo courtesy of Flickr user enggul.

Jun 1, 2010

Justin Bieber will not save journalism.

Long weekends are always good for catching up on important reading. For example, this long New York Times article (epic by online standards) gives great insight into how some entrepreneurial news outlets are making it in the New World Order. Websites such as True/Slant and Examiner turn a buck by maintaining low overhead, basing their writers’ wages on page views and thus advertising revenue.

It’s a kicker for the online news environment to rely on this same tired, old business model that has newspapers circling the drain: a nearly complete reliance on ad sales to keep business going. In the print world, selling ads meant generating fluff stories that appealed to readers. Online, it means keeping tabs on Twitter’s trending topics — prepubescent pop star Justin Bieber seems to be the shit these days — and then cranking out fluff copy on those subjects to woo Google and other search bots.

Despite inflated page views and low overhead, True/Slant and Examiner have yet to turn a profit. It’s pathetic. PAH-thetic.

Of course, some hyperlocal news sites have done well for themselves strictly through ad sales. The hyperlocal economies of those beats are healthy enough to support such publications and their writers, so if the business model ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

But what if this Great Recession treats the economy to a summer sequel? Or what if (for whatever reason) page views don’t translate to ad sales? Even worse, what if the quality of reporting suffers because writers can’t or don’t get paid? Then it’s time to have an alternate revenue stream ready, if it isn’t already up and running.

The New World Order demands innovative strategies for generating revenue, and I don’t just mean psyching out the search engines to drive page views. It means hosting events with cover charges, offering web-design services, selling stock photography, and forming Groupon-like arrangements with local businesses to sell products beyond news. It might also mean converting a for-profit project into a nonprofit one to bring in donations, or charging subscription fees for premium content.

It should not mean fluff content cranked out by pay-per-click writers. If a hyperlocal news site’s business model supports nothing but that, then it’s working either the wrong model or the wrong business. Innovative and diversified revenue streams beget better pay, better writers and less Bieber.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Daniel Ogren.

May 19, 2010

Yahoo! News and the big, bad buyout

We interrupt this week’s fashion report to bring you this crazy post. The fashion report resumes Thursday.

Oofah! The Twitterverse was buzzing Tuesday afternoon about Yahoo! News’ acquisition of Associated Content for $100 million. My initial reaction was an apathetic “So what?” Associated Content’s sloppy editorial practices would only dilute Yahoo’s wire content, and its contributing writers probably won’t see much difference in their paychecks.

But then I read this very good article by Michelle Rafter, whose blog focuses on freelancing in the digital age. In it, she points out that Associated Content’s buyout signals Yahoo’s entry into the war for local ad dollars. (AOL and Google are already in the ring with their own products.) Rafter says straight up that “local content [generated by Associated Content's writers] gives Yahoo access to local advertising that would otherwise go to those hyperlocal news ventures that have been cropping up everywhere.”

That’s when my apathy turned into complete panic. I’m one of “those” hyperlocal news ventures trying to crop up. Those are my ad dollars Yahoo, AOL and Google are taking! Motherfuckers!

Once I pulled my head out of the oven, I refocused and took an inventory of what makes independent hyperlocal news outlets the better deal in local advertising. The bottom line: Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t stand a freakin’ chance. Here’s why.

Hyperlocalists have the inside edge on what’s happening in and around their beats. Where content farms like Associated Content and AOL’s Seed spin press statements into content (don’t expect peanut-earning writers to put too much effort into their reporting), hyperlocalists fill in the blanks with strong local flavor and details that larger outlets can’t and won’t detect. It’s the difference between having an embedded journalist and reporting from amalgamated wire stories.

That flavor gives the hyperlocal outlet an “emotional value” with its audience. As I wrote Tuesday, consumers do more than just consume a successful hyperlocal outlet’s content. They incorporate the information into their decision making and allow it to influence their lives. Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t have that kind of hyperlocal clout — perhaps they never will. Score a big one for hyperlocalists!

Also, hyperlocal news outlets are more likely to have access to charitable contributions from homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce and local professional organizations than Yahoo, AOL and Google. Sure, the big guys have investors to fuel their efforts, but investors are interested in only one thing: a big, fat return. It was the drive for profit over quality journalism that took down print newspapers, and it has the potential to undo Yahoo, AOL and Google. Slightly different business model, same outcome.

On the other hand, local donors have other interests in mind. Homeowners want their property values to rise (or at least not fall), chambers of commerce and professional groups want publicity for their businesses. Having a locally owned news outlet in the neighborhood goes a long way to advancing these donors’ respective goals. It’s something that generic news coverage from content farms can’t offer.

I really don’t mean to knock those hyperlocalists who choose to work with these larger organizations. As I’ve said previously, if a hyperlocal news organization stands to benefit from some kind of arrangement with the big guys, then do it. Surely, well-versed and justly paid hyperlocalists can only enrich the news landscape with their content, regardless of who’s doing the distributing.

But if writing for a content farm leads to nothing but pennies per click and “exposure,” then one would be better off in the trenches, digging graves in which to bury Yahoo, AOL and Google.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user godutchbaby.

May 18, 2010

The fashion report

Just because one works from home doesn’t mean one can’t be fashion forward. I sport only the coolest tee shirts while at my computer. And when I do wear pants, they’re the skinny kind. So hot!

So it was with great interest that I read this recent article in The New York Times about a startup clothing company that allows its customers to design their own shirts. Shoppers visit the company’s website, pick out colors, patterns and cuff styles, drop some coin and in four weeks, they’re rocking personalized gear.

The company’s success is rooted in its “emotional-value proposition,” says the company’s 22-year-old CEO. (Freakin’ hipster!) Customers play a part in the creative process, and what results is a personalized shirt that oozes individual expression. Okay.

That got me thinking: If consumers will pay to design a shirt, would they pay to participate in hyperlocal content creation? Does the emotional-value proposition apply to hyperlocal news? No and yes.

First, anyone who will pay to generate content is an advertiser. Consumers can usually distinguish an advertisement from editorial content because ads are labeled as such. But when an advertiser’s content is passed off as news, or if the hyperlocalist accepts compensation for creating “advertorial” content, then the news outlet’s objectivity comes into question.

Next, no one should create news content for the purpose of self-expression without fair compensation. That’s what larger media outlets like Forbes.com and The Washington Post call “content for exposure” (or more precisely, content for exploitation), and the practice only dilutes the quality of an organization’s content.

Instead, the emotional-value proposition can apply to opportunities for consumer feedback. A moderated comment section adds tremendous value to a news website. (The same goes for editorial essays printed on paper or broadcast as sound or video.) The opportunity to offer constructive criticism allows news consumers to express interest in their community, and the interaction reflects the news organization’s worth in the community.

That quality is perhaps the strongest selling point when approaching advertisers, sponsors and subscribers. It means that consumers do more than just consume a media outlet’s content. They assign value to it, they incorporate the information into their decision making, they allow it to influence their lives. That kind of quality far outweighs a website’s page views, a newspaper’s circulation or a broadcast outlet’s audience numbers.

The emotional-value proposition also applies to crowd-sourced content, but one should approach that with caution. I’ll get into that tomorrow.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Kirsten Hartsoch.

Mar 22, 2010

When content becomes free advertising

While pulling together an editorial calendar for my next hyperlocal venture (read: watching the NCAA basketball tournament) last week, I received a tweet from a DC-area marketing company. They were holding an event in my old beat, and I assume the tweet was meant for me to retweet or somehow mention on my now-defunct hyperlocal site in Maryland.

I ignored the tweet. But it reminded me of a big challenge I faced with my former publication: When does announcing an event for the readers’ benefit become free advertising for the event’s organizer, and at what point does one cut off that event organizer and demand payment?

One can make the argument that any mention of such an event constitutes free advertising, and I resigned myself to doling it out in my publication’s popular event calendar. The fact was, there wasn’t much fun to be had in my beat, and I felt obligated to let readers know of any action in the hood.

Generally, I was happy to mention a charity fundraiser or an event that charged no admission and still provided free nosh. But there were many instances when a commercial venture (usually a restaurant) would ask to list a special performance or tasting menu at their venue. I omitted such events from my publication’s calendar and replied to the solicitor with “Care to buy an ad?” And then I wouldn’t hear from that event sponsor again until they had something else they wanted me to plug for free.

There was also one event organizer (owner of the neighborhood’s only bar) who ignored my sales pitches and plugged her bar’s events under the website’s comments section. At first I just deleted her unpaid advertisements and replaced them with a note to readers that “This comment has been deleted.” But after a while I began leaving notes that said, “Please pay for advertising.” We played this game for three years, and the bar owner never bought an ad.

(In fairness, there was no animosity between us. The bar owner and I knew it was just business, and she was always hospitable enough to invite me to closed-door events. Of course, subsequent coverage of those events only meant more free advertising for her business.)

Where does one draw the line? More importantly, how does one convince event organizers (and other potential sponsors) that paying a hyperlocal publisher for ad space is worth the money and effort?

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Chris Blakeley.

« Older Entries