The Sporting News has a rich history, starting publication in 1886. I remember my father subscribing in the 1960s. It was thick with box scores and stats for every team and every major sport. In 1977, when the Times Mirror Co bought the publisher for all of $18 million it had a circulation of about 356,000. By the time it was sold to Vulcan Ventures in 2000 for $100 million it had a circulation of over 500,000, but it was being threatened by the successful launch of ESPN Magazine, which had 850,00 circulation within two years of its 1998 launch.

The Sporting News was sold again in 2006, to American City Business Journals. Today the circulation is about 700,000, but at an annual price of only $14.97 for a new subscription—compared to about $61.00 in constant dollars in 1978.

Like many print publications, The Sporting News has been substantially affected by online content. Daily sports news has been particularly hard hit. The Internet is made for getting late night scores, accessing the scads of stats that even casual fans crave, following teams in far-off cities—and all for little or, most often, no consumer cost.

Like most other print publications, it has had an online presence. The Sporting News Today is something else though. It is a magazine formatted for the screen. But it is not like a Web site. It involves no scrolling. It is pdf-like, though it is not read with Adobe Reader. It is not the print edition read online, as with Zinio. To me each screen looked like a double page spread in a magazine—but with no need for a gutter. I sort of felt that I had spread opened the tabloid-sized magazine. You will note that each of the “double pages” has one page number.

By offering to send subscribers an email each day, readers so do not have to bookmark anything. Just click the link.

The content is vintage Sporting News: Right now heavy on baseball, but lots on football—professional and college. There is hockey, basketball, NASCAR, tennis. Even Little League World Series coverage is promised. And, with a nod to WEB 2.0, it will offer readers the opportunity to provide their own input: “You’ll get a byline, file to an editor.” (Actually, a clever spin on “Letters to the Editor.”)

No surprise, the business model for the Sporting News Today is, for the moment at least, advertising, though it was rather light for a first edition. The inaugural issue had a full page from SpeedTV.com, three half page house ads for Sporting News affiliates and a full page promotion for the revamped Sporting News magazine, which will become a bi-weekly. (Management expects to lose 100,000 circulation from current levels to the free online publication).

I’m not a design expert—I’ll leave that to my colleagues at Innovation Media Consulting Group. But the Sporting News Today will feel comfortable to readers who like the look of print and are put off by clicking here and there for do their online reading. The layout feels modern but grounded in print. How that plays may be generational—or not.

As a final note, it may be worth pointing out that while traditional print publications are downsizing, The Sporting News Today is hiring. Indeed, I got turned on to its impending launch by Charles Apple, it’s new art director, who was hired away from the Virginia Pilot newspaper. (Has anyone seen numbers on how many print journalists have been hired by online-only ventures other than self-funded blogs?)

There has been speculation in recent years on when we will get the first announcement that a daily newspaper will shut down its presses completely and switch to digital-only. There are still some big hurdles, like portability. But should services such as Amazon’s Kindle take off, allowing readers to take their digital publications on the go, then the Sporting News Today model may have legs and encourage a general interest newspaper to give it a whirl.

A few weeks back the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on "On the Media" talked about how newspapers in Ohio were reaping great benefits trading material, and linking and cross linking. More importantly, she said she was no longer reliant on The Associated Press for her stories from the region but instead was getting the original versions direct from the other sources around the state rather than paying “a big chunk” of her budget, about $1 million for rewritten AP stories. Picking up directly, on the Web, and putting other papers’ stories directly in the newspaper was also better quality, she said, and readers were noticing:

“I mean, we've always had access to news from all over the state. It was just, you know, it went through the AP mill. I frankly think we're getting better, more distinctively written stories because they're not going through the AP mill.”

I’m not saying this will happen immediately. AP, whose core business is the not-for-profit cooperative dues of member newspapers, has offered to cut its rates starting next year. Newspapers, despite ad and circulation declines for decades, have been notoriously slow moving, and many will be reluctant to pick up content from papers they might think of as competitors; the AP has given them the cover they sought to do so less blatantly. But the economic pressures are only increasing as revenues and readership decline more precipitously, and any success in Ohio could be the thin edge of a wedge. “We've set up this little cooperative,” said the Plain Dealer editor, Susan Goldberg. “I don't know how it'll work in the future, but right now it's working really well.”

Add to that AP’s deal to have its direct results placed higher in Google than member papers, further pissing them off, and newspapers will look harder at the Ohio example. We're talking months or perhaps years, certainly not decades. The example could spread nationally or internationally.

CEO Tom Curley has been leading the AP into a future in which an increasing share of its revenues comes from sources other than member dues, such as direct photo revenues, Web content services and broadcast fees. But the transformation may not be fast enough. AP doesn't have the luxury of Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters in which news gathering can be supported by financial terminals that really bring in the bucks.

AP should own the Web. It has its roots in the trading and sharing of information. It gets a significant chunk of revenue from providing the backbone through which others pass content. It coded and tagged and parsed content with everything from category codes to prioritization markings, and ways to match text and photos decades before those practices became fashionable for everyone. But culture and old habits are very hard to change, and I fear for the company's viability hope it can work out a more creative win-win solution for all.

There is, in short, much uncertainty surrounding where the business models for media are and should be headed.

One area that legacy media can control and should know something about is content. Newspapers, broadcasters, publishers of all stripes, have absolute control over their content. Newspaper publishers constantly need to ask themselves “What do consumers want when they subscribe or take $.50 (or $1.00) out of their purses/pockets to buy the publication. Broadcasters certainly ask, ‘Why should viewers tune us in?”

But I’m constantly amazed at their lack of insight and therefore the choices they make. And here I’m referring in particular to the broadly defined “news” segment of the media. Research shows that there has been a range of motivations that are involved in getting individuals to buy a newspaper or tune in a news program—or click to a Web site bookmark. One of the top motivating factors is the interest in learning what we do not know. What happened in the world while I slept? Who won the game last night? What is the weather forecast for tomorrow? What did my stocks close at? What does some “expert” think about a new movie or show? Surprise me!

What we don’t need the news media for is to be told what we already know. The Internet has, of course, made it possible for more people to know more of the answers to the above types of questions before they are available in print or even on a regularly scheduled broadcast. Still, there are many things we know even without the Internet. For example, most of use know if it is hot outside. Or wet or windy or cold. We look out the window or open the door. Anyone who drives a car knows the price of gasoline. Anyone who flies knows the airports are crowded and lines at Thanksgiving are long.

So where am I going with this rant? I’m astounded—and hopefully some of you are as well—at how the editors of news media shoot themselves in the foot everyday with the non-compelling nature of their many of their content decisions. For example, most days I turn on “American Morning” on CNN, even before the computer is fired up. And what do I hear, at length, each day lately? A business reporter, Ali Velchi, telling us the price of gasoline. “Pain at the pump” is the not so original refrain. And the usual “B” roll of someone filling up, with the obligatory quote from the woman in the street who is driving less and someone who will give up their “gas guzzler.” And the anchors commiserating over the latest record. And a reiteration of where Lundburg or AAA thinks the price is going in the “peak driving season.” Compelling stuff, no? Maybe the “Today Show” isn’t so lame.

Not long ago I was asked by a small chain of newspapers to spend a few days with their editors in a session to help them understand and strategize for the challenges facing them. They sent me a large stack of their newspapers so I could get a flavor for them. In the sample were issues from several of the papers with a variation of the headline “It’s Hot Out There.” Immediately I created in my head what this would say. By the third paragraph it would quote some gardener about the heat and how he is coping with it. And sure enough, in the first article I read I was both pleased and disappointed with the copy. There, in the third graph, was a quote from Pedro something, with the Generic Landscape Co. “Yeah, it’s hot. So we start really early and quit by two o’clock,” he explained. I mentally patted myself on the back. But there was more disappointment that the article was so very predictable.

However, the larger point is that, with both CNN and these newspapers (and many others that could be included) that these prominent “stories” were not about news. They were what anyone knew.

In this space I have recently been critical of The Wall Street Journal for a new editorial approach that has often reduced prominence of analysis and surprise in favor of featuring in many cases material that most readers would already know: A who-what-where-when accounting of an earthquake. A routine summary of the previous night’s primary results (and, with its early deadline, less timely that what was in the local newspaper). It is telling readers what many, if not most, could be expected to learn from other media they are likely to have seen.

The legacy “news” media cannot materially change the trend toward whatever is coming via technology. But they can slow their demise by concentrating on the content of their products. And they can enhance the position of their digital products as well by providing audiences with the serendipity factor and with a value added quality that is needed to have users buying, tuning or clicking to their products. That has been the not-so-secret sauce behind the strength of The New York Times, USA Today, Fox News and, until recently, The Wall Street Journal. Give people what they don’t know, not the current weather or yesterday’s price of a gallon of petrol.

A few folks have been using Twitter as a kind of live-blogging mechanism, so folks following a Twitter feed can read what a reporter has to say about an event or news scene as he/she types it in a handheld device. That can be perfectly valid, but it’s important -- as with any medium -- to consider the audience, and how they’re likely consuming what’s being provided.

A lot of the Twittering I’ve seen reads as if you have to be at the event to understand what was said -- you have to be so much an insider that you’re already on the inside. If that’s the case, what’s the point? To be pedantic about it, some questions:

Do your readers need more information? Should you give a full name of whom you’re talking about?

• Shouldn’t you say specifics rather than just allude?
  
• Can you sum up, or should you quote?
• Yes, it’s only 140 characters, but as Mark Twain might have said: I wrote a full article because I didn’t have time to Twitter. Writing intelligently in 140-character bursts is a hard thing to do.
  

What else?

Here’s another way to look at more by subtraction. David Pogue, a New York Times tech columnist who I find entertaining and quite informative, had a column last month about why a product can be a success even with acknowledged flaws. Referring to Apple’s Mac Air he wrote:

…When your laptop has the thickness and feel of a legal pad and starts up with the speed of a PalmPilot, it ceases to be a traditional laptop. It becomes something you whip open and shut for quick lookups, something you check while you're standing in line or at the airline counter, something you can use in places where hauling open a regular laptop (and waiting for it) would just be too much hassle.

It's the same lesson I learned when I reviewed the Flip "camcorder" a couple weeks ago: if you change the shape and concept of something enough, it ceases to be that thing. It becomes a new thing, or a descendant of that earlier thing. But it's no longer the original thing, and you can't judge it on the same yardstick.

Lesson learned: Form—the products attributes—can create the function. Thus an entrepreneur can break out of a well-defined category (camcorder, laptop, cell phone) by changing some key characteristics—weight, time to boot up, capabilities—even a dramatic new price point.

Does this insight provide any guidance for the media industry? Should the local newspaper continue trying to be a general interest publication even when online? Is it already something else, in which case it needs to be evaluated by a different metric (i.e., time spent, return visits) than what has been used in the past (i.e., hits or clicks or gross eyeballs or total page views)? Or, perhaps, should legacy media be creating new “things” based on the old? What is the media equivalent of the Mac Air or Flip camcorder: a product that is recognizable but, by changing—often removing—product attributes is used by consumers (and advertisers in this case) in new ways?

Experiments with short form videos—first popularized from the bottom up thanks to the YouTube platform—have now become mainstream with the traditional video programmers. Viacom purchased short film pioneer Atom Films in 2006. But most attention continues to be on finding outlets for conventional programming, such as NBC Universal/News Corp.’s Hulu.

If I had the answer I’d offer it (though probably not here—a guy’s got to feed his family, or in my case, start paying college tuition). But I think it is an area ripe for brainstorming and another round of informed trial and error.

Ready. Fire. Aim.

Wilson looked at many of the more successful Web ventures and observed that what they had in common was a basic service that they offered for free and a step-up premium service that they charged for.

The basic voice over IP service Skype, for example, lets users call anyone anywhere for no cost, so long as both the caller and callee are at broadband-connected computers. However, if you really want to be able to call anyone anywhere—that is, to a land line or cell phone -- there are per minute charges. Want voice mail? Upgrade to Skype Pro.

A wonderful service I use called LogMeIn employs a similar approach. It gives me access to my desktop computer from any other computer, anywhere. A free version lets me see all my directories and files and transfer them to my remote laptop. The upgraded version actually displays the screen of my desktop, with access to any program or file, as though it was on my remote computer.

There are many other examples.

But for the Freemium model to work, Wilson observed there are other characteristics that demarcated the more successful implementations and the others:

• Ideally, they don’t require any downloads or plug ins to start. Lots of exceptions here, but it is a helpful goal.
• Support every browser with any material market share. There is no excuse these days to be FireFox or Safari challenged
• Make sure the service works on various flavors of Windows, OSX, and Linux.

In short, he says, eliminate all barriers to the initial customer acquisition.

But unlike 30 day free trials before having to pay, a true Freemium experience ensures that whatever the customer gets day one for free they are always going to get for free. Nothing is more irritating to a potential customer than a “bait and switch.”

If Freemium is such a great approach, why wasn’t The New York Times’ foray into this model more successful? It gave away a basic service and, with Times Select, offered a premium upgrade.

Part of the answer (there is sometimes but not usually a silver bullet) may be that the model is most likely to succeed when the customer implicitly understands why the paid service has to cost money. Free e-mail accounts that offer greater storage for a fee. Termination cost on other carriers networks in the Skype model is explicit justification. In the case of TimesSelect, it would be obvious to most readers that arbitrary withholding of access to some portions of content was not related to significant costs. It may have made some sense as a “value” play, yet it clearly did not work. “But if your free service is loved and you do a good job articulating the value that comes with the paid service, you can convert to paying users with good results,” concludes Wilson.

The Freemium model was augmented one year later by another venture capitalist, Josh Kopelman. He has labeled his observation “The Penny Gap.” I recall meeting Kopelman when I was teaching at Temple University in Philadelphia. He had started Infonautics Corporation, the predecessor of today's High Beam Research, in the early Internet days. I assume from that he learned some lessons about offering a subscription service that gave users access to a wide range of magazines, journals, reference and newspaper material. (And that he was more successful with a subsequent venture, Half.com, acquired by eBay).

The Penny Gap says in essence that getting a user to go from free to any sort of payment, even a penny, is harder that getting a paying subscriber to pay more. Going from free to $1.00 is a much higher hurdle than from $1 to $2, even though the difference is the same. The Penny Gap is a disconnect with classical economic theory, which would hold that demand increases as the price decreases. As Kopelman illustrated in the accompany figure, getting users to make any financial commitment is the greater hurdle than the amount itself.

What does this say about the content-heavy online ventures of the legacy media business? In large measure it helps explain why they settled for the most part (well, except for The Wall Street Journal) on an advertiser supported Web model. From USA Today to Slate to The New York Times media sites have tried and failed to make a user pay model stick, despite offering some high grade content.

But by dissecting the successful non-media sites that have achieved a substantial user-pay component, could media firms find areas where they can truly find value added to justify a premium? I’m not optimistic. Two years ago I might have offered that a comprehensive ad-free video service could be sold at a premium. Recall CNN tried that with its Pipeline service, providing real time video streams and an archive of telecasts. It met many Freemium characteristics, including a presumption of additional cost for all the storage and bandwidth. Apparently Time Warner determined that more advertising revenue outweighed the subscription dollars. Hulu, the new NBC Universal-News Corporation joint venture, is all free, all the time. It has not made noises about offering paid-for premium content.

The bottom line is that as a generalization the media business may not get over the Penny Gap chasm. For those firms that have been on the electronic side, where advertiser supported has long been the total revenue stream, maintaining that model may be easiest to accept. For that segment of the print media that has been used to drawing at least some of its revenue from consumers, resigning itself to only advertising may be tougher. And perhaps a bit of a blow to its self-esteem.

I say this as an outsider. I don’t have access to the crunched numbers and five year outlooks no doubt ginned up by the Microsoft investment bankers. And, to be sure, many business pundits have a similar pat justification, all along the lines that both Microsoft and Yahoo have persistently tried to best Google but failed. “No one can compete with Google on their own anymore,” says Jon Miller the former chairman and chief executive of AOL. “There has to be consolidation among the major players.

Suddenly Microsoft, just a few years ago the bad boy of the computer galaxy, is—what—the white knight? Mark Read, director of strategy for the WPP Group, which owns ad agencies like JWT and Ogilvy & Mather, opined, “It is good for investment. It is good for competition.”

A combined Microsoft and Yahoo, notes The New York Times, would beat Google in Web traffic and come closer in ad revenues. Most importantly, the pair would give Google a greater challenge as it tried to enter display advertising, because Yahoo has the largest share of that market.

But wait a second. What does a merger with Yahoo really do for Microsoft—to the tune of a cool $44 billion? Lets look at some numbers.

Google has grown dramatically, going from zero to $17 billion in revenue. It is highly profitable, a bit (well, $200 million) over $4 billion in 2007. Very impressive. But Microsoft had almost 3.5 times that revenue -- $58 billion—and four times the profit-- $17 billion.

So what does Yahoo bring to the party? Not even $7 billion in revenue and a piddling $660 million in profit. It brings a search engine that’s technically pretty good. But Microsoft already has a comparable piece of technology. Yes, most of its revenue is derived form online advertising, nearly twice that of Microsoft.

And what’s the synergy of Microhoo? (or Yahsoft?). Not much that is obvious. Microsoft forecasts at least $1 billion in annual cost savings for the merged entity, from synergies in areas such as combining engineering talent.

Sure, a merger of this magnitude—pegged to cost savings rather than market opportunities-- would make sense if Microsoft was a struggling enterprise. It's not -- and a 29% profit margin at that. It has $21 billion in cash and short term investments. Assuming it actually realized the savings—so what? Microsoft already has the resources to compete with Google—if it is possible at all.

Then what does a Mircohoo end up with? Despite trying, Microsoft has not come up with a strategy to erode Google’s dominance in search and online advertising. Its share of the search market ended last year at 9.8%, down from 12% in mid-2006. Yahoo does better, but fell from an estimated 28.8% mid-2006 to 22.9% last year.

Now, let’s see. We take Microsoft’s failed strategy and add it to Yahoo’s failed strategy... and the best they can come up with is some savings effect, as the combined entity slides further behind.

I understand that the hope is that the two combined would bulk up to a third of the search market—perhaps in aggregate enough to prime the pump to attract more advertisers. But Yahoo alone had nearly a third of the search business in 2005 and that did not keep it from sliding downhill since then.

The combination of Time Warner with AOL in 2001 has been a disaster. However, it was primarily the outlandish $112 billion price tag, negotiated at the peak of the Internet bubble, that made it ridiculous. The notion of an old time content company wanting to modernize by associating with the new media start-up had some strategic sense, even if the conflicting cultures and stratospheric valuation doomed the combination. I could understand the potential synergies, even if not to the degree that could justify the cost.

I can also understand Microsoft’s necessity to segue from the operating system and packaged software business to a greater reliance on Internet-derived revenue. It knows it needs to modify its current business model. But I can think of better uses of $44 billion to get there. Glad I sold my Microsoft stock last year.

We had some discussion here last summer on the scenarios that might justify a free strategy, wherein lower ad rates and foregoing $60 million or whatever in subscription revenue could be made up by 10x greater readership.

Apparently the new owner of Dow Jones is backing off. A report on a Wall Street Journal bureau chiefs’ meeting last week says that “Murdoch has scaled back his ambition to make WSJ.com entirely free.” According to one who was there “He said he originally thought making it free would bring in the biggest audience, but that after studying it it’s not as simple as he thought.”

It rarely is.

A clue comes from a comment Scoble writes in response to someone who says that in a “walled garden,” the point is that it is walled. “We fundementally (sic) DON’T want someone wholeheartedly using our graphs. Especially not a friend, who we trust to not do that,” writes the commenter. Scoble replies: “What about info you’ve made public? Like, your name? And other stuff that’s on your public profile on Facebook? Are you saying that no one has the right to use that? How about this? Can I write down your email address and put it in my address book? Or, how about your birthday?

“So, why am I allowed to write down your phone number or email address, but my computer can’t take it out of Facebook and put it into Outlook for me? Or another program or service I’m using?

“How about something that actually ads value, like something that’d see that you’re on both Facebook and Twitter and Flickr and could mash those three together?”

So, Scoble is implying that what he wants to do is use publicly available information for private uses that he’d have permission to regardless of technology. This, I would guess, would be legal -- putting aside the Terms of Service issue -- in the same way that making copies of material for purely personal use are also legal.

He also alludes to a holy grail of social networking I think we’ll see more of this year: the social network mashup, applications that allow use of networking and profiles across platforms. Google’s Open Social is a step in this direction, though one that’s more push out than inbound in the way Scoble describes. Media companies and publishers are signing on with Google’s scheme so they can, say, write a widget once and have it spread across myriad platforms, rather than having to write or tweak new code for each. (And then they’re still having to write for Facebook, if they want to reach its millions of users. MySpace is a whole ‘nother issue.) I would expect to see a bunch of such apps come out this year, many with funding, and a few to catch on.

We’ll see, too, continued battle over closed vs. open that’s been part of the conversation since the earliest days of AOL and Prodigy vs. Netscape and Mozilla (and Internet Explorer, which provides the enticement of openness AND the control of digital rights management).

In a way, Scoble is arguing both sides of the coin. He owns the right to scrape his own profile, his own information -- though in joining Facebook, he signed terms of service that said he couldn’t run such applications on the closed network. Facebook, too, is trying to have it both ways. When they were exclusive to the academic community, they had a closed system that, while potentially very large, was limited to people with some similarity in mindset and orientation, at least in the broadest sense, and, probably, less likely to use the system for certain kinds of commercial behavior. By now allowing anyone from any background to register and use Facebook, and open up the API to all developers, the company is trying to reap the benefits of openness, but still with a closed system.

Facebook now has many millions of users. But how long will those millions remain when they are a) hit with an increasing number of unwanted marketing messages, un-needed invitations from non-”friends,” ever more mass messages, fewer directly relevant personal messages, b) finding it increasing difficulty to manage it all, and c) Open Social is on the way? We’ll see shakeouts this year among social networking applications, and an increasing number of profiles lay fallow. Facebook won’t die, and they’re smart enough that they may come up with a graceful solution that leads to more openness and integration with other platforms. The apology they gave due to the controversy that broke out over their Beacon system proves they are a company that’s able to hear complaints and try to adjust. But they will having a tough time overcoming the tension between walled garden and open access.

Local advertising traditionally has accounted for about 85% of total revenue for newspapers in larger market, even higher for small market newspapers. Local TV stations receive a far higher proportion of their revenue from spot national advertising, while radio stations have tended to be in between, though in most case closer to newspapers than TV. The primary local competitor for newspapers has historically been directories (e.g., Yellow Pages) and direct mail. Increasingly, cable has been able to siphon off local dollars with the capability to insert advertisements down to the neighborhood level.

What must be most unnerving to newspaper publishers and, to a lesser extent other local media players, is that pure play Web sites now have the largest share of local on-line advertising revenue—43.7% by the reckoning of Borrell Associates.

How can this be? Didn’t the publishers take solace in the fact that their local papers had a built in advantage over the upstarts thanks to their identification with the local market? And that all-critical brand equity?

It is becoming evident that the value of ad placement based on search terms, Zip code or Internet address proves more effective for the local advertiser even if the page viewed does not directly contain information that is congruent with the location of the user. That is, the value of the local newspaper or radio station has been that the advertiser had a high degree of confidence that anyone listening to that station or reading that paper was in their local trading area. But online the advertiser may not only be assured that the ad is placed in view of an individual within their target trading area, but may also have specific demographic or other characteristics desirable for that advertiser. Not to mention the added delight of knowing when an ad may have been seen and responded to in the form of a click or more.

Of course, this is true for the online site of any local medium. Too often, however, it seems that while the publisher’s sales force was working on convincing the paper’s current advertisers to try the online version, the new players had no such blinders. They were marketing to anyone, which often meant new service providers and merchants who had not been print advertisers: smaller in size but far greater in number. A version of the long tail effect. And that is where much of the growth is coming from. It’s not just old advertisers in new bottles.

Of course, we will know in the long run, when some media historian looks back on this time from 20 years hence. But that doesn’t help today’s decision makers. That is why the research of University of Chicago economist Matthew Gentzkow published earlier this year in The American Economic Review is so helpful.

In this highly data driven paper with the typically academic title, “Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers,”, Gentzkow blends consumer data from the Washington, DC market with newspaper operating results to address three questions: What is the relationship between print and online versions on 1) the demand for either diversion, 2) on the welfare of consumers, and, crucially, 3) on the impact of charging consumers for the online product?

With 30 pages of assumptions, explanation and calculations, Gentzkow makes a well substantiated finding that, The Washington Post would have been better off charging a modest sum for its online version (on the order of $6.00/month) until about 2004. After that, however, the growth in online advertising expenditures crossed over to affirm that it is significantly more profitable to set a zero price for the online edition when one factors in even a small transaction cost for online payments. He suggests that his findings are robust enough that they would likely apply to other big city newspapers.

Along the way, Gentzkow upends the early assumption that the print and online versions of a newspaper were complements. Applying a more sophisticated demographic model than had been used in the past, which simply looked at newspaper readers and online readers, Gentzkow concludes that the substitution effect is “nonnegligible." He does add that ”it is “small, however, relative to some earlier predictions.” In other words, real but not likely “to threaten the survival of print media,” at least right now.

Gentzkow further quantifies the “consumer welfare benefit” created by having a zero consumer price for online newspapers, which he put at $45 million annually for The Washington Post’s market. For the 2000-2003 period that came at the expense of Washington Post Co. stockholders, as he calculated it lost money by giving away the online edition when it could have made a profit by charging for it. (Among the factors here is that, as substitute products, by charging for online, some print subscribers would have continued with their subscriptions instead of switching to the online offering). Starting in 2004, however, the Post was more profitable with the free online version that it would have been with an online use charge

Having seen considerable discussion about whether The Wall Street Journal would be better off making its online version free, as the The New York Times has done Gentzkow’s approach is another data point (a rather large one at that) to reinforce the advertising supported model, for mass market newspapers, at least. There are numerous instances, however, where a consumer-paid model will still be needed. In the magazine business, for example, advertising revenue for many of the mass audience magazines, such as People or TV Guide, can be 50% or more of total revenue. But there are many niche publications, such as The Nation or Weekly Standard, that are highly dependent on subscriptions for the bulk their revenue. It is likely to be the same for niche online sites.

Yesterday he declared that "the sky's-the-limit profits from traditional broadcast TV are over….Free-to-air television faces a lot of challenges, just from the sheer fragmentation of the audience.” Overall he characterized broadcast television as a "highly challenged industry in America."

This may actually be on the minds of some of the striking Writers Guild of America members. The Wall Street Journal reported than some of the writers who work for the soap operas are resigning from the union and going back to work. The audiences for the soaps have been sinking for years. “Writers and producers in the genre fear that by the time the strike finishes, their audiences won't return.”

On Monday Murdoch publicly admitted that he expected the online version of The Wall Street Journal will soon be free. News Corp. will likely close the deal to acquire Dow Jones next month. "We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having one million [subscribers], having at least 10 million to 15 million in every corner of the earth, keeping up-to-date minute by minute with all business and economic news from around the world," he told an audience in Australia.

Such comments give some insights in News Corporation's strategy and business model. Clearly, advertising will play a larger role in the business model for online content. On the other hand, he is hedging his bets on advertising from broadcasting. First, he advocates making television productions very high quality, so they can be sold to the global market “and then be brought back to America--or to anywhere in the world, for that matter --and be sold as DVDs.”

So, television becomes more consumer financed, while online becomes the prime advertiser-supported medium. At least in Murdoch’s view. How will this be affected, if at all, should DVD’s be supplanted by online delivery, such as by Netflix or Amazon’s Unbox or iTunes video service? Actually, News Corp has a bet there, with Hulu.com, its ad-supported online video venture with NBC Universal.

News Corp. has developed a “portfolio strategy”: When the crystal ball is cloudy, invest in a range of possibilities. Not all need to be a success. Two or three big ones will do.

"We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having 1 million (subscribers) having at least 10-15 million in every corner of the earth."

No ambiguity there.

Calculated from the Times’ press release , TimesSelect had about 227,000 subscribers beyond its print base. This was generating an estimated $10 million annually. By online subscription standards, both are substantial numbers (though dwarfed by The Wall Street Journal’s base of one million online subscribers).

The Times’ release clearly points to the strategic basis for its decision: It could do better than $10 million in advertising by opening up its columnists and archives to a larger audience. No subtlety here: Denise Warren, chief advertising officer expected that “with the removal of the pay wall… Advertisers on the site can expect to see an unprecedented number of Times readers interacting with their brands." American Express is the first “sponsor” of the newly opened site.

TimesSelect was a bit controversial from the start, and not just with consumers. Many of its columnists, who, after all, get both ego satisfaction and presumably greater impact with a bigger audience, were unhappy being sequestered behind the pay wall.

Although the venerable Times yielding to the advertising-over-consumer payment model seems to add further credence to the “information wants to be free” trend, I have gotten wind of a new venture that aims to succeed as a user payment model for content providers where micropayments has failed. I will supply more details when available.

By the numbers

The poll, covering the U.S., Australia, UK, Spain, Germany, France and Italy, asked about media habits today, expectations about media sources in five years (always an “iffy” kind of question) and about attitudes towards newspapers, such as credibility, importance and image. You can see all the results here. I have focused today on just several pieces of data that I think most useful for publishers.

In the U.S., 39% of adults claimed to get most of their news from television, compared to 24% from newspapers and 18% online. By 2012, 37% respondents projected they still would be relying on television, newspapers down to 19% and online news sources up to 26%.

But the poll does not differentiate between online news that is provided by today’s newspaper publishers and that coming from a non-newspaper Web site. Much to its credit, the INNOVATION poll does follow up with this question:

“When most people think about ‘reading a newspaper’ today, do you think that they include the newspaper’s online news and information websites as part of the definition of reading the newspaper?”

Nearly half—49%-- said that they did not consider a newspaper’s online site as within the definition of “the newspaper.” Another 21%-- a large proportion—were unsure.

This finding raises some strategic uncertainty for newspaper publishers and editors. At this point, many consumers still consider the “newspaper” the physical product. So, for example, at the top of its main Web page it may say “The Philadelphia Inquirer” in the familiar Old English script, but it’s not the "newspaper” for these readers. It’s just online news. So should newspapers be focusing on transferring the newspaper’s brand to the online arena?

I don’t know, based on responses to another question that asks simply,

“Do you personally consider online news from a newspaper site to be as credible as the news printed in the newspaper?”

Two thirds of the adults in the U.S. agreed that credibility was equal to the printed paper, only 14% did not (the rest were undecided). However, this finding is undercut by what the same poll found in measuring the credibility adults place on the newspaper in the first place: On a scale of 0 (no credibility) to 100, the median was 57, a rather so-so vote of confidence. (It bested the publishers in the U.K., where newspapers only had a 50 score, but lagged Germany, where they garnered a median of 67).

Responses to another question also should raise a red flag. Given a list of reasons why the respondents might not read newspapers, 55% agreed that they are “Biased or too narrow of a viewpoint” in their reporting. And, consistent with the previous credibility score, 38% said they are “Not viewed as a credible or trustworthy source of news and information”

Implications for strategy

If the credibility of newspapers in the U.S. is so tepid and objectivity so questioned, then might not publishers be better off distancing their online product from their print products? If online news is viewed as a new or different product, should publishers try to present themselves to the pubic with a new brand? Something like what General Motors did with Saturn: Create its own identify, a fresh platform, a different business model. To some degree that has worked for GM and Saturn.

Another approach, also borrowing from the auto industry, is to create a new, perhaps high end product, as Toyota did successfully with Lexus. Instead of creating a Toyota model with more bells and whistles, it created a separately dealer network for a separate brand (sharing some components under the hood only). Might publishers want to keep their current print and online brands for the mass audience but establish new brands with distinctly new content and a different business model for the high (or low) end?

I’m not necessarily advocating for either one. But looking at this empirical data suggests that there there is a need for fresh thinking, for opportunities to be tested—and perhaps some swamps to be avoided.

[Full disclosure: I have occassionally been a consultant for INNOVATION.]