Results matching “newspapers accept change m”

Robert G Picard has a controversial proposition:  journalists should accept lower pay.  To explain these potentially friend-losing remarks published on the Christian Science Monitior website, the media economist offers a lesson in the philosophy of economic value as applied to the beleaguered profession.

In a time of worrying industry cutbacks and the rise of citizen journalism as an inexpensive and exciting source of information, Picard offers alternative paths for the profession, necessitating the specialisation of focus and an acceptance of the economic realities of the labour market.

"Economic outcomes have traditionally held low priority for journalists. That's got to change."

Last Wednesday, May 6, the US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to review the plight of the newspaper industry, to better understand new media and the new model emerging, and to assess the role that government should play in the media as it evolves. The Future of Journalism hearing was presided over by Subcommittee chair Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who called the hearing in response to the threatened closure of his local paper, the Boston Globe, and the troubles facing newspapers across the country as advertising and circulation decline and the Internet replaces traditional media.

In his opening statement, Kerry says the committee has met to discuss not only the jolting condition of the newspaper, but also its implications for the future of journalism and the country. He believes it is important to "preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media" and questions whether online journalism will "sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has." The committee invited five prominent representatives of various types of media to express their views about the Future of Journalism and offer their solutions.

"Why is the government interested?" asks Kerry. "We do have a responsibility for the licensing of broadcast. We have a responsibility for the regulatory oversight of ownership of cable, satellite, other issues with respect to communications; and needless to say, how the American people get their information--what the structure of ownership is--is of enormous interest to all of us because it is the foundation of our democracy." Is there even any government role at all, he wonders, or is this simply a normal transition in the marketplace?

Considering the nonprofit model

Before it heard from the media representatives, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the committee about his Newspaper Revitalization Act, which proposes a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status for newspapers. Cardin stresses that online journalism does not supply the in-depth reporting and investigative journalism provided by traditional newsrooms that are essential to a free and democratic society. His bill would provide an opportunity for local supporters--whether individuals, foundations, or educational institutions--to come together to preserve their community newspaper.

The major criticism of Cardin's bill is that it could threaten a newspaper's freedom of speech: 501(c)(3) status allows editorializing but prohibits a paper from endorsing political candidates. The independence of journalism from government is crucial to its role as watchdog, and it is undesirable for a newspaper to have the government involved in judging its content. However, in their addresses to the Committee, both Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Washington Post, and former newspaperman David Simon, say that while they seriously oppose government interference in newspapers, they are intrigued by the nonprofit model.

Newsrooms provide an important public service, so why shouldn't the government give them the tax exempt benefit of becoming non-profits? After all, the danger of government interference in content could be exaggerated. Any single politician or political party attempting to manipulate a publication would be immediately exposed through other media outlets, and the threat is not much greater than private ownership where powerful investors might maneuver the paper to serve their own interests. Nonetheless, the greatest issue faced by nonprofit newspapers and their investors will be where to draw the line between endorsing and editorializing. If a newspaper's responsibility is to provide the public with unbiased information, then blatant political endorsements seem in violation of that role anyway, but nonprofit status could limit criticism and commentary on politicians and legislation that might reduce the media's role as watchdog.

As Coll and Alberto Ibargüen, President of the Knight Foundation, point out, nonprofit is not a universal remedy nor will it solve newspapers' profit problems. The initiative could be viewed less as a savior of the newspaper entity and more as a bridge to preserve local journalism during a transitional period. Ibarguen says that relieving profit pressures with nonprofit status might help newspapers "extend their useful life until we figure out what's next and what online model can afford professional journalism."

Relaxing antitrust could help publishers charge for online content

The other great appeal for government intervention in newspapers has been the request for changes to media ownership and antitrust policy. Last month the Justice Department rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to change the boundaries of media antitrust to include all media in a geographic area--including radio, TV, and newspapers--when deciding whether a sale is anticompetitive.

Pelosi's antitrust proposal raised obvious criticism about the independence of newspapers and consolidation of ownership. However, at the Senate hearing, Simon and James Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, approached antitrust from a different angle: they urged the Committee to give newspapers an antitrust exemption so that industry leaders could convene to discuss copyrighting from aggregators and charging for content online.

Unable to foresee the digital future, at the advent of the Internet newspaper publishers made the mistake of offering content free online. Now readers are accessing that content for free, not through the publisher's site, but through aggregators like Google News, which also does not pay publishers for content. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience at Google Inc., defends Google to the committee, calling it a "conduit" for journalism that provides a free service to online newspapers by driving traffic to their sites.

However, Simon and Moroney argue that aggregators do not provide adequate compensation for the revenue generated from publishers' original content. They contend that as of now, the profits publishers make from online advertising are not enough to sustain the quality journalism newsrooms have been providing. There must be an industry wide initiative to charge for content online, says Simon, as no individual can swim against the tide. According to Moroney, under the current antitrust laws, publishers cannot even begin to have a conversation about possibilities for pricing or charging aggregators.

If the government does relax antitrust to allow for this industry wide "conversation," it could possibly lead to major publications placing a pay wall around content, charging users and aggregators, but does such a pay wall threaten the free market? One of the virtues of the Internet is the accessibility of information, so where do pay walls and content hoarding fit in? A generation of Internet users already views information as a free commodity, and charging online users for content will significantly reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce advertising revenue. Even if industry leaders can convene and discuss, they still might find themselves at a loss for a viable solution.

Experimentation and innovation rather than government intervention

The hearing's last speaker, Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, opposed antitrust exemptions, paywalls, or really any government intervention. In fact, she countered some speaker's doom and gloom position with the opening statement, "Journalism will not only survive, it will thrive." Her main point is that the industry has changed and moved forward and there is no going back.

Huffington says, "The future is to be found elsewhere: it's a linked economy, it's search engines, it's online advertising, it's citizen journalism, and the foundations supporting investigative journalism. That's where the future is, and if you can't find your way to that, then you just can't find your way."

Ibargüen, Mayer, and Huffington all support embracing new media and encouraging experimentation and business models that promote digital possibilities. For Ibargüen that means providing universal, affordable digital action and adoption in the US and more inclusive public media that reaches every American. Neither he nor Huffington mourn the decline of investigative journalism, and both praise the efforts of nonprofits like ProPublica and the Knight Foundation supported Voices of San Diego for providing quality journalism outside the traditional newsroom.

According to Mayer, "The structure of the web has caused the basic unit--the atom of consumption--to migrate from the newspaper to the individual article," and because of the Web's ability to operate in real time, this allows for "living" instead of "static" stories that are constantly changed and updated like Wikipedia or the New York Times' "Times Topics." These changes to the way information is viewed, insist Mayer and Huffington, mean a different approach to monetization is necessary, which requires innovation and creativity. The solution for newspaper publishers is not to appeal to the government for a handout to preserve the old ways, but to adapt quickly and direct their time and resources into experimenting with the monetization of traffic through advertising.

What will the Senate decide?

Despite Kerry and Cardin's concern for the American newspaper, more than one of the subcommittee's senators held up a Blackberry during the hearing, proving themselves a part of the new digital audience. The general consensus of both the senators and media representatives seemed to be that their priority is not to save newspapers but to promote policies that sustain journalism.

How enlightening were the testimonies of the media representatives? Though certainly thorough in unveiling all the problems facing the media today, they failed to provide the government with a cure-all solution as to how it should proceed.

It seems fairly likely that the Senate could pursue the nonprofit solution as it seems basically harmless and might help some local newspapers stay on their feet at least long enough to find another answer. Relaxing antitrust could prove more risky, giving industry leaders the occasion to consolidate prices and possibly restrict information in a move that could prove more harmful than helpful to their own purpose.

The testimonies may have encouraged the Senate to do nothing at all for the newspaper but instead to accept that the audience and the market is evolving and no legislation can hold it back. If this is the case, then publishers will be faced with only one choice: innovate or fail. Instead of resisting change, they must get a grasp on technology and the new audience, paying attention to the success of others, then find ways to provide creative content and advertising solutions. As a few of the speakers said, this is still a transitional period for old media and new media, and there is still immense possibility for originality and advances. Though certain publications might lament their own fate, it is too early to be mourning the future of journalism.  

Ana Bernal Triviño recently completed her doctorate at the University of Malaga, Spain. Her choice of thesis, entitled "Design preferences of the young regarding journalistic information on the internet" has already attracted some interest from media commentators and professionals alike.

Bernal's research throws some light on the relationship between the young and their preferred choice of medium - the web - in particular, addressing issues such as the relevance of design, content and layout in attracting younger readers to websites.

As the media landscape changes, seven longstanding competitors in the French newspaper market have been working together in an unprecedented way to test whether e-paper is a viable device to take newspapers forward. However, now that the test is over, each seems to have formed a different opinion on how to take this new publishing platform to the next level.

Electronic paper, or e-paper, is a portable display technology designed to mimic the appearance of ordinary ink on paper. It can be refreshed or rewritten countless times, thus negating the need for dead-tree paper. With rapidly rising paper, printing and distribution costs, such a device could be a boon to newspapers everywhere - if readers accept the device.

To gauge public demand for e-paper, the three main national French dailies, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Libération; the sports paper L'Équipe; the tabloid, Le Parisien; the business paper, Les Échos; and the entertainment-magazine Télérama, joined forces with telecommunications company France Telecom to test the Read&Go e-paper device. The survey group consisted of 120 people and took place over the course of the past few months. Having recently ended the test, Le Monde, Les Echos and Le Figaro revealed their findings.

Le Monde's sceptical optimism

According to General Director of LeMonde Interactif, Dao Nguyen, newspapers have felt compelled to design their own e-paper device. At the IFRA International E-Reading Conference in Paris, Nguyen said that the reading experience of newspaper content on the current devices in the market - for example the Kindle and Sony E-Reader - is unsatisfactory, going so far as to say, "There is no newspaper experience on a Kindle. They have shoved a newspaper into a book device." Nguyen feels that the makers of the current e-readers did not consider newspapers at all when designing the devices, commenting, "I don't blame them. Amazon is interested in selling books through Kindle."

However, despite these issues in its conception, Le Monde reported some positive findings from their e-paper trial with Read&Go. For instance, e-reader users read the device in the same fashion as they read a newspaper's print edition, ie, spending 20 to 30 minutes reading the news in one sitting. These numbers are much higher - and better for advertising revenue - than those of reader time spent with online editions, where people scan headlines and hop in and out throughout the day. Furthermore, the trial users were positive about the experience. According to an article in the New York Times, at least one user of the Read&Go device enjoyed the fact that it is both usable in direct sunlight, something difficult with a computer screen, as well as in complete darkness, which is impossible with a printed newspaper.

Following the test, Le Monde said it needs time to crunch the numbers and consider the statistics before fully committing, but that early indications are positive. Nguyen hinted that Le Monde feels confident that the relationship it has with its readers is strong enough that the paper will be able to sell a branded reader, possibly with subscriptions to Le Monde content. However, Nguyen refused to confirm if Le Monde is taking its e-paper experiment forward.

Les Echos: Want newspapers to work together

Contrary to the branded approach voiced by Le Monde, Philipe Jannet, Electronic Publishing Editor of Les Échoes believes that newspapers need to work together if they are to succeed with the new platform. During his presentation at the Ifra conference, he reported that users like to access many different news sources and therefore, a proprietary device will not work. Jannet believes that the newspapers must "own" the news they produce and pool their resources with other newspapers, thus having access to a pool of articles, much in the same way as Google News or Yahoo! News.

Les Échoes, according to Jannet, wants newspapers to group together to "sell articles", for example if a user is interested in the Cannes Film Festival, the news sources can provide the client with all the information they have on it in bulk. He expects a future where newspapers do not necessarily just sell newspapers with the new technology, but sell individual articles.

Le Figaro: E-Papers are the "Third Possibility"

In the same way that Jannet feels that newspapers should bundle content with other providers on e-readers, Clement Courvoisier, Digital Marketing Director of Le Figaro, was happy to have joined forces with the group of seven newspapers in order to test the device. Not only did it allow Le Figaro to share the expense of the experiment, but it also showed Le Figaro that there exists a "third possibility" to print papers and online editions.

Courvoisier does not expect a significant amount of extra work for newsroom staffers if the platform is introduced, as content is uploaded to the e-reader device much like it is to Le Figaro's website. Courvoisier stated that the there had "not yet" been any newsroom reorganisation due to the experiment, but he stated that it is still only in test phase.

During the test, no extra content was produced for this platform, Le Figaro used online articles for Read&Go; once again this could change further down the line if the product is released.

As at Le Monde, the visual style will be closer to that of the print edition. This is interesting as the news will be electronically provided making it conceptually closer to online, but perhaps because of its "hand-held" nature, the newspapers want it to reflect the print edition.

One consumer, multiple reading devices?

Despite the positive trial results, the path ahead remains unclear. A limited release of the product to test the waters seems the most sensible way to go - and a comprehensive advertising campaign - this is the type of product that consumers will either fully embrace or completely reject.

During her speech, Le Monde's Nguyen envisioned a future in which individuals have many devices for reading, but this seems an inconvenient and expensive prospect. What is more likely is that one device that meets all consumers various needs, including newspaper reading, will be the most successful.

Source: IFRA International E-Reading Conference, New York Times

Editors are struggling with the reality of readers turning to the Internet and mobile devices for their news according to a survey released this week. The survey conducted by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism discussed the challenges faced by newspaper editors as they try to adapt to readers who are switching from the printed page to the Web as a source of news and information

The survey, done in July and based on interviews with newspaper editors in 15 cities in four regions of the United States and senior news executives at 259 newspapers nationwide, showed that just five percent of editors feel confident in predicting how operations would work in the next five years.  

The study stated that editors seem cautious and "in the face of such uncertainty, several editors cited their staff's willingness to accept change and embrace new technology as the factor contributing most to their competitiveness."

Also at the conference, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel won the Innovator of the Year award for launching an investigative reporting team.  Mark Katches, assistant managing editor for projects and investigations at MJS, stated that readers are renewing their subscriptions due to the Journal's investigative work.

Sources: European Journalism Centre, AP, APME
 

In this section, John Zogby, CEO of Zogby International, and George Brock, World Editors Forum President and editor of the Saturday Times in the UK, comment on the results of the 2008 Newsroom Barometer. Both agree that the results show editors have opened to the new necessities of the digital age, while remaining strongly conscious of the possible threats to their newspapers and journalism.

(View the main results to this year's survey here.)

According to Brock, this year's survey points to the fact that "editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms," but this is "tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future."

The path is clear for many editors: integrate the newsroom, think multimedia, train or hire a team of multi-skilled journalists. So are the threats: lack of investment, lack of training, lack of cultural change.

In the face of these deep changes for the newspaper industry and its organization, editors may often face managerial resistance to undergo these investments. But media companies must be bold. Their editors, for the most part, are ready to be. Said Brock: "I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities."

For Zogby, who goes into more detail about the numeric results (see below), this year's results show that editors have adapted or are adapting to the current redefinition of the 4th Estate, the press, in light of the changes brought in part by the Internet.

"Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers," as was the case for the previous edition of the Newsroom Barometer, wrote Zogby.

Yet this optimism shouldn't hide the urgency for newspapers to rethink their model. "For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall.  The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how.  Editors now know the solution:  Innovate.  Integrate.  Or perish."

Read Brock and Zogby's full comments below.

Comments on the 2008 Newsroom Barometer by George Brock

Editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms. The optimism is not universal and it is tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future.

Newspaper managements might reply that investment remains risky when it isn't yet clear where the income from digital publishing is supposed to come from. But newspaper businesses are made by content which creates and sustains demand. The first newspapers did not come about when someone assembled advertising platforms, distribution networks and hardware and afterwards looked for content to put into that system.

The sequence of events was the reverse. Somebody wants to tell as many people as possible something of interest or importance, discovers a sustained curiosity in that information or opinion and eventually a publishing operation grows up to supply the demand. The chain reaction is sparked by interest in the story, view, picture, interview, column, cartoon that's on offer. Without that first moment of ignition, nothing else happens.

You think this sounds a little basic? It is. But you would be surprised how often this simple reality is forgotten as today's media businesses struggle to adapt to a world in which digital technology is rewriting the economics of news publishing.

Online news and opinion has now been with us for long enough to see that no prediction about the future of news which is based on technology alone can tell us the future. Newspapers are not just ink marks on squashed trees: they are what people trust, they amuse people, in short they are a collection of ideas and information with which a reader forms a relationship. Where journalism - whether professional, citizen or any mixture of the two - creates that relationship, something lasting is born and can be sustained. You can see examples of success and failure both online and in print. As the first flush of online innovation and enthusiasm wears off, we can see more clearly that some of the online successes will grow very big indeed, but that only the best will prosper. Making information available - and the web makes it available as never before - does not make it wanted. Newspapers which innovate and adapt will also survive because their qualities are more important than the medium. Some of the failures in both online and print will be terminal.

I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities. Most editors are clear that the essential qualities of good journalism can adapt to a new medium. They accept as a fact needing no further debate that their papers will now reach their constituency by several channels and not by one.

Redefining the 4th Estate: Opinions of the Editors by John Zogby

In the 550 years since the first pages of print rolled off the presses in the Bavarian town of Mainz, printed news evolved relatively unimpeded.  Even the invention and proliferation of radio and television failed to stymie the growth of newspapers, largely due to the ability of newspapers to provide more in-depth coverage.
    
The centuries-long hegemony of the ink and paper news model today faces its greatest threat--the advent of an independent and free Internet-based media.  This threat was evidenced at the height of the 2005 British elections with the publication of the 'Downing Street Memo' by The Sunday Times.  That short but potent document presented potentially damning evidence surrounding the planning in the run-up to the Iraq War, and while British papers seized the story, the leaked memo made only slight ripples in the American print media.  It did create, however, a surge within the rapidly developing blog community who used the lack of traditional media coverage as a call to arms.

Now, as the Internet struggles to define itself in the shadow of the Fourth Estate, the question remains: will these two mediums continue to battle for supremacy or will they find stability in an integrated symbiotic relationship? To help bring clarity to this question, Zogby International was commissioned by the World Editors Forum and Reuters to survey 704 newspaper editors worldwide for the second in a series of annual 'Newsroom Barometer Surveys.'

    Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers.  As in the 2006 Newsroom Barometer, nearly all editors (84%) are optimistic about the future of their paper.  The editors surveyed are as aware of what the future may hold for their industry as they are unified in their recognition of the underlying threats and potential solutions.

The Future

    The majority of editors (56%) now believe that most news (print and online) will be free in the future--up from 48% in 2006.  Nearly two-in-three editors (63%) believe that within a decade the most common form of  news consumption will be some form of electronic media--whether online (44%), mobile (12%) or through newer electronic media like e-papers and tablets (7%).  Less than a third (31%) believe print will remain the most common form of consumption.

    The perception of editors with respect to the future is not limited to the news product itself.  The overwhelming majority (83%) agree that within 5 years their nation's journalist workforce will be expected to know how to produce content for all platforms (e.g., print, video, audio and web).  Still, perception of the future is but one dimension of the story -- the remainder is defined by the threats to the industry and  how editors address those threats. 

The Threats

    By-and-large editors agree on the nature of the threats posed to their industry.  The decline in youth readership (58%), the rise in Internet and digital media (38%) and the lack of editorial innovation (36%) all speak to the consensus that change is imminent.  These editors tell us their chief sources of pressure are from advertisers (22%), shareholders (20%) and political forces (19%).  All pressure, no doubt,  to confront the changing reality through innovation and integration. 

    On one issue editors paint a mixed picture--the current state of their newsroom.  For some (39%) circulation in the past year is up; for others (29%) it is down.  One-third of editors (33%) have added journalists, a quarter have lost journalists (24%) and for the rest (42%) the number of journalists on their staff remains unchanged from a year ago. 


The Solutions

    When a majority of editors (54%) report that they have an integrated newsroom, they may make such statements not necessarily based on the reality, but also out of necessity.  Regardless of whether integration has or has not occurred, nearly all (86%) agree that it will be the norm in the near future.  Editors also agree on the steps needed to address other threats.  Asked what investments they would make in their newsroom given the opportunity, the top two investments cited--training journalists in new media (36%) and recruitment of new journalists (31%)--demonstrate that editors are looking to make a commitment to the future.  And with the recognition that editorial innovation is needed, 69% of editors agree that opinion and analysis pages will play an increasingly larger role in the future. 


Yes, editors are optimistic about the future of their papers, but they are also aware of the potential danger on the horizon.  Less than half (45%) believe the quality of journalism will improve over the next year.  More than a quarter (28%) believe the quality will worsen; a finding reflected in the high level of importance editors place on the need for investment in training and recruitment. 

For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall.  The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how.  Editors now know the solution:  Innovate.  Integrate.  Or perish.


Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

The latest Nieman Report examines the widespread trend towards local and hyperlocal news. The Atlantic Journal-Constitution (AJC) decided to kill its traditional sections and reorganize into two content departments, News & Information and Enterprise, while two production departments are specialized in developing products for Print and Digital. The paper also refocused on local news.

Deputy Managing Editor of the New York Times, Jonathan Landman, joined delegates at the 14th World Editors Forum to present speech focused on the exciting consequences of change in newsrooms and newspapers everywhere, and the many developments taking place faster than the speed of printing.  The one thing the modern newspaper’s practitioners cannot be is to be scared of change.  

Many months of speculation about the future of newspapers culminated in September 2006 with a front-page story by The Economist asking: “Who killed the newspaper?” To gain an insiders view of this morbid forecast, the World Editors Forum and Reuters launched an initiative to probe those most concerned: editors-in-chief, deputy editors and senior news executives.

Didier Pillet is the Director of Information for France’s daily with the highest circulation, the regional paper Ouest France. In a Q&A with Editors Weblog, he talks about the paper’s 14-month-old ‘Newsroom blog,’ how he manages his work as a journalist alongside regular postings and interaction with readers, and how the blog fits into the paper’s strategy.

While maximizing ad revenues may not seem to be directly related to editorial quality, increased revenues do enable more newsroom independence – and investments. As more papers reduce page-width, they might switch from linear inch ad sales models to modular ad sales.

To all the newspaper editors wallowing in self-pity, racked with anxiety for the future of print journalism: get over it.

That’s the message American Journalism Review editor and senior VP Rem Rieder sends in “Getting Over Ourselves,” found in AJR’s June/July issue.

The distinguished Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania has published an article summarizing the plight of American newspapers from a business point of view. It doesn't say much that you haven't heard here before but some of its main points should be noted:

The Pulitzer Prize Board has announced that it will now accept online journalism for prize consideration. The board began judging online journalism for the Public Service category in 1999, but now all 14 categories of the prize will be open to news reported on the Web.   

Pelle Tornberg, CEO of the Sweden-based Metro International, recently sat down with the Guardian to discuss the success of the freesheet, plans for expansion and the effects on paid-for newspapers.

As newspapers are not doing very well in terms of ad revenue (see previous posting), some think of new ways to attract advertisers. One such way is to accept shadow ads. 'Shadow ads', or 'watermark ads', are "shadowy images of corporate logos, movie characters, or other images" that turned up on stock tables, movie listings and sports data pages in newspapers (see Editor & Publisher from June). "News content is superimposed on images including corporate logos", writes The Philadelphia Inquirer. Shadow ads are not directly new and have been in sporadic use over the past years. In 2001, for example, Universal Studios had shadow-like ads in 15 newspapers in the US to promote its film "Jurassic Park II". "The images of flying dinosaurs appeared on tables of agate, or data, such as stock tables", reports Editor & Publisher . Such advertisements are, however, highly controversial with some editors being afraid that the line between editorial and advertising might be crossed.

As newspapers are not doing very well in terms of ad revenue (see previous posting), some think of new ways to attract advertisers. One such way is to accept shadow ads. 'Shadow ads', or 'watermark ads', are "shadowy images of corporate logos, movie characters, or other images" that turned up on stock tables, movie listings and sports data pages in newspapers (see Editor & Publisher from June). "News content is superimposed on images including corporate logos", writes The Philadelphia Inquirer. Shadow ads are not directly new and have been in sporadic use over the past years. In 2001, for example, Universal Studios had shadow-like ads in 15 newspapers in the US to promote its film "Jurassic Park II". "The images of flying dinosaurs appeared on tables of agate, or data, such as stock tables", reports Editor & Publisher . Such advertisements are, however, highly controversial with some editors being afraid that the line between editorial and advertising might be crossed.

As newspapers are not doing very well in terms of ad revenue (see previous posting), some think of new ways to attract advertisers. One such way is to accept shadow ads. 'Shadow ads', or 'watermark ads', are "shadowy images of corporate logos, movie characters, or other images" that turned up on stock tables, movie listings and sports data pages in newspapers (see Editor & Publisher from June). "News content is superimposed on images including corporate logos", writes The Philadelphia Inquirer. Shadow ads are not directly new and have been in sporadic use over the past years. In 2001, for example, Universal Studios had shadow-like ads in 15 newspapers in the US to promote its film "Jurassic Park II". "The images of flying dinosaurs appeared on tables of agate, or data, such as stock tables", reports Editor & Publisher . Such advertisements are, however, highly controversial with some editors being afraid that the line between editorial and advertising might be crossed.

To open the "Alliances and Partnerships" section, we have asked Carles Gardeta, Director for Organizational Culture Projects at Cases I Associats (Spain) to feature his two-year work within the Milenio Group in Mexico. Globally, three regional newspapers were involved in a fascinating editorial and management process including: newsroom organization of each one of the titles; formal homogenization of the different dailies; organization of administrative areas; common commercial strategies; and the coordination between the different newsrooms to allow the sharing of the production of common pages.