February 12, 2011 in management, social media, Training
I’m tweeting from the Mid-America Press Institute workshop “Managing in the Digital Age” today and tomorrow.
There’s going to be a lot of talk about social media, analytics, and mobile journalism, and a discussion about app development with folks from stltoday.
You can find details about the workshop here, and follow the tweets using the hashtag #mpinews
January 19, 2011 in College Media, College Media News, College Publisher
Editor’s Note: As I mentioned last week, I asked Rusty Lewis at College Media Network to answer some questions related to the company’s announced new advertising option for college newspapers. These responses were supplied by Lewis and Jon Beck, who recently joined CMN on the business side.
When will these new options take effect?
It is a rolling process that took effect January 1, 2011. We are honoring the contracts we have in place with our newspaper partners. That said, beginning this month we are giving the requisite 90-day advance notice that we will not be renewing the contract in place with current terms. We are making one-on-one phone calls with each newspaper outlining our new options, how they would specifically impact each newspaper and outlining the next steps.
The new advertising options are available right now – it is a matter of a few settings changes.
Is the “AdGear” platform currently in use, or is this a new technology that will be used for this new system?
AdGear is currently serving all the ads (both national across the network and local campaigns on CP5) – we made the switch from mish-mash of Atlas and Doubleclick we had under MTV. We are almost complete with the newspaper access portal to upload ads in AdGear and will begin training newspapers on that system shortly. AdGear is a huge step forward from both a traffic and flexibility perspective.
This system can be used with any publishing platform. It comes off-the-shelf with College Publisher and we have ready-made plugins for the most popular open-source CMSs. Obviously, the advantage of this system is the support and the year-over-year continuity that comes along with the tools.
How do these options differ from the way things were done in the past?
We view this change as a reboot, a chance to make things easier and more equitable for everyone.
Ten years ago, we created a CMS in exchange for advertising rights. Later, we responded to feedback and developed an ad-deployment tool in the CMS so that a few newspapers with good ad sales teams could deploy local online ad campaigns.
When launching CP5, we contracted a leading vendor to manage the ad system and recreated the two-tiered system in the image of CP4. As site designs evolved, ad sizes got bigger, and CPMs got smaller it became difficult to keep all parties happy.
This entire change is about making the management of the inventory easier. The three options break down to:
- CMN sells the inventory (and cuts rev share checks)
- The newspaper sells the inventory (and cuts rev share checks)
- CMN and the newspaper share the inventory and keep their respective revenue
These options address the variety of needs and strengths that exist in the college media sphere. Regardless of size, we found some newspapers small and large had very good local sales teams and could sell out the inventory. Conversely (and more commonly), we found that the newspaper focused on content and had little interest or desire for advertising (which is a missed opportunity for everyone). Obviously, there is a great number of papers in between. These options address those different scenarios without over-complicating the issue.
Do these options apply equally to all of the CP standard plan participants, i.e. those who are paying the fee and those who are having the fee waived?
Yes. They are also the same for any newspaper outside CMN that want to participate in our ad network or want access to these tools.
I am not exactly certain that I understand the logistics of the 70/30 plan. Could you explain it in a little more detail, especially as it relates to the higher ad positions on the page, and the way the percentages would work in selling local ads?
The inventory split is really quite simple. Within AdGear we can set thresholds (by percentage) of available inventory. We will apply a threshold for newspapers who select this option such that they only have access to 30 percent of the inventory on each ad position.
For simplicity’s sake, let’s say a newspaper gets 100k page views per month on average. That means in the old model, they had basically 300k impressions (3 ad units X 100k page views) to sell below the fold – which we were told were hard to sell. Now, with this option, that same newspaper has 150k impressions to sell, but 60k of those can – and should – be sold at a much higher premium (because they are the top spots).
The real critical piece to this plan is that newspapers are committing to sell on a CPM basis when selecting to share the inventory. This is a tough transition for some newspapers who have found success with the flat rate sponsorship method of online display advertising. That said, we can share strategies we have seen work at other college newspapers.
One additional layer to this plan is that CMN will back fill any unsold impressions with remnant ad campaigns. The newspaper will receive 20 percent of the revenue originating from these ads.
Does this preclude the plan participants from selling ads outside of those five positions?
The short answer is no.
The five ad positions are five different sets of ad tags deployed on the page. The AdGear tools allow newspapers to use a variety of targeting methodologies and strategies to help advertisers get the most out of their placements.
If a newspaper is selling ads on a flat rate basis and their advertisers want full exposure on all pages served, well that is really a sponsorship opportunity and not advertisement. We fully expect newspapers to offer these advertisers creative ways to have a presence on the site without using up ad impressions through the ad manager.
As to option C, is $7.50/cpm what the cpm is if CP sold the ads, or a percentage of that? if so, what percentage?
CMN underwrites the operation, support and training on the AdGear system with advertising revenue. Option C, where newspapers pay a CPM to CMN, was designed to enable newspapers to take full control over their inventory. The $7.50 figure represents the value of each page view if all the advertising positions were filled with ad network campaigns – which pay very modest CPMs.
In this option, the newspaper is essentially purchasing the inventory for a $7.50 CPM – which, when divided out between 5 ad units, is $1.50 CPM per unit. We felt this was sufficiently low enough where newspapers had the opportunity to markup the CPMs as they sold the inventory. They are then able to recoup their costs and create net profits.
Could you provide an example of how option C might work?
Using the example above, the newspaper with 100k monthly page views essentially would remit a payment to CMN of $750 per month and keep whatever they made over that. Obviously, since this is a CPM, the payment would fluctuate with traffic.
If the newspaper is successful and has a sophisticated staff, they can command CPMs in the neighborhood of $5-10 across each individual ad position which more than covers the cost of the inventory.
For the opportunity to have free run of the ad inventory, we are asking the newspaper to assume the risk of selling it out.
How will the ad prices be set for the various ad placements? and will CP be sharing information re: advertising rates with CP5 customers?
The ad prices are set as high as the advertisers will bear. I cannot publicly disclose specifics around this as it would jeopardize active negotiations with Access Network partners and potential advertisers. Obviously, when sales close I can privately discuss figures with those newspapers with which we share revenue.
Would a college that opted to go with the WordPress option have the option to join this ad network plan?
The AdGear solution is compulsory with the CMN WordPress package.
Please keep in mind that we are offering the WP solution as an alternative to College Publisher CMS. Similarly to CP5, we are providing a service to manage the environment and provide a full-service solution for a newspaper’s digital publishing needs. The ad systems, email newsletter systems, traffic reporting systems, and other core services for content distribution remain the same between the WP and CP5.
To that end, the three ad options remain the same for CMN WordPress package.
What about the hosting option?
The hosting option is literally just a hosting option. A newspaper has free reign to use whatever set of solutions/plugins/ad tags they prefer. This hosting option is simply out there so newspapers know they have an option with CMN if they do not want CP5 and are priced out of our WP managed solution.
As a benefit of using this service for hosting (be them WP, Drupal, etc), the access to CMN plugins such as AdGear exists. In those situations where a newspaper wanted to use AdGear while maintaining their own site, a setup fee would be assessed. Again, all three options exist and come with training and support.
And, per Daniel Bachhuber’s comment the other day: Are those advertising options the same as what’s available to the lower-end Polopoly users or different? If different, what are they?
AdGear is the same 5 ad spots no matter what content management solution is used.
To be clear, these changes we are making to the CMN business separate the content management solution and the advertising system completely. CMN is providing them as a package for CP5, but the ad software solution can be licensed as an a la carte option for any newspaper using any hosting facility on any CMS.
On a related note: How do these options affect advertising on mobile?
We have the capability to schedule and deploy mobile ads through AdGear. This is part and parcel of the AdGear service.
Anything else you would like to add at this point?
Banner advertising is still a useful way to drive revenue for publishers, but its best days are in the rear view mirror. Banner ads will never have the value they once did.
The vision for revenue at CMN looks for opportunities beyond traditional display advertising. CMN, in sort of a newspaper holding company capacity, can enable sponsorship opportunities with major brands across the entire network that can be lucrative enough to share revenue with every network member.
We will be looking for beta testers for these revenue sharing programs. When we have seen some success, we will share the data and begin applying these measures across the network at large.
January 13, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher
In the wake of College Media Network‘s announcement in late December that they were changing their business model, most of my attention focused initially on the fee structure that would exist for current and new clients. See interview here. Now, I turn attention to the second part of the announcement, the change to the College Media Network ad revenue sharing structure. Here’s the part that deals with the advertising revenue splits.
Newspapers will have more choice with managing online ad inventory by selecting one of the following on an annual basis:
A. CMN and the newspaper will share the inventory among all 5 ad units with a 70/30 breakdown. The newspaper will be able to utilize each ad placement up to 30% of the page impressions. Each party will retain 100% of the revenue made off the campaigns placed on the site, but any unused inventory on the newspaper-side will be filled with remnant ads (of which the newspaper will receive 20% of the revenue).
B. CMN will sell all 5 spots and remit a payment of 20% of the total revenue to the newspaper.C. The newspaper can buy the entire inventory from CMN at a rate of $7.50 per 1,000 page views. Naturally, the newspaper would retain all the revenue from the advertisements placed on site.
While license fees are billed up front on an annual basis, revenue sharing provides an opportunity to offset that cost acreoss the year.
I have an e-mail in to Lewis with a number of questions related to the new revenue sharing options, and will post it as soon as he responds. In the meantime, any thoughts on the new structure?
January 3, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher, Content Management Systems, Media Companies - College Related
UPDATE: Additional questions appended after publication.
Editor’s note: These are the responses I received from College Media Network’s Rusty Lewis in response to questions I e-mailed him about their new business model/fee structure.
Since the announcement says that papers with an average of 25,000 page views/mo. will not be charged a fee, how many of your papers do you expect would be charged? What percentage of the total client list is that?
Approximately 100 CMN news sites are above the 25k threshold; this is about 20 percent of our network. We attempted to create several lower cost options for the publications with traffic below this mark, as we know many of them have limited resources.
When it comes to paying fees, there’s never a great time to implement such a change or make this sort of announcement. We understand many student publications use the spring and early summer to budget for the upcoming school year, so the start of the calendar year was as ideal as any time. This announcement allows CMN a full semester to explain and educate the market about the new options with enough time for publications to understand what they need to budget for in the coming school year.
What kind of feedback have you received since announcing the licensing fee?
While it feels like a sudden change, many of the publications or individuals we have reached out to expressed that this change makes sense In an industry full of semester- and year-based turnover, CMN’s success is largely due to the continuity our staff and services provide college media. We wanted to remain in existence, and so far our partners understand that desire.
That said, we have received a some very positive feedback in our efforts to provide multiple options/packages.
Today is actually the second wave of social activity. A CP partner tweeted the initial post within 12 hours of posting it to our site, and we saw an initial buzz for a few hours after that. Overall, though, a surprising amount of the conversation we’ve seen has taken place between people beyond the college media circuit.
Why the difference between the standard CMN/College Publisher package ($1995/yr) and the WordPress package ($4500/yr)?
College Publisher software relies on already existent infrastructure designed to share resources and provide streamlined support. This allows us to spread costs across the entire network. Our WP option is an individualized installation enabling the newspaper staff to customize their site (through themes and plug-ins) in ways network-based software can’t do as easily.
Will you charge $150/hour to support WordPress, and what sort of support is offered in the yearly plan?
The $4,500 annual license fee covers support related to CMN services related to server environment operation, DNS services and integration of CMN plug-ins. Many of the CMN plug-ins –advertising system, traffic reporting, city guide publisher, e-mail newsletter – power the core functions for a news site.
This support package does not include CMN digging into the custom code web editors write. If the site is experiencing failures, we will make sure that CMN plug-ins are not causing the error and then roll back to previous versions in order to isolate what is wrong.
CMN will be responsible for deploying WP core updates, which can be frequent, but are essential to assuring security and stability of the site. Compatibility development post-update for themes and plug-ins (non-CMN plug-ins) is solely the responsibility of the newspaper.
Any supplemental charges for support (at $150/hr) would be discussed and approved in writing in advance of any work being done. These charges would be limited to requests for review of custom code, design work or staff training.
Is there a cost associated with moving to WordPress on the CMN network? (i.e., from CP5 to WP on your system)
Data migration projects can vary from publication to publication so we are not setting a policy on costs for archives. CMN will tackle these requests on a case-by-case basis.
Will you assist in the site design for WordPress as a part of the yearly fee?
No. Our design services are available for our core platform, CP5.
What would be the advantage to having CPPro? ($8995/yr)
This system has dedicated resources (from a hardware, software and personnel standpoint.) A publication choosing this option can expect a high level of customization for any convergence type of project or newsroom work-flow situation. All customization would be unique to this instance (as opposed to CP5) and tailored to the specific needs of the news organization(s) on an ongoing basis.
Why was this announced Dec. 20, when most college media are on holiday break?
It was really simply an unfortunate byproduct of the way the calendar fell with regard to the new ownership of CMN. It took almost three months to fix, assess, plan and announce. The Access Network Co. felt it was the most responsible thing to announce plans for the CMN business as soon as they were finalized (as we would look to start implementing these changes early in 2011.)
The posting of this policy change on our site served as a reference point. In contacting our partners via phone and e-mail, we have somewhere to refer folks to dig into the details. When considering the alternative – “sitting” on the story until the New Year – we hope the news hounds out there understand the decision to post the information as soon as it was ready.
Beyond the business model, what is the overall vision here?
CMN is a collection of niche sites serving the college community. When we started, there was a great need for getting online quickly. We filled that need the best we could. In the previous decade, needs changed and spread to reflect the diversity that exists in college media.
This change is long overdue. College media is unique in that all of our partners serve the same purpose in their local markets, but they do it in a variety of ways. We needed to offer options and customization.
In order to provide college media with more services and more distribution channels, we needed to make tweaks to the business that allowed for client customization. Now, college newspapers can be a member of CMN and use one or all of our products.
This major change in our business model was always an internal discussion point, but only until the most recent change in ownership has the capability from an accounting perspective existed to make this adjustment possible. The Access Network Co. is a technology provider to publishers and brands – they have the infrastructure to help CMN navigate this change.
Innovation is essential to college media’s survival, and ultimately ours, too.
Our goal is allowing students and faculty to focus on storytelling and information dissemination. This doesn’t have to exclude the handful of students who have a passion for custom development. While this is a growing number of students, it’s not nearly a critical mass. We are looking to create an ecosystem that allows publications to experiment with that minority of student developers and easily transition to something else when those students move on.
Anything else you’d like to add that I haven’t asked about?
All of the prices and packages came from competitive analysis of various providers to the college market. When it came to pricing CP5 and CP Pro, we really took a look at the costs we are incurring to support and develop these systems to determine the price tag. We need to cover costs.
Our focus in 2011 is generating revenue, not just for us, but for our partners. The Access Network Co. is looking to create new revenue programs and hopefully get more digital advertising dollars to college media.
We thrive on feedback and sincerely want partners to let us know if they have any concerns or questions about this model change, our services or anything else related to our goals for 2011.
——— ADDITIONAL Q&A ———–
When did CMN begin looking at charging for the product?
This has been an idea kicked around for years going back to Y2M days. The issue was we never really had the infrastructure to execute this type of business model and client tracking. Investment was put off at several points in the past for a variety of reasons, but the economy definitely made our budgets lean (at least in recent history.)
How soon will this begin affecting existing customers?
We are contacting some newspapers now.
As stated in our communications, we are honoring all existing contracts. Our process involves giving 90 days advance notice to our partners that we are not renewing the existing agreements under the current terms. We have only just begun the process, but under the new set of options, we feel that newspapers will be getting more than they were under our older agreements.
How do you plan to get the word out to your partner news outlets?
We are using all the means at our disposal.
Collegepublisher.com is the hub of info newspapers can use for research and information gathering. We are beginning outreach via email and phone this week and will continue to do this all through the semester, prioritizing newspapers by the renewal date of their contract.
We definitely appreciate CICM for covering the story as it helps clear up any confusion. However, if a newspaper has any questions, we are available through email (support@collegepublisher.com) , phone (866.733.9231) and twitter (@collegepublish).
January 3, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher
UPDATE: Interview with Rusty Lewis is now up here.
Well, during my self-imposed exile from all things journalism related over the holidays, College Media Network dropped a bombshell.
Most notably, newspapers using CP5 under an Access Network affilate agreement will be invoiced an annual payment* of $1,995 for the services rendered by CMN. …
This cost is most attributable to user support and training. There is an option to reduce this cost and be invoiced for training and design services as needed – click the pdf for details.
Any support or training would be billed at $150 per hour. Support hours billed would relate to issues that resulted in user error and would be communicated in advance of invoicing.
*If a college publication averages over 25,000 page views per month, all of these fees are waived
They are also going to start hosting WordPress installations, and additional open-source CMS’s. There are additional details related to advertising splits at the link above. I have an e-mail in to Rusty Lewis at CMN to ask some followup questions, and I’ll be examining the pricing structure more in the next few days.
For now, it should be obvious that this is a game-changing move by College Publisher.
December 9, 2010 in College Media, design, innovation, showcase
By Rich Cameron
Cerritos College Mass Communications chair
The Dec. 8 issue of the Cerritos College Talon Marks will stand out from other issues of the paper, in more ways than one if you are wearing 3D glasses. That’s because four pages in the paper sported color 3D photos. To aid the readers in seeing the photos pop out at them, each of the 4,000 copies of the paper had a free pair of 3D glasses affixed to it.
The 3D experiment is the brainchild of Talon Marks editor Joey Berumen. (editor@talonmarks.com). In his front page column on the experiment he says, “With the recent revitalization of 3D movies, video games and even TVs, it seems the next logical step would be for newspapers and other forms of media to follow suit.”
Elsewhere he adds, “Other than running three dimensional photos, how else can newspapers utilize the technology? Perhaps the cornerstone of the print media –advertising– can hold some of the answers. After all, a 3D Victoria Secret advertisement wouldn’t be eye-catching at all, would it?”
Ironically, the paper includes a color ad that unintentionally sports 3D aspects because of its color scheme: an unexpected boon for the advertiser.
A pdf of the entire issue is available for download on the www.talonmarks.com website. You can view it online here.
To accomplish the project the students first had to learn new PhotoShop skills to convert 2D photos into 3D.
Then they had to find a suitable subject. Originally, the students settled on a campus art show photo page. The show consists of a number of sculptures and mixed media that lent themselves to 3D photo presentations, but as the students found the conversion easier and easier to do, photos on all four planned color pages (thanks to advertisers wanting color) the project spread to other photos.
Then the students had to locate and talk their faculty adviser into authorizing purchase of 4,000 pairs of inexpensive CMYK compatible 3D glasses (they make RGB versions, too). When the paper returned from the printer, an assembly line of students was needed to affix the glasses to each copy of the paper before distribution could take place.
Why do it? Well, there are the editor’s words above. Clearly it was a gimmick designed to get campus attention; getting it for something good/interesting is far better than getting it for bad reasons. And who knows, it may attract future readers/staff members.
For the staff members it is something for pride, but they’ve also learned new PhotoShop skills. While they may never be called on to repeat them, the fact that they 1) thought outside the box, and 2) had to learn new skill sets to accomplish their idea clearly were good reasons to do it.
If they ever do it again, they will work harder to get an advertiser to pay for it. They only half-heartedly tried this time, for instance, to find an advertiser who would buy an ad on the glasses themselves and charge enough to buy the glasses.
In another innovation this semester, the Talon Marks started including QR scan codes in its print edition that help readers with smart phones connect to audio and video multimedia pieces on the newspaper’s website.
November 29, 2010 in contests, video
I just came across this video contest from Ars Technica (via Tom Levenson, an MIT science writing professor). Not necessarily journalism-related, but interesting nonetheless:
Today, Ars embraces the age of moving images with the launch of Ars.TV, sponsored by Canon. To celebrate, we’re holding a science video contest and will provide the grand prize winner with a Canon EOS 7D. Not only does the EOS 7D shoot great video, it also happens to be a fantastic DSLR. The grand prize winner will also score a Premier subscription to Ars. A runner up will take home a Best Buy Gift Certificate worth $500 as well as a Premier subscription.
Deadline for entries is Dec. 25, so get to shooting.
Here’s a video that explains how to make a cool science video.
November 29, 2010 in CICM shop talk, Conferences, video
The stories produced for the CICM workshop in Louisville are now up on the Mapping Main Street site.
Mapping Main Street is collaborative documentary project funded in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.
November 25, 2010 in blogging, hope for the future
Ed. Note: I wrote this last Thanksgiving week, and it pretty much sums up my attitude again this Thanksgiving. Hoping you and yours have a good holiday. (edited slightly to reflect time differences).
For our U.S. readers, this is the week of Thanksgiving, when schools call a recess from the frantic pace of the semester to allow everyone to meet with their families and friends and overdose on various foodstuffs and enjoy watching games of skill and chance involving an oblong leather ball. There’s also some shopping involved.
But the principle meaning for the holiday is to stop from the bustle of life to reflect and give thanks or express gratitude for the blessings of the present day.
Given that charge, I’ve put down a list below of some of the things I’m thankful for about college media this holiday season. Feel free to add your own in the comments below. Happy Thanksgiving.
I’m thankful …
… for the Internet, and the challenges and opportunities it has brought to college media and the news media in general. Without it, we’d know a lot less than we do now – for good and for bad.
… for college media outlets that continue to produce journalists who provide some accountability to the powers that be on college campuses across the country.
… for Organizations that help protect the First Amendment rights of student journalists in high schools and colleges.
… for Organizations that protect college advisers from undue and unwarranted threats from administrators who don’t want to see the student media do its job.
…for Organizations (like ACP/NSPA and JEA) that help provide training and recognition for student journalists beyond what can be given on many campuses.
… for Journalism departments that work closely with student media outlets and support a truly student-run college media experience (especially my own department at Eastern Illinois).
… that there have been no massive layoffs (that I know of) at any college media outlet in the U.S.
… for college journalists who are shifting to a web-first mind-set in publishing news, trying new ideas and overcoming old print/broadcast/web silos.
… for college media outlets that are continuing to find piecemeal solutions to the business model conundrum.
… that part of my academic career is watching college media change before my eyes, and seeing the successful collegiate online journalists of today move forward and succeed in their careers.
… that I can be a blogger AND a journalist, and for five years (as of November, 2010) of blogging about college media and the online world.
… for Chris Carroll and Ralph Braseth, who have been integral to this effort (the CICM and the ICM weblog) from day one.
… for the many colleagues (advisers and professors) who have listened, challenged my assumptions and offered ideas and inspiration as we’ve had this conversation about the future of college journalism.
Every so often I tend to get a little bit pessimistic about The Future of Journalism, possibly because we (collectively: academics, journalists and business folk) tend to circle the same topics every 6-12 months like dogs eating our own vomit. But it’s helpful to take a step back and see how far we’ve come.
We’ve come a long way from where we were five years ago (YouTube was a new service at that time. Nobody had heard of Twitter because it didn’t exist). We’re not where we are going yet, but we’re farther along the track, and we’ll get to The Future mostly intact, I believe.
I’m reminded of a quote from Douglas Adams (author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy):
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
That’s the list as it stands now. What are you thankful for?
November 12, 2010 in blogging, CICM shop talk
As best I can tell, today marks the official 5th anniversary of the founding of this weblog. Yes, here is the first post.
It’s been a busy five years. Approximately 1,800 posts (about 1 per day, including 1,600 by yours truly), several workshops, numerous consultations and conferences, two contests, three interns and over 200,000 visitors. The staff here at ICM would like to thank those who have contributed, those who have stopped by and commented, and those who quietly read along.
On a personal note, there have been numerous people I could and should thank for the assistance and support over the past five years. Foremost among them are Chris Carroll and Ralph Braseth, who set this blog in motion in late 2005 with an e-mail asking me to set up a web site for them. “I’ll set up the site, but you have to provide the content.”
You can see how well that worked.
I would also like to recognize the support from my colleagues in the journalism department at Eastern Illinois University, who see the value in my research interests in this area and encourage me to continue.
As for the future, we’ve just begun. Thanks to College Media Advisers, Inc., we’ve got some exciting workshops planned for the future, and I’m still plugging away trying to keep up with the tsunami of changes in the news industry.
Stay tuned.
(photo courtesy flickr user Rob J Brooks under Creative Commons license)
