Earlier this week, I caught this item on MetaFilter about how the Independent Press Association had kicked the bucket, and how magazines were on the down and down. (That's like up and up, just the other way). Of course, as big a tech-head as I am, I know that magazines aren't a totally dying breed, just one that's on a much sped up evolution, declawing, or whatever you want to call it.

At the time, I figured that Rex Hammock, of Hammock Publishing and rexblog.com, would have something to say, since that's his bailiwick (ed: I've used that word entirely too much in the last month). Tonight, I had a chance to catch up with Rex via IM and ask him what he thought about this, and he was more than happy to point me in the right direction to some things he's said in the past, offer some new thoughts, and point out something he blogged about just this week.

About two years ago - February, 2005 to be exact - Rex took part in an interview with Media Life's Lorraine Sanders where he talked about why magazines matter. I won't rehash what he said so much there as that outside of his obvious love for the industry and the medium, but I can't agree more with his thoughts about how things such as JPG magazine offer something that just can't be recreated online, at least not yet, even though it's all about digital photography.

Rex also pointed me to this item from just two days ago, where he linked to a review of a new book, The Last Magazine, which talks about this very topic. You'll get a kick out of his quote, too.

"Magazines that people display on coffee tables will exist as long as there are coffee tables."

Ain't that the truth.

While chatting tonight, Rex told me that "magazines will have a long goodbye." That's important, because he's intentionally non specific, nor should he be. I brought up a magazine that I'm a big fan of, one that I not only love to read on planes, but love to keep around, Dwell. On that topic, Hammock said that he "think(s) that the aesthetics of magazines will grow more important -- the "experience" of something like Dwell is what makes the medium unique." If you've ever picked up that publication - or a number of others at its level - you'll notice there is something to every little nook and cranny, including the paper's feel on your fingertips. At least at the moment, you can't replace that. "Experience" is just the right word for it. Sure, Dwell can do a lot online, and they have a big, fresh site - but it isn't the same thing as the paper pub. On the other types of magazines, including "information" focused ones, he says that they "will (are) be supplanted by the Web.) We've seen that particular thing happen over and over again, but that probably won't stop people from opening those publications anew.

So are (will) magazines die off? Sure. Is it any different from a lot of other spaces and types of publications? Not so much. It's all about if the publishers of said publications can adapt and provide the great content they currently do to their readership in a fashion that the readership wants, can use, or needs. If it needs to be bite sized, some people will figure that out and do so. Others won't, and will vanish, probably quickly. As for the rest of it, I would say that, and did tonight with Rex, that those who are the most technologically hardcore, of which I'd consider myself party, might be the ones who "save" some of the publications on paper that are hurting right now, because we might be the ones who don't take them as much for granted when we pick up a publication and sit down and pour through its pages.

The AP's Hope Yen reports on some new studies saying that if media consolidation were allowed to continue along the lines of what some "big media" entities are looking for, that there would be a dissolution of some genres of music on radio. It's kind of sad that just because it's easier to run multiple Top 40 stations in one marketplace, that you'd even choose to do, in a way just to dominate the tuner as far as maximizing value to advertisers goes.

This, of course, was not overheard in a Viacom chatroom and should be taken as humorously as possible:

ViacomBoardGuy: Like, did you notice that Sumner Redstone is making a lot of money?
ViacomBoardroomDude: No, really? Shocker.
ViacomBoardGuy: Why you gotta be such a hater? I say we give him a pay cut, I mean there's no reason someone working for a monster conglomerate should make a lot of money as far as executives go, right?
ViacomBoardroomDude: Whatevs. I gotta go. Best Week Ever is on.
TomBiro: a/s/l?

While there aren't any specifics, it looks like Viacom is cutting the cash that chairman Sumner Redstone will be snagging.

For anyone who's been blogging for awhile, you're probably familiar with the volume of pitches and other materials that have begun landing in your inbox from public relations professionals (and some not-so-professionals), especially in the last year or so. As someone whose day job it is to work with clients and our own business on developing relationships with online outlets and writers, working with them in a manner that is good for everyone, I'm able to shed light on a daily basis on what works and what doesn't, based almost exclusively on the fact that I've been at this whole blogging thing for a few years now. Something that I'm a fan of explaining to my colleagues and anyone else who asks is that to get the attention of bloggers that you're trying to reach out to, you need to a) personalize what you send to them, no mass-mails will do, b) actually show that you've read what the writer(s) have written in the past, especially if they've covered your company / client, or competitors, and c) stand out from the rest of the pack.

What's this all about? Well, about a month ago, I was contacted by someone at Sony Pictures Television, who commented on this blog, and noted that the company was going to be sending out a mailer to some bloggers, and that they were interested in sending me something if I would like to receive it. I'd accepted, and was expecting to see perhaps a screener or some basic press materials, something that I do receive on a regular basis, most of which I either pass on to other bloggers who might cover those spaces, or I pick up over at TV Squad if someone else hasn't already. A short while later, during a week of business travel, I came home to a package that I wasn't expecting to receive, as I had blanked on the fact that I had corresponded with SPT on this issue when I arrived, so it was a pleasant surprise. Next up comes where the whole "stand out from the crowd" came from in this situation.

So, as I opened up the box, I found a letter describing what was in the box - which was bigger than those that usually contain screeners, mind you - which included a Sony PSP, but not just any PSP, one that contained high-res images and interviews from three of Sony Pictures Television's new shows for the fall season, including "'Til Death," which features Brad Garrett of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame. All these materials were available to be used by those of us who received them, before FOX, NBC, or the CW, or anyone else, was able to publish them. Of course, my receipt of all of this coincided with a vacation, some quirky TMD blog software happenings, and a number of other things, so I missed the exclusivity window, but not everyone did.

So, aside from the fact that this might seem completely outrageous to some people, let's think about the fact that this move, unlike a lot of other "send people stuff and see what happens" campaigns work, makes logical sense. Sony isn't just sending a PSP to people and then giving them access online to screeners and images and whatnot, they're actually using the PSP to show how that device works with different things. Now, I don't have a PSP, or didn't until this point. I do have two console systems, a Sony PlayStation 2 and an XBOX, and a computer capable of gaming, but nothing to take with me. On planes, I usually bring my iPod along, but it's not a video version, and I think the screen's a little small for that considering what that device can do, so I'm not such a fan anyway. Let's just say that watching these interviews on the PSP - which has a nice widescreen view to it - was flat out amazing. The still images of the shows were just like looking at high-res graphics on any computer screen I have, and the UI of the device is astounding. Heck, even connecting to the airport WiFi at Newark Liberty was a snap. And for a product with no keyboard, that's saying a lot, IMHO. So not only has Sony been smart and gotten the shows in the hands of persons who review and write about such things, but they're provided a device that is part of the Sony family of products and services to view it on. So not only am I talking up the PSP, which I hadn't really played with outside of in a store before, but I'm in the cool kids group with my friends who think it's awesome that I've had access to these shows well before they're aired.

There are pro- and con- arguments to whether people who write online should be accepting products such as this, and it's definitely in my own hands whether or not I choose to send it back or not, and I'm sure that people will criticize one way or another. And, to get facts straight, this isn't the first item that's landed in my meatspace inbox, but it's one of only a few that I've actually written something about. Journalism aside for a moment, let's just look at how this was done, and what it gets for Sony's various companies. Sometimes it's all about getting something in the hands of people and just letting it ride. For instance, I was given the opportunity to test out a Sprint phone and all of its' network services earlier in the year, and as someone who was never a fan of the phones they offered or the ability to make calls on the network, I've got to say that I have probably raved to dozens of people about the quality of the Power Vision network that you can get from them, television and all. Same deal here. Attempt to influence people you consider as influential.

On to the television shows, though. I'm not one to usually hit the sitcom scene, especially in the last few years - I just don't find them funny. "'Til Death" does its part to not be yet another show about a married couple by adding the twist of a newlywed couple living nextdoor to Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher's characters, and taking a lot of what worked for Garrett's character on "Raymond," which should help attract the audience that really enjoyed him as a costar on that show. Just as TV Squad's Joel Keller suggests in his review of the premiere, it feels a little more realistic than the average sitcom (no ridiculously built apartments that would never possibly exist here, thankyouverymuch), and offers a little bit of obnoxious behavior that FOX's "War at Home" also prides itself on, though not so "Ferris Bueller-ish" with the cutaways and whatnot. I'd expect this show to stick around, even if people aren't used to going to FOX for this type of comedy.

As far as the other two included programs, I'd say I was much more intrigued by "Kidnapped" than "Runaway," by far. For those of you into the whole TV Squad spiel on shows, you can check out Joel's writeup here as well. What caught me here was almost exclusively the "tone" of the show. It moved along nicely, had a realistic premise, and the cast is flat out fantastic. I'll have to echo Joel's sentiments about the length of this show as far as a season - or multiple seasons - goes, though. How long can this go on? Then again, I totally thought the same thing about FOX's "Prison Break," which not only is still going and in a second season, but made what I thought was a grave error in taking months "off" mid season to allow for other programming to take hold. I'd have thought that would slaughter a show, especially one that was minute-by-minute such as this one. NBC has had a kinda iffy experience with shows that have a take-no-prisoners cast. I mean, "Las Vegas" is amusing to watch, with James Caan, Josh Duhamel, Nikki Cox, Vanessa Marcil, and a host of others (how DID they get them all stuffed in this show, anyway?), but it isn't exactly breaking down doors. Cast doesn't make a full season, but if it did, along with some solid acting, then "Kidnapped" could stick around for awhile as well. Seeing Delroy Lindo, Dana Delaney, Timothy Hutton, and more on the small screen - together - could prove that the big cast formula will work, or could at least become a trend.

Today's Press Kit?
So, does that make this kind of communication and outreach the new style of press kit? Public relations firms and clients themselves have been coming up with creative ways to market their clients to journalists for years, and it's all about getting that particular piece of mail or package opened from the inbox in a timely manner and spark interest. Obviously they're not usually contained in an electronic gaming device - most of the time - but it appears that we've reached a point where certain companies and individuals have chosen to take a big step - no baby steps here - in order to catch the attention of those that they feel can push the needle. With those individuals not bound by the tenets of journalism, for the most part, that leaves some grey area that can be worked around. I'm not expecting any big screen televisions to start showing up at the Best Week Ever blog anytime soon, but I guess you never know.

Just read at CNNMoney.com that Ted Turner will not look for re-election to the Time Warner board of directors. In some ways, he's already exited stage left some time ago. In other ways, this is kind of a momentous moment for those of us who enjoy the world of media.

Over at the Fast Company blog on Thursday, Kevin Ohannessian posted his criticism of Wednesday night's coverage of craiglist on ABC's "Nightline" program - which he felt was unjustly critical of the Web service. Ohannessian even calls it a "sad defense of old media by old media."

You can read about it here and see a video of the segment at ABC News here.

W00t!

Chalk another one up for iTunes, as it was announced that it would carry highlights and other video content from NASCAR through its Music Store, writes News.com's Greg Sandoval.

CNNMoney's Paul La Monica writes Friday about how the splitting of Viacom into two different entities has been viewed pretty positively by the Street and business-thinkers, and what that means for the future. One of the theories included in the article is that the big company mentality might hinder the ability for some of the smaller pieces to function as well as they previously did - even though there might be financial savings elsewhere within the blending of the companies.

The Boston Globe's Keith Reed writes about this week's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where all kinds of "on demand" features and products will be unleashed on the media, only to land in our living rooms, on our cellphones, and on our computers in the next few months.

Proving yet again that the biggest thing that will come out of Web 2.0 - or whatever we're calling all the new and improved solutions, software, and technological advances - is choice, Microsoft has stated that Office 12 will do the one thing that many a person has wanted to do for years and years, but never bought the software to do - print files as PDFs.

On second thought...

Recently, a much ballyhooed topic floating around on blogs is that of iPodSubwayMaps.com's use of maps of NYC and San Francisco subway systems. Fred Wilson calls the situation "ridiculous," and is right in pointing out that the service being provided does make the use of the subways in those cities "easier" for those who use the service - being that it can be placed on a device that a lot of people are using already. However, I think Fred is off base when he (along with Jeff Jarvis) are stating that this isn't a copyright issue.

Sure, the subway system "belongs" to the people in the way that it is there for the public's use. But the physical maps are "owned" by whomever created them. Those maps are images, or artwork, and someone spent the time to put them together - whether by hand, mouse, or some other technique. The simple solution - and the one that the proprietor of the website has taken - is to just re-do the maps himself. Sure, the logic of the MTA and BART to go after the site might be off base - and I think it's awful shortsighted, but that doesn't mean that the previous works shouldn't belong to the individual or entity that created them, for as long as the copyright lasts.

I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to sense a bit of logic-loss when it comes to people going after anything "big business" or "big government" these days. Just because you can do things doesn't mean that you should do so in the first method that pops into your mind. Companies are opening their eyes to the new way of doing things, and perhaps this was a chance for those of us who hold some of the cards (read: bloggers, iPodSubwayMaps' William Bright, and those who are on the Cluetrain). The triumphalism and chest beating isn't all it's cracked up to be, and is the reason that many people have a problem with the new world of media.

Earlier today, Gallup released poll results about people's trust and confidence in the media. The good news is that it's higher than it was at this time last year - though only slightly. The bad news is that it's still a few percentage points lower than it had been for the previous couple of years.

Frankly, the results don't surprise me at all, and as the media evolves at the speed of light, the definition will either need to be updated by those giving the surveys, or the figures will stay where they are. The public holds a grudge, of course.

Back in May, when the New York Times announced that its columnists would be going behind a paid wall through a product called TimesSelect, it wasn't highly thought of. Shortly afterward, the Times' Martin Nisenholtz discussed the decision and what was involved. Still, most didn't take very well to it.

This morning, at least one user is having some trouble using the service - and it's someone with a print subscription, to boot. It'll be fascinating to see how this works, as the paper's columnists are probably some of the most-linked-to articles on the Web right now - or, they were, at least. On Friday, Matt Sheffield gave the gasface to the Times' plan, making the point that those potential NYT readers who have no idea who the columnists were before might never know now, if they don't ever pay for a sub online.

Finally, PaidContent's Staci Kramer has all kinds of good stuff on the service's launch, including the fact that advertising will be sold on the columnist pages, according to a spokesperson for the publication - a 180 from what was originally believed.

The Herald-Tribune's Lauren Mayk writes about an offer by Verizon of digital television service to the customers in an area of Texas where the telecom provider's new FiOS fiber optic services are available. Right now, Verizon and other telecoms face serious pressure from cable companies and other phone service providers, let alone mobile phone providers, for the voice minutes that used to be all theirs in the markets served by the company. The only way to get back in good light with customers in those markets is to bring them something they don't have - which an unprecedented (for most) level of speed on the Internet, reasonably priced phone services, perhaps in the VoIP manner, and television. Once again, this would all be on the same bill, but the provider would have total control over the various costs, unlike other Internet/phone/television combinations where partnerships are involved.

It's official - Viacom will bust up into two separate companies, one that will handle over-the-air television, and the other to work the cable angle. One company will keep the Viacom name - the cable one - and the other will keep the CBS branding.

This should attract the favor of anti-media consolidation proponents, but will most likely receive no applause because it doesn't help the continued cause of those organizations. It'll be interesting to see any continued linkages between the groups, as the world of MTV could rely on the CBS businesses, opening up over-the-air production opportunities to what MTV had to offer. Will this continue to occur going forward, or will a church and state effect sweep over the two companies? Only Sumner Redstone probably has the answer.

On Tuesday, Reuters announced that Tim Faircliff, previously the general manager of the Telegraph.co.uk website, had come on board as General Manager of its UK news and business information consumer products - just a few days after the news organization named MSNBC.com editor-in-chief David Wright to a role in the same organization.

Faircliff will be responsible for product and site development, as well as marketing and sales efforts for Reuters' attempt to attract consumers directly to its content - news and information. Will the company's partners catch wind (which they surely have already) of this plan and lessen the volume of Reuters news and information that they are currently utilizing, as they appear to be just the "middleman" for the company at this time? Or is the sandbox big enough for everyone to play nicely in?

Backstage.com reports that The New York Times Company has given $70,000 in grants to 27 NYC-based nonprofit theatre companies.

On Wednesday, Reuters named David Wright, formerly MSNBC.com Editor-in-Chief, to a new role the organization has just implemented - Senior Vice President / Managing Editor for Consumer Services. Reuters is looking to create new opportunities for distribution of their news content directly to readers/viewers, and Wright will be on the forefront of those efforts. Previously, Wright held roles at the Associated Press, Toronto Star, and San Jose Mercury News.

At a blog panel event that Reuters hosted a few months back, I had heard a few things about the group looking at mobile technologies as a direction to focus on, but the question still remains as to whether the average consumer will easily adopt Reuters as a source to get news and information - hence Wright's addition to the staff.

In big news of the day, Wal-Mart's online DVD rental business has been taken over by Netflix, the Associated Press is reporting.

[Thanks, Jerry!]

Urbana-Champaign's News-Gazette ran an article last week by Ernst Lamothe, Jr. about some discussions that took place last week at the University of Illinois, mostly about media consolidation. Included in sessions were Phil Donahue, Seymour Hersh, and Air America's Danny Goldberg.

On Monday, the New York Times announced that it would proceed with the subscription service it had been investigating recently, one that carries a cost of $49.95 annually - it's been named TimesSelect. While the subscription, which is set to begin in September, will open up the Times' archives (currently available on a fee basis) to all who sign on, it will close the doors to some of the more popular (especially with bloggers) features on the site, namely the op-ed columnist pages. As I suggested on May 3, "Publications are going to be moving to either a heavier reliance on advertising or some sort of online subscription service as print distribution declines, and there is no reason they shouldn't be able to recoup some of the cost of hosting that data - on a constantly live basis - from the reader." That being said, my prediction was leaning more towards the archived portion of the site, not new items.

While it's not surprising that newer features such as special audio/visual pieces and the ability to see articles before they hit the print edition ("Ahead of the Times," they're calling it) will be part of a paid service, dropping columnists and op-eds into the same bucket might be a mistake. Sure, some who truly want to read Frank Rich, Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, George Vecsey and others will either stick to the print edition or will sign on to the service, but this feels like a reversal of what the Wall Street Journal is currently going through, where the online service is gaining steam with users by offering up free content here and there to entice new subscriptions. In this case, taking something "away" that was previously free to everyone online and placing a value on it is going to be hard to justify in all cases.

Corante's Ernest Miller says that this is like the NYT proclaiming "We Don't Want People to Read Our Op-Ed Columnists," while Motley Fool's Alyce Lomax seems to think that the "mix of paid and free content...could very well be fruitful." Regardless of the stack of ticked off bloggers that aren't going to be able to Fisk every column link to the Times' op-eds, the paper will have to prove that the loss of revenue from a CPM standpoint on those particular pages will be offset by all the $49.95 subscriptions that come in.

Last Thursday, while in town for the BlogNashville event, I had the pleasure of visiting the Nashville bureau of Business Wire for a good portion of the day. My intent was to get a good sense of what a day in the life of the newsroom was, including the life cycle of a press release once it arrives at the wire service's offices. This entry will provide some insights into what I learned.

Most of the releases that are to go out on the Business Wire service come in online via Business Wire Connect. Some do come in through other methods, such as email, but they are predominantly directly filed by the client or the client's PR firm with Business Wire. Obviously email is an imperfect tool, and the direct access into BW can work to decrease the loss of important information. The Nashville bureau works for clients located in the area surrounding Tennessee, including Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri. This bureau has 14 copy editors on staff, spread out to cover 24 hours of time in the newsroom.

The average "time to market" for a "live" news release once it is delivered to the copy editors is approximately 15 minutes per page. This gives sufficient time for the editor to fully review the press release, ensure that it is directed towards the correct wire segmentations, check spelling, dates, etc. Editors are also responsible for adding a "Company Information Center" to each release, which leads items like stock quotes to the wire release. If a news release contains 10 pages of spreadsheets or financial information, it will obviously take longer than 15 minutes to hit the wire. Typically, financial results and other lengthy releases will be submitted well in advance of suggested distribution, such as in the case of quarterly financial results. The Nashville bureau sees anywhere from 100 to 130 news releases a day with a variety of distribution levels (national, industry specific, city-specific). Approximately one half of these releases will be considered "live," as in they will be distributed either immediately or at a specified time during that day.

Each release is timestamped the moment it crosses the wire services, so a client is aware of when its news has been distributed to sources like Bloomberg, the Associated Press, and Yahoo! News. Editors will typically contact a client by whatever means is requested to confirm that the release is ready to go, or has hit the wire. This ensures client satisfaction, and allows for a company to be prepared for any contact they might receive from reporters covering a story or other interested parties. What I found most interesting was the weight that clients put on the Yahoo! News service. While public companies are obviously following Regulation FD by putting their news on the wire services through either Business Wire or competitor PR Newswire, it was curious to see that a site like Yahoo! was so important. It appears that all the chatter you hear about the following that Yahoo! Finance has is true, from what I could tell.

As far as measurement, Business Wire members are able to get an idea of how many journalists registered on the PressPass service have viewed their press releases. While specific journalist identities are not shown to the customer, Business Wire offers various levels of clipping services and tracking options as a value add. This seemed very similar to services (manual or otherwise) that many PR agencies offer to their own clients.

The office seemed not unlike a publication's newsroom, with editors on the floor at all times, and a few staff members handling other functions such as sales and management. Additionally, having the Internet at any desk would make it very easy to monitor any difficulties with websites who receive the wire's feeds. Each editor can also see what is in the queue at the other Business Wire bureau, including being able to identify who is working on what release. In this office, editors effectively "took turns" going around the room as releases came in, length and effort needed on each release being kept in mind to help balance the workload.

So what's the future of the wire service? It's hard to say, at least from my perspective. The ability to adapt to market conditions is going to be more than important. The Internet has made it very easy for almost anyone with the ability to publish a story based on a press release. While a company like Bloomberg has the capability to do so on a much wider scale, they no longer have the edge of immediacy they once did. That said, a manner of "fair" distribution like what Reg FD requires appears to be staying in play for the near future. Additionally, many news organizations such as newspapers and online publications still rely on AP, Bloomberg, Business Wire and PR Newswire to provide them with the data they need to publish the news. That doesn't appear to be falling off the horizon anytime soon. And with both major wires adopting RSS as a syndication method, it's clear they are aware of where the bread will soon be buttered.

[editor's note: In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that the visit to the Business Wire offices was initiated by me, and staffer Mark Dunn, who attended BlogNashville, was nice enough to show me around town during the weekend.]

If Emmis Communications is truly interested in divesting itself of its television properties, then they may have at least one interested party. Journal Communications CEO Steven Smith seemed to offer that his company was interested in taking over some of the operations, wherever the FCC's rules on media ownership didn't preclude them from doing so.

In Tuesday's New York Post, columnist John Podhoretz writes about the staggering changes in the world of media these days, including significant circulation declines, drops in movie attendance, and a shift in certain age groups away from television.

What's NBC looking for next, we wonder? With Vivendi perhaps getting out of ownership of a piece of NBC, the media giant will have some more leverage with whatever they choose to do next, it appears.

In an announcement Tuesday morning, Emmis Communications stated that it was set to proceed on a "Dutch auction" buy of over 20 million shares of its Class A common stock on the open market. The company set a price that will fall between $17.25 and $19.75, the midpoint of which is a 20% increase over Monday's close of $15.45. As of 10:29 a.m. on Tuesday, Emmis (NASDAQ:EMMS) was trading at $18.50, up $3.05 in just under an hour of trading.

Additionally - and more importantly, for some - CEO Jeff Smulyan detailed the decision to work with financial advisors The Blackstone Group and engage legal counsel in Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP to "explore strategic alternatives for our television assets." Emmis currently owns 25 radio stations in the U.S. market along with 16 television stations, including WKCF-TV, WB 18 in Orlando, FL, KGUN-TV, ABC 9 in Tucson, AZ, and KHON-TV, FOX 2 in Honolulu. It is unclear whether all or part of the television stations would be sold off at this time.

A conference call will be held at 11 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, and can be heard at Emmis.com or on 1-517-623-4891, passcode Emmis.

For more on the paid model of news and information online, we need not look further than VodkaFish, where David Singer points out the way that ESPN.com is currently pushing its "insider" service, meaning content behind a paid wall for premium customers. It's usually more in depth analysis, trade rumors, and just stuff with bigger teeth. That doesn't mean it should be for everything, but there is a value to content - it's just that figuring out how to quantify that content, and which content to do that with, that is the problem.

For the last 24 hours, much has been ado about the Associated Press' announcement that they would soon be changing the way in which member publications gain access to content for online publishing - though not in a distribution sense - more like a financial one. Doug Fisher is spot on when he says that "The gorilla's been feeding in the background folks and is ready to exert its muscle." As in, no one should be surprised about this.

Perhaps an editor or two or maybe someone's budget just went bonkers, because at this point the financial contribution that AP member pubs were dropping was probably "factored" as print-only, and the online distribution was just a bonus. While it's not easy to say whether the total readership of a particular publication is higher these days, it's easy to take people from the print bucket and shift them to the online one when looking at circulation/readership declines, for the most part. What'd be interesting to find out is if overall readership is up at these newspapers, et al, showing that more people are getting news and information these days than before, percentage-wise.

It'll be one of those "sucks for the moment" kind of situations where the print side will be forced to continue picking up AP content while the online side pays for it as well, but we know a significant shift will ultimately come. The print side will pay a bit less, while the online side will bear the brunt of what was originally all on the print-only side.

I, for one, welcome our distribution chain overlords. As per my points in February about how the AP's move to add RSS feeds directly to end-users would be a big step in how news reached you and I, it's not out of the realm of possibilities that the AP could end up just feeding us all, if we chose to utilize their resources directly instead of "subscribing" to a local entity - which was the resolution to my original concerns about damaging traffic to local papers. That said, if the bulk of what I'm reading in the daily newspaper is coming from the AP wire anyway, why do I need the local distributor to get my non-local news? Can't the AP just serve it up, ads and all, to my desktop? There's no reason that can't happen. And yes, I know there is a cost situation that would have to be defrayed somewhere. But what a lot of people are truly not factoring in when they devalue these changes is that most online news sites are moving, at the very least, towards free user registration in order to add value to their media kit for advertisers. If it's not going to be a paid model, then it'll be somewhere in the middle.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

BusinessWeek Online has launched a website containing free educational courses on home office design, entrepreneurship, business plan development, and more. The instructor-led classes will be available through bwcourses.com, and are currently being sponsored by Microsoft.

Right now, the site is featuring the following opportunities:

• The Wireless Mobile Office, instructed by technology writer James Gaskin


• Designing and Equipping Your Home Office, taught by writer Robin Allen


• Start-Up Basics for the First-Time Entrepreneur, led by designer Tim Ziegler

The site was developed by Powered.com, who has put together other successful interactive learning portals such as HP's Learning Center and CNET's Help.com. BusinessWeek now has the opportunity to leverage their site's "stickiness" with advertisers and site sponsors, as it will have more specific data about site visitors and course users - this is an excellent segue for a print publication's continued shift towards an primarily-online readership.

The New York Times Company's first quarter figures for 2005 are out, and they look pretty good overall, just not operationally. Earnings per share were $.76, double last year's $.38 for the same time period. The company reported net income of $111.0, up from $58.4 in 2004. That being said, the company recognized a $.43 per share gain on the sale of their headquarters. Had there been no sale of assets, operating profit would have been $85.1 million, as opposed to $208 million that was reported. In comparison, Q1/2004 showed a $109 million operating profit.

Overall revenues were up .5% to $805.6 million, while advertising revenues rose .9%. Circulation and Other revenues showed slight decreases of .3%, while overall costs and expenses increased by 4%.

Slate's Daniel Gross calls this week's move by GM to try and influence coverage in the Los Angeles Times by pulling advertising combined with Wal-Mart's sudden happy face for the media "clumsy," even going as far as to say that the moves "betray a cluelessness on the part of management about the problems in their own businesses."

Hey, who said that China having Most Favored Nation trading status with the U.S. wasn't a good thing? Heck, it's allowed for Clear Channel to make a 50-year deal with a Chinese government-owned company, Beijing Gehua Cultural Development Group, to form a joint venture, Gehua Clear Channel Entertainment & Sports Company, Ltd., which will bring all sorts of concerts, shows, and other forms of entertainment to the country.

[ed: warning: please make no attempt to diagram that last sentence.]

The Denver Post's Will Shanley describes an event that took place in the Colorado city on Thursday, where the topic of media consolidation was argued during a panel discussion. Both sides were well represented, with the Post's publisher joining a television station executive, a consumer advocate, a U.S. Senator and a university professor.

The Chicago Sun-Times' Eric Herman details the Tribune Company's decision to slightly increase CEO Dennis FitzSimons' salary year-over-year but cut his bonus by more than three-quarters, from $1.2 million to $260,000, citing cashflow and the refunds to advertisers for circulation scandals at some of the company's newspaper properties.

City Pages' G.R. Anderson, Jr. gives Clear Channel Communications a thorough runthru in this article on Wednesday, from how the company showed up in Minneapolis just a few years ago and has grown into a huge part of the entertainment industry in the area.

"No single business has had a larger cultural impact on the Twin Cities, ever--let alone in less than 10 years.

That's not to say that everyone is pleased with the company's presence - but it shows that as "bad" as many people believe Clear Channel to be, they have had positive financial impacts in some places. But it leads to a question - when is competition not really competition?

Editor & Publisher's Jennifer Saba details a Q&A with new Tribune Publishing President Scott Smith, who took over that role at the beginning of 2005. Included in the discussion were growth plans for both readership and revenues, and most prominently, the one model we've all been waiting for - online subscription fees.

Says Smith:

We are also implementing an online subscription fee. We believe most people use online sources differently than their printed newspaper. It's a hybrid approach.

While some publications already have a fee-based online model, including some "smalltown" newspapers, a major publisher doing so would most likely lead a wave of change in that manner. It's probably not the move that many bloggers are hoping to avoid - one that would "block" readers from blogs from reading current news, for free - but it shows a realization of the online distribution system becoming a priority on the supply side.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Dan Richman and Todd Bishop report Friday that both the P-I and Seattle Times will be raising their daily newsstand price from $.25 to $.50 as of February 28. For those not familiar with the newspapers, they exist under a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), one that the Times believes is damaging its ability to stay afloat. At the same time, the Times has made drastic changes to its paper, including laying off staff and taking out stock pages on Sundays. So at a time when the newspaper is only able to offer less, it is necessary to raise the price.

This