Results matching “money from adve”

One of the latest products to appear on the market for newspaper publishers looking to improve their revenue is Circulate, from new start-up CircLabs. The Editors Weblog spoke to co-founder and executive vice president Martin Langeveld, former newspaper editor and executive who now also writes for Nieman Journalism Lab, about the project.

The CircLabs team decided to look for a user-centric solution to monetise online content through improving the user news experience, as opposed to what Langeveld sees as publisher-centric solutions that focus on how to charge users for content. Charging users for content could indeed be incorporated into Circulate, but he does not see it as the main source of revenue. Rather, what Circulate hopes to do is essentially make it easier for people to find the news they are interested in, hence encouraging them to read more and therefore increasing traffic to and engagement time on newspaper websites, offering greater advertising opportunities.

The Circulate concept evolved out of research carried out by Bill Densmore at the Reynolds Institute of the University of Missouri into a project he called the Information Valet. This, Langeveld explained, is a more "comprehensive and very complex system" and Circulate hopes to be a starting point for something similar. The founding CircLabs team consists of four: Langeveld and Densmore plus Jeff Vander Clute and Joe Bergeron. The University of Missouri offered initial funding and Langeveld is confident that the company will soon announce its first round of seed funding, which would include investment from the industry and private investors as well as from the university.

What Circulate actually is

As the consumer will see it, Circulate will consist of a narrow strip that will appear within the user's browser window that will be branded and recommend journalistic content throughout the user's time online. The bar will be along the top of the window and generally narrow enough to include one line of type, though would have the ability to expand when necessary. A small programme must be downloaded to install the strip, but a user can log in to their account on any computer that has the programme. There will also be a destination URL that users can access on computers on which they cannot download the software, and the team plans to develop applications for smartphones, and offer email alerts.

When the user installs it, it will ask them some questions about them and about their interests and preferences. The user is not obliged to enter any information, but the more that they do, "the better Circulate can bring content to you," Langeveld explained. He added that his team understands how important privacy is to consumers and stressed that Circulate will be very clear with regards to the amount of information it stores about its users and will give them an easy option to access or delete this.  "It won't just be buried in one of those user agreements that everybody just clicks through," Langeveld clarified.

The programme will also track your movements online and make recommendations for content based on these and the information you provide. Article suggestions will appear as links in the Circulate strip, and it might expand to offer the user three or so recommendations on a specific topic, or to ask or answer a user's question. As the technology develops, it will be able to gather new applications, so additional icons might appear on the bar that could offer a user access to their Twitter feed, for example.

A home base for users

Users will sign up for and download Circulate via a 'home base' which is likely to be their local newspaper. The Circulate strip will be branded according to the home base, so this newspaper brand will 'travel' with the user throughout their online experience. The user would be free to change their home base at will. Eventually the local newspaper, as a Circulate partner, would be able to sell advertising and do other kinds of marketing and promotion through the strip.

How it can make money for publishers

Although Langeveld does not believe that revenue from charging users will be "more than the smallest fraction of the total potential of Circulate," it will be possible to do that within the Circulate framework. If newspapers decide that they do have premium content which is unique and valuable enough that people are willing to pay for it, Circulate will facilitate this through a universal subscription to all multiple papers' premium content, or on a per item basis.

However, as stated above, Circulate's main aim is to increase traffic to newspaper websites. Langeveld pointed out that his team's research shows that in the US, web users spend only about 1.2% of their time online on newspaper websites, and traffic to newspaper sites accounts for only 1% of page views. "That really is the challenge for newspapers, to increase that percentage," said Langeveld. And Circulate hopes to do this by "constantly recommending journalistic content from newspapers and other news outlets the other 99% of that time."

The possibility for the papers acting as homebases to brand the strip also "has value" for local papers, according to Langeveld, as it means that their brand travels round the web with the user whenever they are online, thus constantly reminding them of their relationship with the paper. Circulate also intends eventually to include advertising on the bar itself, although the format has not yet been developed. Langeveld believes that there are opportunities for both national and local advertising. There would be the possibility to target users and therefore create more value, and participating papers could sell space to local businesses. He sees this as a good selling opportunity: "now you can reach our readers all the time when they're online rather than just the one or two percent that they're on our site."

Will it work?

Software development has already started and the Associated Press has agreed to allow Circulate access to its content. Langeveld confirmed that the company is planning a beta rollout with a group of newspapers and users in autumn. Could it be the solution that newspapers have been waiting for?

Many publishers seem to be concretely moving towards charging online, and others seem to be contemplating it as a solution to their financial difficulties and in an attempt to restore value to news and prevent it from becoming a commodity. The fact that Circulate would be able to incorporate this is thus a point in its favour. When asked if it could be compatible with Journalism Online, a start-up aiming to facilitate charging for content that has reportedly been in talks with many publishers, Langeveld said that it is something that his team has not explored, but that it was "certainly possible."

Increasing engagement time does indeed seem to make sense, although in terms of monetising it means that newspapers are still dependent on the advertising market. It is clearly something that newspapers should be working on themselves or through companies like Apture that try to keep readers on news sites through multimedia enhancements, but it does seem that Circulate can help in actually getting readers onto a site. Persuading readers to sign up could be tough, most likely requiring an aggressive marketing strategy, and the CircLabs team is wise to anticipate privacy concerns. Assuming that users do sign up, it is hard to say how many people will click through links and how often, but it seems as if it could well contribute to an increase in traffic. 

In a bizarre new venture, the Washington Post had promised lobbyists a chance for off-the-record meetings with policy makers and newsroom staff for the price of a $25,000 sponsorship, according to a flier shown to Politico by a health care lobbyist. These "Washington Post Salons" would consist of dinners at the home of WaPo CEO and publisher Katharine Weymouth.

A WaPo spokeperson has responded to Politico, stating, "As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this." Apparently the event planning division of the company sent out the flier advertising reporters' participation without first alerting the newsroom.

Politico also obtained a copy of an internal memo sent by Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, reaffirming that staff members would not be taking part in the events as "Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable."

As editorial teams the across the globe seek to increase and diversify their papers' revenue streams, a wealth of diverse ideas and business models have appeared.  One of the latest to be aired comes from Laurent Joffrin, editor of the French national La Libération.   He suggests that editors of the press, publishers and website unite in the request that the leading internet servers providers (ISP or FAI's in France) Free and Orange add a few extra euros to their clients' bills.  This would serve to finance the costs of the services provided by publishers.  The fees would then be invested back into newspapers and other productions, the amount corresponding with the title's popularity and size of its newsroom.

The concept of a mutually rewarding financial model has a strong precedent in France.  The French cinema industry is financed this way, which according to Joffrin, 'has saved the industry and allowed its expansion', as reported by Challenges.fr. The editor is convinced that newspapers are an essential component in a democratic state, thus highly worthy of greater financing. 

A lobbying campaign in the UK has called for the government to up the penalties for online filesharing, a practice in which over 7million UK residents regularly partake. The campaign, echoing that of the French government, takes an economical outlook, claiming that illegal filesharing is costing thousands of jobs in the UK and is denting the Kingdom's already slumping GDP. Is this a similar phenomenon to that which is causing UK and Western newspapers to shed staff at an unprecedented rate? Can newspapers, whose bottom line many consider to be suffering from digital content, learn from the plight of the music and entertainment industries affected by filesharing?

Yes and no. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that a proportion of general news content is going to be put behind some kind of a pay wall in upcoming months. Several publishers have expressed their intentions to start charging, and several third parties want to help them do it. Journalists don't seem to want it, it seems pretty unlikely that readers would want it, so how are publishers going to succeed? Can it restore value to good journalism which is increasingly becoming a commodity? The Editors Weblog takes a look at some of the different services on offer and strategies being considered.

Journalism Online

First, Journalism Online, a start-up founded in April by industry experts Steve Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery, has taken facilitating charging for online content as one of its core goals. Brill made a presentation at the NAA-organised newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28 at which Journalism Online's mission was stated as enabling "news organizations to restore the optimal mix of circulation and advertising revenue necessary to finance original reporting and editing" hence giving them the chance to "realize the revenue they deserve--and can command--from readers and distributors for their digital content."

Journalism Online is marketing its proposal as an e-commerce platform. The idea is that it would make premium content from multiple publishers easily accessible to readers and allow annual, monthly subscriptions, day passes or single articles. There will also be all-you-can-read bundling options. Publishers will decide what content they want to charge for, how much to charge (though it is unclear how all-you-can-read prices will be decided) and how to charge. In the presentation, Brill suggests $50-60 a year and $5-6 a month for small to large city papers, but he stressed that this was an arbitrary choice and clearly the price would depend on how much content the publisher put behind the pay wall. He had previously suggested $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription.

The company maintains that implementing its system will not lead to a substantial loss in traffic or ad revenue, claiming that papers would be able to keep 88% of page views and 91% of ad revenue, as any paid content would be part of a hybrid model. In his examples, Brill demonstrates how he believes a paper could essentially double its income. Brill has also stressed that Journalism Online will incorporate lots of sampling. He told Nieman Lab's Zachery Seward that Journalism Online's assumptions are that 5-10% of current monthly unique visitors will be willing to pay for content; that 95 percent of those paying customers will choose subscriptions over micropayments; and that after subscribing, those readers will view 30-40 percent more pages than non-paying readers.

Overall, the company seems to be presenting its service as a chance for newspapers to focus on their best customers, offering a premium service to those who are prepared to pay. At the Chicago meeting, Journalism Online also emphasised the advantages of paid online content in terms of preserving the print product: it is "about the value proposition of print... about print subscriber acquisition and retention costs."

ViewPass

Another third party service was presented at the NAA-organised meeting in Chicago: ViewPass. It is the brainchild of Alan Mutter and Ridgely Evers, and could be implemented in 9 months at a cost of $6 million. The idea is that newspaper readers would be required to register once with ViewPass and it would then track their activity across participating websites.

Like Journalism Online, it would aim to offer readers the chance to purchase premium online content from multiple sources, with potential for subscriptions, micropayments and bundling. Essentially, the ways in which it differs is that ViewPass would be industry-owned, giving publishers the chance to (hopefully) share profits in the business itself, and it most crucially it would allow users to 'pay' for their content with their time or their information instead of with cash, because of their increased value to advertisers. In fact, ViewPass would focus on presenting readers that were attractive to advertisers for highly targeted ads. Mutter himself is not enthusiastic about charging for much online content, suggesting to Nieman Lab that it would only work for specialist content.

Circlabs

The creation of another start up was announced the day before the Chicago meeting: CircLabs, founded by Bill Densmore, Jeffrey Vander Clute, Martin Langeveld and Joe Bergeron. Its first product, code-named Circulate, aims to "offer a solution" to publishers who are experimenting with micropayments and subscriptions, suggesting that they should charge for content which is "both scarce in nature and of high utility to a segment of the audience." CircLabs is also focussed on developing opportunities for "high-value" advertising revenue, and plans to incorporate personalised news services. Further details are yet to appear.

Efforts of individual publishers

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has announced that all the company's newspapers would be charging within a year. It is looking at bundling content, according to chief digital officer Jonathan Miller, such as putting all the media conglomerate's New York-based content into one subscription package. One of the company's prime assets, the Wall Street Journal, is proof that paid premium content does work, although of a specifically financial nature. The paper is to expand its paid online options, with plans to introduce micropayments later this year along with a further level of premium subscriptions. Murdoch suggested that the company wants to "test" a pay model on some of its stronger properties first, and there has been speculation that the Sunday Times will be among these. The paid online content debate, although definitely present in the UK, has not been as strong as across the Atlantic, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reaction such a move would provoke.

MediaNews Group is planning to charge online under the belief that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." A memo to staff from CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic suggested that a part-paid strategy is in the works, and made it clear that the company is intending to charge for existing content rather than for new products or services.

The New York Times is apparently looking at two different ways in which it could charge for online content. The first would be somewhat similar to the Financial Times' model, whereby readers could surf the site without charge until a page-view or word limit were reached, when a 'metre' would start running and it would charge a user for the rest of their time spent. (The FT allows 10 free articles per user per month, then demands a subscription.) This would have the advantage of not putting specific content behind a paywall, and therefore not angering journalists.

The other option is a 'membership' scheme: readers would donate money and subsequently be invited into a "New York Times community," which would offer them free merchandise and other benefits. Possibly a tiered membership scheme could be implemented. When these proposals were discussed, Bill Keller told staff that a decision would be made by the end of June. The NYT is wary following its failed TimesSelect experience back in 2007 and seems determined to find a solution that will not damage its significant ad revenue.

Potential obstacles: search and antitrust

Currently many people find their news through search engines such as Google, and for articles to get good Google rankings and appear higher up in search results, they cannot be behind a paywall. Newspapers must strive to find an appropriate solution to this when they start charging: the Wall Street Journal's tactic of allowing its paid content to be accessed free via Google is clearly not fair to its paying customers, and is a definite deterrent to potential subscribers.

Antitrust regulations in the US effectively prevent publishers from coming to a joint agreement on when and how they should start charging for content. At the newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28, an antitrust lawyer was present to make sure all the discussion was legal. Poynter analyst Rick Edmonds suggested that the use of a third party "vendor" such as Journalism Online could be the solution to these concerns. Journalism Online has taken on David Boies and Ted Olson for antitrust advice.

So, is it going to work? And how?

Undoubtedly, implementing paid content is going to be a considerable challenge and is likely to involve substantial experimentation. Newspapers need to consider what exactly they would want to charge for, for example whether they could create a new paid service or put what is currently free behind a pay wall. It seems as if it would be easier to persuade people to pay for something new, rather than telling them they have to start paying for something previously free. But then people might decide that they are happy with what they get now and that they do not want to pay for anything extra. A paper with a highly developed website such as the New York Times could possibly offer basic news free but keep its interactive graphics and other more innovative content for its premium customers.

As yet, Journalism Online seems to be ahead of the pack with regards to third party services. No papers have publicly signed on but Brill told Seward that he had already spoken to about half of those at the Chicago meeting. In terms of connections and credibility of its founders, Journalism Online has a head start. ViewPass and CircLabs do seem to be onto something, however, with their focus on offering consumers as targets for higher-revenue advertising and effectively allowing them to pay for their news by looking at ads. Could these companies coexist, or is there only room for one?

A crucial factor which should not be underestimated in any attempt to charge online is ease of use for the consumer. People will be far more likely to part with their cash if doing so is simple and straightforward. For this reason, sign-in-once and all-you-can-read offers are likely to appeal. And once people are paying, the level of service should reflect this: good journalism presented attractively and accessibly. An element of personalisation would also seem worth paying for.

Can paid online content 'save' newspapers? If Journalism Online's figures are correct, it looks like it could make a significant difference to a newspaper's fortunes. The next few months will be telling in terms of experimentation and competition between proposals, but it will take some years for the definitive answer to this question to be realised.

The American Press Institute prepared a report for last week's newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago in which it assessed the options for paid content and "fair use" fees from Google and other aggregators. Entitled Newspaper Economic Action Plan, the report concluded that newspapers "can make the leap from an advertising-centered to an audience-centered enterprise," and should do so as soon as possible.

The "integrated, five-point" plan provides "models and recommendations for the migration of online content from free to paid" which are "intended for the development of consensus, protocols and technology." The API does not see paid content as the only revenue source that will save journalism, but advocates establishing "a true value for news content online by charging for it" in the first part of its plan: the True Value Doctrine. It recommends that news organisations immediately start a "massive" period of experimentation to find the best way to do this. The report explores three options: micropayments, subscriptions and a hybrid model.

Philly.com will probably start charging for content by the end of 2009, its owner Brian Tierney told Fox 29, a local Fox TV affiliate,  on its 'Good Day Philadelphia' show. Philadelphia Media Holdings owns the Inquirer and the Daily News as well as the city news website.

"I think by the end of this year we'll starting doing what a lot of other newspapers are looking at doing and charging something for it," Tierney said. "We can't spend $53 million on newsroom costs and give it away on the back door in terms of things. There will be a small charge for that."  He added that "I think we have the value there that people would be willing to pay."

News Corps CEO Rupert Murdoch yesterday reiterated his conviction that newspapers must charge readers online, and expressed extremely strong opposition to the idea of a government bailout for newspapers. He was speaking on the News Corp-owned Fox Business Network.

"We would never take money from the government," he declared, as this would mean giving up "our freedoms and everything else to criticise or to play our full role in the community." He added that he did not think that "even the New York Times would," and expressed doubt that the government would even try to offer money. Debate about government intervention in newspapers has grown following a recent US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet which discussed whether to help newspapers become non-profit or whether to relax antitrust laws. Obama then told those at the White House correspondents' dinner that "government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America."

Google CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt has told the Financial Times that the company had considered buying a newspaper or supporting news businesses seeking non-profit status but that it is now unlikely to pursue either option. Speculation that Google might consider such a purchase has been rife for some time, and a feeling has emerged among some publishers that Google has a sense of duty towards newspapers, as its Google News product is entirely dependent on newspaper content.

Schmidt explained to the FT, however, that having looked into the possibility, the search engine was "trying to avoid crossing the line" between technology and content: "we have done well by letting content people do content in their own terms and in their own way." Google has concluded that any potential acquisition targets were too expensive or carried excessive liabilities.

"Kindle is just another way for papers to lose money," according to the Columbia Journalism Review, having studied the breakdown of how income from subscriptions is shared between publishers, Amazon and the wireless carrier. The new Kindle DX, with a far larger screen than its predecessor the Kindle 2.0, seems targeted at newspaper and magazine reading, and has been welcomed by the news industry.

Writer Ryan Chittum was shocked to discover that newspapers only get about 30% of the revenue from Kindle subscriptions. Given that there are not any advertisements on the device, this does not constitute a huge revenue stream. Chittum mentions that the New York Times, for example, would therefore only receive $4.20 out of the $14 that readers are charged for their monthly subscription. And say the paper's 1.04 million subscribers switched to a Kindle subscription, the income would be $52 million, which would account for about a quarter of the costs of the newsroom. Essentially, not enough.

According to the New York Observer, the New York Times is considering two different proposals for charging for content. Executive editor Bill Keller told staff about the ideas that the paper is looking at.

One is a "meter system" which would allow the reader to surf the site without charge until reading a predetermined limit - words or pageviews - after which a metre will start running and the reader is charged for the rest of their movement on the site. It is not clear whether readers would be allowed a certain limit per day, or how else this would be measured. Keller apparently warned staff at the meeting that this pay model would be "tricky" as a fine balance would have to be found: if the limit of free content was too small, readers could be discouraged and traffic would fall, while as if it was too high, there would be little improvement in revenue.

According to what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article published on Post Bulletin earlier this week, America's local newspapers are faring better than the country's national titles.

The article, entitled "Smaller newspapers dodge the downturn" refers to a series of interventions on the part of some wealthy individuals who have offered to buy local newspapers in a bid to save them from apparent closure.

Poynter's Romenesko blog has published a memo from MediaNews Group CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic to the group's employees which explains that the company is planning to charge for online content, to revamp its websites and to build new local information sites. The memo, originally sent on May 8, is the result of a recent executive meeting on the company's interactive strategy.

The interactive summit was meant to address "three daunting challenges" that the company is facing. The first is that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." As well as reducing print circulation, this "devalues the core of our business - the great local journalism we (and only we) produce on a daily basis." The second is that "our interactive revenue growth has slowed because it has been too closely tied to our print classified business, which has suffered with the advent of Craigslist" and others. Thirdly, "we are not significantly extending the reach of our audience, as our online products too closely resemble the newspaper, and thus fail to meaningfully read the next generation of readers."

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has reported that the Post Co.'s chief executive Donald Graham has been in talks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss working together. Post executive Philip Bennett described the meetings as "an informal collaboration."

Bennett confirmed that "we're talking to each other about improved ways of creating and presenting news online." Details of how this could develop are unclear: Kurtz suggests that the collaboration could lead to creating new web pages or technological tools for journalists or readers.

Vanity Fair writer Matt Pressman discussed what he believes are the reasons "why Time and Newsweek will never be the Economist." He thinks that emulating the Economist has been a goal of American news magazines for three years now, and that this aim is now spreading to other magazine genres. Newsweek just experienced its first revenue drop for some time and is planning to abandon the mass market in order to focus on a select audience, possibly reducing its advertising income but upping its subscription prices: an effort which does appear to be inspired by the Economist's success and is definitely intended to target its audience.

The Economist stands out glaringly in the news industry as an example of a publication that is actually doing better and better. Its circulation has increased "sharply" in the last four years, according to the New York Times, with subscriptions up 60% and newsstand sales rising by 50%. Crucially, it makes more money from readers than advertisers, unlike most of the media.

Personalisation is one of the many avenues that the Internet has opened up to readers of news: rather than buying one newspaper with everything in it, people now have the chance to easily choose what sort of news they want to read, and from where. Back in 1995 Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT's Media Lab project, coined the term 'Daily Me' to describe a virtual daily newspaper customized for an individual's tastes, and since then many services have been launched to make this concept of personalised news a reality. One such successful company, which offers users the chance to create highly personalised home pages using many different widgets, is Netvibes. Founded in 2005, Netvibes now has 30 staff at its headquarters in Paris, five in San Francisco and a presence in London. The Editors Weblog spoke to CEO Freddy Mini to find out more about how Netvibes' different services work, and how they contribute to a user's personalised experience.

Netvibes operates on the principle that we should be able to feel at home in our online world. When a user creates a Netvibes page, they can change everything: they choose which widgets they want, where they are placed, how big they are, what shape they take, or what colours they use: "widgets must be fluid or liquid enough to participate in a more sophisticated layout," commented Mini. It is also possible to install Netvibes widgets on a computer desktop or on another website. There are plenty of opportunities to personalise within the widgets themselves, such as moving tabs around, or choosing a slideshow view. "There is a lot of intelligence in the product and we built it to make sure that people will try things and the product will react and surprise the user," he remarked. "It's all about making the pages really yours," stressed Mini, "as you can see, there is no prominent Netvibes logo." The interface is available in most European languages and progress is being made to translate it into others.

The platform is very user-friendly (see my 'Easter egg'-themed page, which took a matter of minutes to create), and it is easy for companies or publications to create simple RSS-based widgets, using a Netvibes 'wizard.' About half of the 180,000 widgets on Netvibes are RSS-based, Mini specified, meaning that they are essentially one or more RSS feeds in widget format, but there are many more complex ones involving video feeds or programming: searches for flights or hotels, or the possibility to access email or social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter.  Many different newspapers and news services have created widgets, often showing a list of the most recent stories.

Netvibes for newspapers

Netvibes can also help clients to develop more advanced widgets. With newspaper clients, Netvibes helps the paper to "granulize" the content into a widget and make that widget into a destination in itself, rather than just a way to "fish for an audience and drag the user immediately back to the site." Mini believes that if the widget simply links back to the site in one click, then "it is like an ad and it gives the user a poor return." So Netvibes built widgets have at least one or two clicks within Netvibes before redirecting to the paper's website, on the premise that the user feels at home within their page and will not want to be directed away the instant that they consult the news.

When asked if he has faced opposition from newspaper publishers who believe that services such as Netvibes are reducing their website traffic and advertising revenue, Mini explained that a few years ago this existed, but not any more. "If you are a newspaper you want to be in the widget game," he asserted, "now it's not even a choice: if you're not, another rival paper will be, and you will lose that part of your audience."

As well as their private page, which they can sign into from any computer, Netvibes also offers the chance to create a public page, or a Universe. It is published in real time, and can be seen by anybody who knows the URL  - www.netvibes.com/[username]. Other people cannot alter the page in any way, but can see what another user is reading. Users can search for friends and connect to set up a network within Netvibes; Mini clarified that the site was not built to be a social network, but it has "the basic capabilities" so that if people do not use another service they still have the opportunity to share what they are reading. The public pages are not necessarily just personal, publications such as the Financial Times have created one, which Mini described as a "showcase for their widgets."

Making money without advertising

No money is exchanged when papers place widgets on the Netvibes site in a standard sense. The company makes money in three different ways, notably not through advertising. The first is through promoting widgets by listing them first to make them far easier to find among the more than 180,000 options. The widget owner pays per install, and the widgets are marked as sponsored.

The second is through selling its 'Premium Universe' service, which allows companies to create their own page using Netvibes' software, but with their own branding and own URL. There is a set-up fee, and then a yearly contract to pay. The pages are fully 'personalisable,' unlike the free public pages, which are static, and consumers can create accounts and sign in. Unlike a user's personal page which they build from nothing and add content to, the Premium Universe pages come fully loaded with widgets, and they then have the choice to keep what the company is offering them or change it. The 80-90 clients include advertising agency Ogilvy, which created The Daily Influence, and French daily Le Figaro (www.lefigaro.fr/maune). The company can advertise and keeps the revenue generated. In this area, Mini explained, Netvibes is effectively being used as a publishing tool such as Wordpress, as there is the option to add "very sophisticated" notes.  

Installing Netvibes on the servers of others, effectively licensing Netvibes' source codes, is the company's third source income: Netvibes for Enterprise. This gives the client even more power to customise than with the Premium Universe, which is a turn-key solution that Netvibes maintains, and which remains on its server. For this service Netvibes sends the client one of its engineers who will spend five days installing the software and will remain for a further two days to train the relevant IT staff. The licenses are tailor-made depending on what the software is used for.

Each of these revenue streams accounts for about a third of the company's total income, said Mini, with some fluctuations. Amidst tales of financial woe throughout the industry, Netvibes' revenue is actually growing, with first quarter results significantly up compared to last year. "We should continue to thrive," Mini hopes, and confirmed that the company is on track to break even in September. The one way that the financial crisis has had an effect, he explained, is that interested customers are taking far longer to make decisions than usual: "that is the challenge."

Is personalisation the future: do people care?

One of the big questions concerning personalisation is: do people care enough to bother to do it? Netvibes has more than 3.7 million active users according to Mini, so seemingly some people do. Mini emphasised that for him, Netvibes' reason for being is to empower people, to give them the choice to make the pages that they want: he realises it is not something that everybody wants to do, but at least they are being given the chance. He thinks that in terms of news, it is unrealistic to assume that people will want to get all of their news from one source: for example if you follow several different sports based in different countries, why would you read about all of them in one newspaper?

The Netvibes service is fully driven by users: they choose what they want, there is nobody tracking what they read or use to recommend different articles or products which is the basis of some other personalisation offerings, such as the DailyMe. This avoids one of the potential problems connected with personalisation: privacy issues. Registering for Netvibes involves providing minimum personal information. However, it does mean that it is likely to only be used by more proactive, tech-savvy Internet users. There are also limitations to the service, for example, news can only be chosen by source rather than by topic or keyword, meaning that a user will still have to scour the web for information they need.  

From a newspaper owner's point of view, the proliferation of such sites cannot entirely welcome as they give readers the chance to access news without visiting the paper's website, hence generating no income. However, as Mini explained, there is now little point in resisting, and the possibilities provided to publishers, such as Premium Universe, are a valuable opportunity for those newspapers which are eager to embrace personalisation on their own sites, and there is an opportunity there for advertising revenue.

As more and more readers get their news online, the problem that news providers are all contemplating, according to Eduardo Hauser of the DailyMe, is, "How do we address the overwhelming amount of content on the web and how do we deliver it to the right audience?" People today have too little time to sift through the vast amount of content they have access to online, and as a result, many different services are springing up which provide some kind of filtering. Hauser and his team decided that personalisation was the route to follow, and the DailyMe was founded: a site that offers users the chance to easily locate the sort of news that they want to read, and to read it within the site, as content is licensed.

How does it work?

Registered users are invited to choose what sort of stories they are interested in, and once they have started to use the site it will track their preferences with the aim of providing them with appropriate recommendations and advertising, through what Hauser described as "dynamic personalisation." DailyMe offers three different strands of articles: Top News, which is the same selection of breaking stories for all users, DailyMe, which allows users to select their news preferences by topic and Daily We, which is community-driven, and allows users to rate stories. Within the DailyMe section, users can choose from subjects such as world news, science, travel, or industry-specific. The DailyWe area both charts the most read stories and gathers reader feedback. Registered users can assign one of six different descriptions to rate a story: infuriating, amazing, important, sad, uplifting or odd/funny: "six emotions consistent with people's reactions when they read the news," according to Hauser. So as well as looking through the most viewed news, users can browse the most important, or the most infuriating stories.

News is sorted largely by topic rather than by source: so readers easily compare many different stories in the fields that interest them. DailyMe licenses and "processes" about 10,000 stories a day, which come from 500 different newspapers and wires, such as the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the Seattle Times and the Detroit Free Press. "We have chosen newspapers because we go after an audience that is loyal to brands," Hauser stressed, adding that he believes the target audience appreciates the "value of professional structured content." He also stressed that DailyMe's sources are not chosen with any political angle in mind.

Limited editorial agenda

Due to the overwhelming amount of news and ways to find it online, Hauser believes that "the editorial role has come under enormous pressure and may be structurally unable to handle that demand." Relying on people alone is not enough any more, and stories in the personalised section of the site are chosen algorithmically DailyMe's proprietory algorithms. However, an editor's hand undoubtedly remains important, and the DailyMe's editorial team do pick what appears in the top news section, and which articles appear higher up.

Problems with personalisation?

One recent criticism of the personalisation trend, as voiced by New York Times op-ed columnist Nicolas Kristof, stems from the very idea that it allows people to focus primarily on just the news that they want to read. Is it responsible to support people going online just to look at entertainment news, for example, and skip politics and current affairs altogether? Hauser agreed that on principle, it is "probably better for people to be exposed to diverse perspectives on a variety of topics." However, he pointed out, "people have always been selective about their media," it is not just the Internet or personalisation services that have led to this; people have always skipped articles, or changed television channels. There are still opportunities for news discovery within DailyMe, and the Top News section includes articles on all topics. Hauser explained that as there are recommended links alongside each story, the site encourages readers to branch out. "We don't necessarily see personalisation as an end point. We see it as the starting point," he clarified. He believes that it makes sense to start with news within your fields of interest from many different sources, rather than "news chosen by someone else based on a common denominator of an undetermined audience."

Licensing not linking

Hauser identified several main motivations behind the decision to license newspaper content and host it on the site, rather than just offering links that send users away. Firstly, because the DailyMe is targeting an audience of 'integrators' as identified by a Pew Research Center report last year on the US audience for domestic news. This section of news readers are more accustomed to staying within one domain rather than jumping around between sites, so DailyMe intends to offer "a deeper experience, one that drives greater engagement," and allows readers to get all their news within the site. Also, for the purpose of providing an effective personalisation service which learns from readers' habits to make "the best possible content recommendations" it is necessary to keep people within the site. This is also crucial for making money from targeted advertising, as the more you know about your users, the more precise the targeting can be.  

Another aspect of licensing was the desire to enter the news market as a friend to publishers, rather than a foe. Hauser pointed out, correctly, that "we need to find a way for journalists to be properly compensated for their work," and paying the content providers evidently helps to do that. This is in contrast to many aggregation services, which newspapers often blame for loss of revenue due to the fact that people use these sites just to read headlines and do not bother to click through to the paper's actual site.

Adding to advertising

Hauser's original business model was based purely on advertising. As it is hoped that people spend a considerable amount of time on the site, an advertising model seemed appropriate. However, due to the decline in online advertising rates, Hauser and his team have realised that unless rates recover swiftly, the site will not become profitable in the next two years. So at the end of February the DailyMe started talking to newspaper publishers about licensing its technology in order to give them the ability to "deploy content personalisation and recommendation products on their own sites." As yet, Hauser could not give details of which publishers were in talks.

The future

DailyMe is in the process of developing a third version of the product, which will be "more comprehensive" in the way it applies the learning process by which it makes recommendations to users. Within the DailyWe section of the site, users will be offered the tools and environment to aggregate the best content they can find on particular topics. Having founded the company in 2006, Hauser is "happy with the product from a technological perspective" and added that funding is currently sufficient. The challenge, however, is developing a strong audience. At present, the site has 20,000 registered users, and although many more visit it, the base must grow considerably before advertising revenue will truly take off.

DailyMe has considerable potential: delivering news by topic from many sources will certainly appeal to many readers, and paying for the content that is offered keeps publishers and journalists happy. Obstacles to widespread adoption of the service however, may well arise from many people's innate reluctance to provide information about themselves or to allow their activity to be tracked.

Could mobile be the future of newspapers? And crucially, can it make them money? Garcia Media recently reported that the number of people getting news via a phone doubled from 10.8 million in January 2008 to 22.4 million in January 2009, according to comScore. As phones get "smarter" and people become accustomed to accessing their email and finding information on the go, it makes sense to offer them a good quality news service. Many major newspapers such as the New York Times, USA Today, and Le Monde have developed iPhone applications that users can download and which are intended to improve the reading experience, while many others have created special mobile versions of their websites.

Why an application?

There are advantages to viewing news via an iPhone application rather than via the mobile website or even on your computer; as Michael Logan, one of the founders and directors of Kanchoo, pointed out: "it's not just a version of the website." Obviously, the stories should be made easier to read on a small screen, and you can do things like scrolling through slideshows with your finger. But also, for example, using GPS technology a newspaper application could give you news stories relevant to your precise location, something otherwise not possible.

However, developing an iPhone is expensive, involving spending up to $20,000, according to Realising that the expenditure was too great for the newspaper he worked for, and that the cost would undoubtedly prevent many other smaller newspapers from creating their own application, Logan decided to take action and start a company that would develop iPhone apps for newspapers at a far smaller expense. Kanchoo launced in a beta version on March 6 offers its a basic service package for a start-up of $88, and a $28 per month charge for bandwidth and hosting: Logan commented that the low start up cost meant that newspapers could test the application's effectiveness rather than having to make a huge commitment upfront. Having someone else operate the app also means that "newspapers can just focus on producing content," and not have to worry about keeping up to date with technological developments, as the service will do that for them.

Small screen: less potential?

So with companies such as Kanchoo, developing iPhone apps should become a possibility even for smaller papers. But there will always be limitations, the most obvious being the size of the screen. The reading experience cannot be comparable to reading a print newspaper, and for some users it will always be a source of frustration. As a result of the small screen, there is also somewhat of a lack of potential for originality and differentiation: Logan described the reading experience as "pretty uniform" aside from basic branding and colour differences. Although perhaps as technology advances, this situation will change.

The development of smart phones as tools on which to read newspapers is definitely something that producers of e-readers, such as Plastic Logic whose device will be released early next year, should be looking at carefully. The more sophisticated newspaper and magazine applications get on phones, the harder it will be to persuade people to buy a new product. Plastic Logic VP of business development Daren Benzi claimed that phones do not offer competition to the experience that the company's e-reader will be able to provide, which he hopes will be as close as possible to actually reading print, and seemingly more suited to in depth reading.

Mobile money: is it a possibility?

The big question for newspaper publishers is: how to monetise its mobile audience? Obviously advertising is one, though the small size of the screen might make this harder possibly some kind of scroll over system makes sense. Logan explained that there are various companies, such as AdMob, which can help newspapers provide ads to their applications. The other possibility is subscriptions: similar to those utilised on e-readers, whereby the reader pays a monthly fee to receive an electronic version of a paper. It is not clear yet how this would work and whether it will even be a reality in the near future, but speculation has been mounting across the industry following Apple's recent announcement that its iPhone 3.0 operating system, due to be released this summer, will allow consumers to make purchases via applications. Currently, the only way to charge users directly is a download fee for the app.

The Revenue 2.0 group which met on March 21 to discuss strategies for funding journalism concluded that while mobile users might not be actually willing to pay for content that they can get free on the web, they seem happy to buy iPhone apps that provide features to "customize content on iPhones" and enhance the experience. They suggested a suite of features such as off-line reading, geo-tagging, archive/export, sophisticated customisation and text-to-speech which could be used when literally on the move.

Newspapers throughout the developed world should now be seriously taking their mobile audience into account: even though it is only a small proportion of people who currently have iPhones or other suitable 'smart' devices, the number is likely to grow as they become the norm. It does seems as if phones will always be more suitable for brief news updates rather than reading long in-depth articles, but there is definitely an increasing public desire to be kept up-do-date, for which mobile news works perfectly. If a way can be found to generate significant revenue, whether by paid applications, ad-ons or via subscriptions, then this market will become ever more appealing to newspapers as they address the financial challenges presented by today's media environment. But, as the Revenue 2.0 team pointed out, it is important to start charging now, rather than allowing readers to start taking free mobile news for granted, as they do with news on the web.

On December 25 2008, Carbondale-based newspaper the Valley Journal announced that the Christmas edition would be its last. The small Colorado town paper was unable to keep financially afloat and the decision was made to cease printing.

Deprived of the town's final stand-alone newspaper, locals began to miss out on vital community information such as birth and marriage announcements as well as updates on local infrastructure developments. However, it was the belated news of a friend's death that spurred Rebecca Young, Valley Journal's original founder, to take action: "I didn't hear of his death for a couple of weeks," she said. "I was so sad I wasn't at his service."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed its last ever issue yesterday, 17 March 2009, and is looking at an online-only future. Parent company Hearst decided it could not afford to keep the paper open in its current form after it lost $14 million in 2008, and after trying and failing to sell it, they proceeded to stop the presses but keep the website. The P-I is not the first paper to make such a move, but it is by far the largest US publication so far. What does this closure mean for the paper and the people of Seattle, and what are the implications for the wider industry: will other papers follow suit?

The cost of keeping the Seattle P-I's website should be a fraction of the cost of printing the paper: Poynter's Rick Edmonds estimates costs have fallen by 80%. Staff numbers have been reduced from 165 to 20, including just one photographer, and the site will be less like that of a traditional newspaper and more like the Huffington Post, according to the New York Times, as it will have limited original reporting and consist largely of links, advice and commentary, with several local columnists. It will repackage some health and home material from Hearst's many magazines, and has about 150 unpaid bloggers who will continue to provide content. The original reporting will focus on more hard-hitting news such as government, spending and crime, said P-I executive producer Michelle Nicolosi.

Seattle will be left as a one-paper town: the Seattle Times is now the only major daily in the city and although it should benefit from no longer having competition from Hearst's paper, it will no longer be sharing printing, delivery, advertising and marketing expenses with the P-I, as it had been for more than 20 years. P-I subscribers will automatically start to receive the Times instead.  It remains to be seen whether the paper will flourish or continue to lose money. The P-I's new most direct competition is a non-profit local news website focusing on the Northwest, CrossCut.com.

How should the web-only paper tackle the competition?

This huge change for the P-I can, and arguably should, be seen as an opportunity to revamp its site and be a front-runner in innovation. Online news leaves plenty of room for original development and possibilities for increased interaction with readers, personalisation options and linking are particularly relevant for local papers such as the P-I. It is "an adventure in journalism," according to columnist Joel Connelly. Slate editor Jack Shafer called upon Hearst to plunge into experimentation by sending in the "interactive cavalry," as everything that the publisher learns in Seattle can be used at its other newspaper sites. Examples he suggests are going hyperlocal, updating the site as much "as humanly possible," and to hire as many developers as they can. Rick Edmonds seems to be in agreement, writing that as long as losses are kept low, the P-I could be an effective "real-time test of what works and what doesn't in an online-only local site." And Nicolosi has promised that the paper will "experiment a lot, fail fast" with what is on the site: if something is not working they will cut it immediately and try something else.

Does going online-only make business sense?

The paper's online traffic is 1.8 million unique viewers per month and is usually more than its former rival/partner, the Seattle Times, which has considerably higher print circulation. And according to Forbes magazine in January, Seattle is the most broadband-connected US city: hence a place seemingly well suited for an online-only publication.

And online readership figures are high: according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's State of the News Media in the US report just released, traditional media has not lost its audience, rather this audience is shifting online. The Pew Research Center reported at the beginning of the year that the Internet had overtaken print as a primary news source in the US for the first time. This trend is not just American: British papers reported record online readership in January: with the Guardian website boasting almost 30 million unique viewers.

Several other smaller publications have made the switch to online-only over the past few months. The most well-known is the Christian Science Monitor, which announced its intention to cut its daily print edition in October 2008, though it will not actually make the conversion until April 1 this year. The CSM reasoned that its web product had a far wider reach than its print paper, particularly due to its international audience, and that producing the print publication would become untenable as the Christian Science church was preparing to stop its subsidisation. Others include the Monitor in Canada, and the Kansas City Kansan, San Francisco's AsianWeek, Hoy Nueva York and Wisconsin's The Capital Times in the US: all for financial reasons.  

The State of the News Media report, however, argues that it does not currently make sense for suffering papers to "kill their print editions and go online-only" as print still commands "premium ad pricing" and US papers still make roughly 90% of their revenue from print and the average cost of printing and delivering the printed paper is 40% of costs. So, the report believes, why would you cut almost all your revenue to save less then half your costs?

Is online-only the future of news?

Arguably, despite many people's love of print, online is the future of news: how distant a future, it is difficult to say. But the vital, million-dollar question remains: how to actually make enough money out of all these online readers in order to support good quality, in-depth reporting? Nicolosi said that she thinks it is "possible to run an online-only local news site that serves a city's readers well while turning a profit" and that "a digital news product is a viable solution for cities whose papers can no longer afford to operate." She seems to be convinced that the paper will make money online, but gives no indication of how this will happen. With the traditional ad-based business model proving less and less effective as online advertising prices fall, will the P-I come up with an innovative strategy? One of the major criticisms of the industry in the State of the News Media report was the lack of innovation in the sector in terms of business models. Nicolosi has assured readers that she is willing to try out new things on the site, but will the paper be as experimental in terms of business models?

For an online-only operation, the incentive to try to make money from Internet readers is surely greater than for a print publication with a website. And if the P-I does manage to find a way to support itself, whether through being successful enough to generate sufficient advertising revenue, or by adopting some kind of paid content system, the model will undoubtedly be looked at very carefully by other suffering papers around the world.

Google News announced that it has struck a deal with eight European news agencies to host their content and to display advertisements around their stories. The ads will also run alongside content from the agencies whose content Google already hosts: AP, the AFP, the UK Press Association and Canada Press. Google started to display ads next to search results on Google News US in late February, but it was unclear if the move would spread to outside the US. The ads will be contextually relevant, as they are on Google news US.

News agencies EFE, which services Spain and Latin America, LUSA (Portugal and Brazil), Keystone (Switzerland), APA (Austria), PAP (Poland), MTI (Hungary), ANA (Greece) and Belga (Belgium) have all struck news content hosting deals with Google. They are all members of the European Press agency.

The Internet has changed the way that people read newspapers in many ways: not least because news aggregators such as Google News have helped to bring readers away from the habit of focussing their news reading on just one paper's website. Now most Internet-savvy users are accustomed to visiting many different websites and choosing the source that they find appropriate for each story they would like to read. But as newspapers' print revenue drops, frustration at the way that aggregators make money out of content which is not their own has been increasing amongst newspaper publishers. Could Google's recent adoption of small text advertisements on US Google News be the last straw?

The basics of news aggregation

Many different news aggregators exist: those run by media giants such as Yahoo, those based on reader interaction such as Digg and others like the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast which provide aggregation alongside original reporting and commentary. Some provide just headlines; Google News, however also collects brief excerpts from articles on its homepage, and makes them available via a search function. Unlike some aggregators such as the Drudge Report that have a human editor choosing the headlines, Google News aggregation is entirely automatic, using algorithms which carry out contextual analysis and group similar stories together. According to Google, articles are ranked based on "how often and on what sites a story appears online," and "based on certain characteristics of news content such as freshness, location, relevance and diversity."

Google's mission

News aggregation has been an extremely controversial issue for many years. Google News creator Krishna Bharat claims that Google's service aims to "encourage readers to get a broader perspective by digging deeper into the news - reading ten articles instead of one, perhaps." This in itself is undoubtedly a respectable idea, and reflects one of the great advantages of online news for consumers: the ability to easily read around a topic. According to William Echikson, Google's Senior Manager for Communications, "Google makes the news more accessible and more interesting - encouraging people to read more and so benefiting the news industry as a whole." It can be argued that Google does indeed benefit the news industry by directing traffic to newspaper websites and hence promotes newspaper content. This is perhaps especially pertinent for smaller papers which would not otherwise get many visitors to their sites: when a major event occurs locally, they might suddenly find themselves topping the Google News homepage.

Publishers vs. Google

Despite some undeniable benefits for readers and apparent benefits for newspapers, some newspaper publishers are resentful of Google News and other similar aggregators. The essential problem is that publishers do not feel that the click through rate to articles is high enough, and therefore any additional advertising revenue that they would gain from extra viewings of individual articles does not compensate for the income they lose from readers not going direct to their newspaper websites. For Google News search results, the click through rate is only about 10%. People scan headlines and the brief article excerpts that appear but then few seem to bother to read full stories, meaning that despite their content being used, newspapers are not receiving any income. And even if people do click through, it means that they are less likely to visit newspapers' homepages and therefore newspapers cannot make much money from their premium advertising spots. There have already been protests: Belgian newspaper copyright group CopiePresse is in the process of seeking 49 million euro in damages from Google for storing and reproducing Belgian newspapers' articles without permission. Another of the complaints that newspapers have is that the aggregators' crawlers do not distinguish between "good" journalism and everything else.

Advertising adds to conflict

Newspaper owners have also been opposed to the fact that advertisements are placed alongside search results on the general Google site, meaning that Google is directly making money from other people's content. The recent decision to place advertising on search results for the US version of Google News after keeping it ad-free for six years is a move that can only further anger many publishers, as it seems now obvious that Google is, after all, just trying to make money out of newspaper content. According to the New York Times, a Google spokesman said that Google had devised an approach that could deliver contextually relevant ads so had decided to go ahead with them. NYT writer David Carr was extremely unimpressed, stating that "newspapers' audiences are harvested and sold divorced from the content that attracted them in the first place."

It is not clear whether the company intends to start putting ads on Google News outside the US. According to Press Gazette, Europe's notions of "fair use" are more heavily weighted in publishers' favour than in the US. CopiePresse has asserted that it will take further legal action if ads are placed on Belgian Google News.

Newspapers' anti-aggregator options?

So, apart from simply suing Google and trying to halt a seemingly irreversible trend, how can newspapers tackle these problems, which are all the more relevant in this time of financial crisis?  One possibility is the solution provided by ACAP, or Automated Content Access Protocol, a coalition of newspaper, magazine and book publishers led by the World Association of Newspapers, which claims to put "content owners in control of their online content in a way that is conducive to developing new online business models, putting new, high-quality content on the net and to maximizing the benefits of the relationship with search engines." In essence, it would mean that copyrighted material could not be used so freely in search engines. Over 700 news organisations have implemented ACAP as a symbolic gesture in anticipation of search engines recognising the service.

One further non-confrontational solution could be for newspapers themselves to provide more aggregation, such as the NYT's Times Extra page: an alternative homepage which includes links to articles from other sites under the Times' own stories. The Washington Post has a politics-specific Political Browser which freely links to other publications. If newspapers embraced this linking further, they could succeed in providing significant competition to aggregators. As well as just linking to other papers, they could utilise a product such as Pluck's BlogBurst, which is effectively a blog syndication service, allowing newspapers to easily search 'quality' blogs and find content to supplement their own stories. Obviously to do this newspapers must adopt "a fundamentally different mindset" to quote Scott Karp, who coined the term "link journalism": they must stop trying to keep people within their own sites and realise that sending them away to appropriately interesting articles may well keep them coming back for more. The Huffington Post, for example, thrives on sending readers away to other articles, and managed to become the most linked-to blog on the web.

Can newspapers supply the competition?

Evidently people do like to be able to get the news from many different sources around the world, and younger readers who have grown up with online news possibly have less loyalty to individual newspapers. With this in mind, newspapers could even provide a better service than Google and co. One of the problems with automated aggregators such as Google is the lack of a real editorial agenda: Google's algorithms try to judge the importance of stories in ways described above, but there is no editor to provide an informed, professional view of events by appropriately arranging stories on a homepage. A newspaper might not be able to provide as comprehensive an aggregation service as Google, but it would have the advantage of being able to offer a clear editorial voice in its selection of articles and how they appear, which is one of the aspects of newspapers that readers value highly.

Another more radical and highly controversial option to defy the search engine aggregators is to start charging for content. If newspapers were to come together and universally start charging online readers, via joint subscriptions or micropayment, they could create a newspaper-owned search engine and aggregator which included advertising and fairly distributed revenue, hence keeping all income from newspaper content within the control of newspapers. It would be a huge step, but as more and more publications contemplate a return to paid content, it seems at least a possibility.

Will Google's additional ads spur newspapers into action? Or will they continue to somewhat reluctantly tolerate the Internet giant's profit from their industry, and accept the directed traffic in return? The Internet has revolutionised the way that people read news, and aggregation and linking is undoubtedly going to continue to be a part of the news landscape. The issue is whether it will be newspapers themselves or third parties which manage the system.

Given the financial difficulties that the traditional media are facing, it would seem a perfect time for citizen journalism outlets to flourish, as they can try to fill in the gaps left by reporting cuts. And indeed, citizen journalism venture AllVoices seems to be taking advantage of this: launched last year, the site passed the million unique visitors mark in January, not a small feat for a site with only six fulltime members of staff. The Editors Weblog spoke to AllVoices founder Amra Tareen about the reasons for AllVoices' success and her vision for its role in the journalism world.

AllVoices places its contributors' reports alongside aggregated stories from mainstream media: each section is clearly distinguished by colour and title. Any of the sites' thousands of users, once they have created a profile, can upload a report or other content. Stories are categorised according to topic, and given a credibility rating out of five. They can later be added to, commented on or ranked by other users. Tareen was passionate about her project, explaining that the aftermath of 9/11 and the US's decision to go to war in Iraq had persuaded her that the views of the mainstream media were not always enough, and she was inspired to create a global news network that would "provide a 360 degree view" and allow people from all over the world to communicate "around real issues that impact all of us." She made the valid point that an eyewitness account will always be coming from a different view point to one written across the world.

News without editors

AllVoices does not have a member of staff editing the site; it relies purely on its proprietary algorithms and its community. Tareen described this as the "YouTube principle," and emphasised that producing an edited product was not the aim of the site, rather "our goal is to publish what people want to create and to provide multiple points of view." She was confident that the site's users were capable of "making their own decisions as to what they want to believe in." The site is not trying to provide authoritative news, rather to offer different points of view and allow readers to come to their own conclusions about what is actually happening. Staff only check content if it is flagged by another community member.

So rather than an editor choosing articles for the front page of the site, the decision is based on a variety of criteria - credibility, popularity and whether the news is breaking - which are assessed by algorithms. Initially, the algorithms identify a contributor's location based on the computer's IP address or mobile phone network: "we code to city level," Tareen specified. The system also carries out contextual analysis to decide on a topic category for the report, such as business, politics or entertainment. Algorithms then assess a report's credibility based on whether other people both in and outside of the community are reporting on similar issues, on whether other members of the community are adding to it, and on other users' ratings. Contextual analysis can also highlight problems such as copyright violation, for example, and the algorithms will assess whether a story is breaking news. The algorithms and other technology is being constantly refined by AllVoices staff, which includes three engineers, and two professors from Northwestern university who advise.

The algorithms, though extremely useful in establishing reliability, are only 80% accurate, explained Tareen: "You need some human interaction and this is what we are trying to get the community to do, to put the icing on the cake." So users are actively encouraged to rate other contributor's articles, and those pieces which are ranked highly by both the algorithms and the people will be more visible. Stories start off on a city page, chosen based on the geo-coding technology, and then can move up to regional and global pages if they "catch momentum" by receiving many hits and high rankings.  

Citizen journalism melds with social networking

All contributors must create a profile, which also is the basis for the community's social networking feature. There is a personal messaging system for communication between members, where Tareen feels is crucial for forming a community, as is a certain level of engagement in the site: the ability to add comments or further content such as pictures. There is also a recommendation engine, which will show users what mainstream media and other bloggers are saying about the news on which they are writing.  

Cash for the best articles

AllVoices started an 'Excellence in Citizen Media Incentive Program' in August which allows contributors to earn cash when they reach a certain number of readers and a high level of credibility for their articles. Tareen explained that she had been astonished to discover that "there were many freelance writers out there who don't even get paid," and so decided to do something about it. The six month programme is intended to "attract and incentivise great writers." Tareen clarified that a contributor whose articles had been viewed over a million times and had met other criteria could have earned USD 10,000. Users can keep track of their earnings on their profile page. As well as the money, AllVoices helps to promote good content through "social media marketing and search engine optimisation."

As yet, the project is not financially self-sufficient, and Tareen explained that she is working on a proposal for another round of funding. The site was launched with $4.5million of equity funding. The hope is that the site will make enough money from advertising to cover costs and become profitable, and as the site offers "niche communities within communities" there is significant potential for targeted advertising. But until the site reaches seven or eight million unique visitors per month, Tareen clarified, advertising revenue will not be sufficient. For now, the AllVoices team is keeping marketing and other costs as low as possible. "Once we become a really big site then monetising will not be a problem," added Tareen, but until then "we will have to be very creative and make sure that the viral marketing aspects kick in."

An alternative to traditional media?

Tareen vehemently stressed that AllVoices is not aiming to replace mainstream media in any way, rather she sees AllVoices as an alternative voice to complement traditional publications, and a way for anybody who chooses to have a chance to interact with a global audience. "There are some people who want to hear what other members of the public are saying, and there are other people who will always want to go to professionals," she believes. "I don't think one will replace the other, I think we augment."

Citizen journalism can indeed play an important role in supplementing traditional reporting and contributing to a global dialogue on news, if its credibility can be maintained. More and more citizen journalism sites, such as Citizenside, are using proprietary technology to judge the authenticity of user content. While the algorithms' ability to effectively assess reliability is impressive, AllVoices' decision to eliminate the eye of a human editor does mean that the site will always be lacking that professional touch which could lift it from an informative and engaging community to a valuable news source.

E-readers have been on the market for some years now, but only very recently has it seemed even mildly likely that the idea might take off and they would become a widely used product. Currently e-Readers are still far from having must-have status. But with Amazon's much anticipated launch of Kindle 2.0, Plastic Logic's announcements of media partners for its upcoming product, and Hearst's recent news that it will also produce an electronic reader, it seems that the supply at least is ready, in case the demand does appear. E-readers could have far-reaching consequences for newspapers if they do increase in popularity, as publishers can bring in significant income from wirelessly delivering digital editions of their papers to users. The Editors Weblog spoke to Plastic Logic Vice President of Business Development Daren Benzi, about the company's business-orientated e-reader and its potential impact on newspapers.

Big screen news

Plastic Logic is planning to release its, as yet un-named, reader in January 2010. The main difference between it and the Kindle, or Sony's somewhat unoriginally titled Reader, is that the Plastic Logic product will have a considerably larger display and will be marketed towards the 'mobile business professional,' rather than the leisure reader, clarified Benzi. The screen will measure 10.7 inches diagonally (about 27cm) compared to Kindle's 6 inch/15cm display. Despite its larger size, the device will weigh about the same as the Kindle, as it will be made from plastic rather than glass and silicon. This also gives it the advantage of being more robust and durable, explained Benzi. The screen itself is flexible, but the rest of the components are not as the technology is not quite ready, and Benzi added that consumer testing has shown that people "would like it to have some form to make it easier to carry." The device is extremely easy to use, Benzi added, with an "intuitive touch screen" and just one button to power the display.

An important development compared to other e-readers, Benzi remarked, is that rather than just passing through text, Plastic Logic is "trying to deliver a deeper, richer reading experience," meaning that more information would be placed on the device. Some modifications will still have to be made to put a newspaper on such a product, but Benzi explained that there are companies which can do that for them. It will also be much easier to transfer documents such as word or pdf files from a computer to the e-reader, via a USB port. Although the product is focused on the needs of a business person, that does not mean that books will not be available also: "I don't want to discount the fact that the business professional enjoys leisure reading," Benzi added.

Partnerships with newspapers

Benzi was clear that one of Plastic Logic's key aims is to provide newspaper content on its e-reader. "Because of the size of our device, newspapers and magazines really are our core focus," he stressed, "right away a newspaper company sees the greater opportunity to publish on an end user product that is much closer to the print version." Content will be available through a shop, similar to Kindle's. The first product will be in grey scale but Benzi described the company's commitment to producing a colour device in the near future as a reason why papers with strong colour branding, such as the Financial Times and USA Today, are so keen to collaborate. Plastic Logic recently signed deals with these two publications, and Benzi was confident that the company will be announcing "lots more direct relationships as we approach the launch." Other partners include Libre Digital, which manages several digital newspaper titles and Zinio, which produces digital magazines.  

This attempt to "pass through the print like experience" extends to advertising, which Benzi said had "often been left behind in these device segments." It is however crucial for newspapers as a revenue stream in addition to income from subscriptions.  Benzi explained that although the first device will not access the internet, consumers might well be able to click on an advertisement for additional information on products or offers:"we could put a catalogue on the device if we wanted to, there is plenty of information that users can have at their finger tips."  Plastic Logic will be able to "track the information about what the customer is doing with the device," a system which would seem to offer benefits to both newspapers and advertisers.

"Customers have shown in the past that they are prepared to pay for news, and they will again in the future: you just have to give them the right experience."

Benzi emphasised that although he could not claim that e-readers would be the newspaper industry's saviour, he believed that partnerships with Plastic Logic could be "a greatly valuable asset to newspapers' overall mix of business models." He added that "the great advantage with us is that there is no paper or ink involved, and no moving things around with trucks," which significantly reduces the cost of delivering content. He explained that his conversations with newspapers have focussed on how they can work together "drive new revenue and hopefully reach new customers for our partners." With regards to charging for content that might be available free on the web, Benzi is convinced that it is not necessary to "devalue content" and that "customers have shown in the past that they are prepared to pay for it, and they will again in the future: you just have to give them the right experience." Pricing for the device or for subscriptions have not yet been finalised, but Benzi confirmed that prices would be competitive. He accepts that there are some savings when producing a digital product which should be passed on to the customer, and that will be taken into account when comparing the pricing with a print subscription.

The market case for e-Readers

Benzi was confident that the time is right for e-readers. "I think that the factors and trends are much more aligned now than five years ago," he explained. This is partly because of technological advances, meaning that the devices can be smaller, lighter and easier to use, and also because of the way mindsets have changed, meaning that "people are a lot more comfortable reading digital content, and are more conscious of the benefits of getting their information this way." Another huge advantage of digital paper, and one that has maybe not been giving the attention it deserves, is that it is more environmentally friendly, an issue will presumably only become more important, and should appeal to many consumers.

Benzi believes the time is right for e-readers: "the factors and trends are much more aligned now than five years ago"

Most of Plastic Logic's target market, the mobile business professional, are very likely to possess a lap top computer and a smart phone, so why do they need a third device, and would they agree to use one? Benzi insisted that there is room for such a product, as it would replace the need to carry around not just newspapers and magazines, but other documents also. Compared with a computer, one of the advantages of the device is that readers can focus entirely on consuming content, they will not be disturbed by emails, for example. It is also far easier to use, and there is no glare, "it feels like you're reading on paper." Lastly, it has much longer battery life than a computer or a smart phone.

It would appear that the most fierce competition for e-readers comes from smart phones, for which many different newspapers have created applications that allow consumers to access their content. However, Benzi was insistent that he did not view smart phones as competitors. He explained that he realises that they are an alternative partner for newspapers, but "for what we are trying to accomplish, their screens are too small." Reading the news on a smart phone is fine if you are just after the bare information, he commented, but Plastic Logic is aiming to deliver "a totally different kind of reading experience," one which is far more similar to print.

Smart phones are not competition: "for what we are trying to accomplish, their screens are too small."

Amazon's Kindle 2 has been met with mixed reviews, largely because it is not seen as being different enough to the first model; not least because the company has not given any indication that the product will be available outside the US. Its text-to-speech function recently suffered setbacks after protests from publishers: now publishers will decide whether to allow their books to be read by the device. Amazon has refused to release sales figures for either versions of Kindle, suggesting that numbers might not be what Amazon had been hoping for. At $359, it is not cheap.

Will the Plastic Logic device be better received? Its larger screen will undoubtedly be more suited to reading newspapers and documents, and the business market may well be more receptive to such a product. It must expect some competition from Hearst, which just announced that it is to release a large-format wireless e-reader this year, "suited to the reading and advertising requirements of newspapers and magazines," according to Fortune. It seems that the newspapers are indeed enthusiastic, but are the customers? Or will it take something more to persuade them to give up their attachment to paper, and possibly greatly reduced prices for the basic device?