Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newspaper Ad Network Shuns Google, Yahoo, MS

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the anything-you-can-do-we-can-do-better dept.

The Media 71

Ian Lamont writes "The New York Times, and the Tribune, Gannett, and Hearst companies have launched their own ad network, called QuadrantOne. It will let advertisers place ads on media sites in 27 major markets, and let them target readers by content type, demographic information, and online behavior. Notably absent from the deal: Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Both Google and Yahoo have their own ad networks focused on newspapers, but, as the article says, 'if newspapers develop better ways to sell their own online ads, they may not have to share revenue with their Web counterparts such as Yahoo and Google.'"

cancel ×

71 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first nlgger (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22437508)

whoops, i meant post, my mistake!

Good, and not so good (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437522)

One one hand, the last thing that my life needs is more sources of advertising to clutter life up.

On the other hand is a glove... wait..
No, on the other hand is the fact that this creates competition in the online advertising arena. I had not thought that to be a problem before, but so it goes. Let them at it. It will either help keep print media afloat a bit longer or send them down the toilet that much faster.

Personally, I'm all for having a bit more competition in the op-ed and fact-checking areas of mainstream media... MAYBE... and I'm only saying MAYBE one of the MSM outlets will attempt to keep themselves alive and relevant by becoming a TRUSTWORTHY source of news...

I'm sure I'll wake up soon and wonder what this dream was all about, so go back to your regularly scheduled programming. Have you ever wondered why they didn't just say program? or show? or entertainment?

Freudian slip perhaps?

Re:Good, and not so good (3, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437696)

Google makes its money selling ads without having to actually create its own content, so I'm not surprised that the content creators are striking back. I don't see where this creates any competition in the "op-ed and fact-checking" areas -- all of the bloggers and slashdot-type forum sites have ad-sense. Are you saying that there is a news source that is more trustworthy than the MSM? Who?

R/e:Good, and not so good (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22443976)

MSM is not content. Like doubleclick they've made it trivially easy to block their ads which I appreciate.

Re:Good, and not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22445042)

Yes, there is. MSM outside your country. And that is pretty much true for many countries (because of the human nature of not critisising oneself), but especially USA today, because the always present "war situation", too few opposing views left (how many guys own MSN?) and emerging fascism (goverment, business and military go hand by hand).

If you want to "find the truth", you have to read historians that are not popular and sites that give different viewpoints, their "own truths". Only that way you can start to make up your own mind instead of accepting all the "official truths". MSM in west is not that different of MSM in Russia or Asia, you know. They just present sometimes quite different viewpoints..

Re:Good, and not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22437764)

What's with the MSM crap.. i've seen internet media and it's not better.
If anything its tabloid, blog spam, lolcat and inflammatory misleading headlines.

Re:Good, and not so good (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437844)

Indeed, and the MSM are 'supposedly' the trustworthy media... but the only people that trust them are the ones that are feeding them the propaganda that they, the MSM, 'produce'.

My point was vaguely to say that perhaps if MSM became trustworthy enough to garner actual readership value maybe their ad business wouldn't need to compete with Google et al.

Re:Good, and not so good (4, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438014)

Online newspaper advertising as it's now done is the absolute WORST. You can barely read that damned paper without all the flashing and blinking and popovers and such garbege. As I read the paper on break at work and my employer uses IE it's especially odius.

When the Chicago Tribune got bought the first thing they did was to make the advertising worse, made the whole damned thing in Flash, with no way to right click, and every time you went back to the front page you got an intro ad.

It annoyed me so much I found the "contact" page and detailed exactly how mind bogglingly stupid they were, why, and how it cost them at least one reader, and how I was never going to buy ANYTHING any of their advertisers hawked in such an offensive manner. And didn't go back for quite a while.

Apparently their online circulation dropped dramatically after their attack of incredible stupidity, because it's back like it was.

How can you trust news from people stupid enough to annoy their audience?

-mcgrew

(and now for more annoyance, the mcgrew journal The Robyn 'Hood. An old girlfriend, a true lady (not the girlfriend unfortunately), and a couple of whores. Brought to you by Microsoft. Microsoft: takes a licking and keeps on [no carrier] [slashdot.org]

Re:Good, and not so good (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22440218)

How can you trust news from people stupid enough to annoy their audience?
Because they're reporters and editors, not marketers?

I guess they also recognise the trade-off between annoying your customers and making money via advertising, and even though you personally happened to feel annoyed, perhaps they were making more money of the impressions they did get.

Re:Good, and not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22440308)

Online newspaper advertising as it's now done is the absolute WORST. You can barely read that damned paper without all the flashing and blinking and popovers and such garbege. As I read the paper on break at work and my employer uses IE it's especially odius.

I don't block adverts, but I do block popups, use Flashblock and have animated gifs turned off. I honestly don't understand how/why people tolerate this sort of thing. As I understand it, even slashdot has moving adverts!..?

Re:Good, and not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22442900)

I *do* block adverts. All of them.

Anyway, about your question... Most people seem to think the internet is like TV. They put up with the crap simply because they don't realize they can do anything about it.

Other people realize they can block the ads, but perplexingly think they have some kind of moral obligation not to.

I don't have an explanation for Slashdot. I've often wondered how Slashdot can make money off its ads. I'd like to think slashdotters are above clicking on idiotic advertisements, but apparently not.

Re:Good, and not so good (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493924)

I would guess that a lot of slashdotters click on the ads just to help make money for slashdot. It's not like they have to pay anything to do it.

Re:Good, and not so good (1)

HartDev (1155203) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439810)

I hate ads I really hate them a lot! And now I got a site with Google ads, just hoping I can work on a site more than my craptacular jobs that I have had as of late.

Misleading (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22437564)

oops. bad news for google. Should've taken that MS offer while they still had time :(

Hate to bash Google (1, Troll)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437576)

But all I can think about is how they seem to cry monopoly when some kind of new competition shows up.
I hate to say it, but I expect them to call for some kind of investigators in on this one too if they haven't already...

Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22437950)

You neither hate to bash Google nor do you hate to say that you expect them to call for some kind of investigation. If you hated those things, you wouldn't have bothered to post them on slashdot.

If something fits, or is likely to fit, the definition of a monopoly, then Google is well within their rights to request an investigation. Similarly, when and if Google itself fits that definition, it should also be investigated.

Personally, I would be very happy to see more members of industry cartels start calling "monopoly" on one another. Sure, the investigation costs a lot of taxpayer money, but if it results in real monopolies being broken down into smaller companies that have to actually compete against one another, then our entire economy gets stronger because of it.

And I do not "hate" to say any of that.

Re:Liar (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438034)

You neither hate to bash Google nor do you hate to say that you expect them to call for some kind of investigation
Even thought I didn't LIKE saying it doesn't mean I didn't think the topic shouldn't be raised. We've seen Google call Microsoft on monopolistic actions in online ads and search before.
So, while I did HATE to say those things about a company I do actually enjoy see doing well. Someone had to say it and get the wheels of discussion going.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22443268)

Someone had to say it and get the wheels of discussion going.

Yeah, it really needed to be said. That explains why you got a troll mod and the only people participating in the resulting discussion are Anonymous Cowards (like me) who are just calling you out for showing a strange inconsistency of attitude in your posts.

huh (1, Insightful)

syrinx (106469) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437584)

Web sites have ads? Who knew? [adblockplus.org]

Anyway, good luck with your failing business model, newspapers! I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers will have some words of comfort for you.

Huh? (2, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437600)

What's a newspaper?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438118)

It's a physical, wood based, product made into sheets with pertinent information.

Re:Huh? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438548)

It's a physical, wood based, product made into sheets with information pertinent 12-24 hours ago

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Huh? (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438260)

It's what you get when you print out an article from NYTim--... hey, wait, this dictionary doesn't seem to agree. Where's the edit link?

Re:Huh? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439230)

It's an archaic long-forgotten form of the Internet. It was popular in the days of steam when the World was in black and white. It's essentially a flat webpage that's too large to fit down a tube, so had to be delivered by hand via an army of small boys (kind of like giant nanobots -- though some exhibited tendencies like viruses).

Like the Internet, much of the Newspaper network was ruled by the Prince of Darkness, Rupert Murdoch.

Re:Huh? (1)

deadmantyping (827232) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439332)

something you wrap dead fish in

It's distilled lies. Re:Huh? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22443982)

It's many sheets of paper made from dead trees with distilled lies printed on it using soybean ink. It's really useful as fuel and as a liner for small animal cages.

They need to quit writing crap (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437610)

Apparently, the news industry is hurting. But the problem is that anymore they are all the same. More and more, they all spout the same thing, and will not cover what is news worthy (bad reporting, spin, whatever). These days, I have been turning overseas to find out exactly what America is up to, and then MIGHT see the article buried about a month later. That is NOT how we are suppose to get the story. This AM got into a discussion with another about reporting and at some point it was mentioned that if not spin, then it was shoddy reporting. For the last 5 years, I have seen nothing but increasingly shoddy reporting.

Re:They need to quit writing crap (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438632)

Apparently, the news industry is hurting. But the problem is that anymore they are all the same. More and more, they all spout the same thing, and will not cover what is news worthy (bad reporting, spin, whatever).
The problem is this isn't really true unless you're talking about small "hometown" newspapers like the Tacoma Tribune... The NYT, San Fran Chron, and other "national" papers do a fairly good job of actual news reporting, and anyway all that "news" you get from "overseas" sources is from the AP or Reuters anyway. What you seem to be talking about is critical editorial content - opinions. And even there, if you're not interested in the average moderate view, you can get your left wing propaganda at Indymedia or someplace like that.

For the last 5 years, I have seen nothing but increasingly shoddy reporting.
What you're looking for is anti-Republican, anti-Bush political editorial type stuff, and it's out there.

Re:They need to quit writing crap (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438746)

What you're looking for is anti-Republican, anti-Bush political editorial type stuff, and it's out there. No, I am not looking for that. I am looking for news stories about what is going on. For example, will the house vote on the telco bill WITH the immunity in there (the immunity started LONG before 9/11, and parts of this may go back to clinton). I noticed that little was in the press concerning all the dem senators that supported that immunity. Likewise, how much news do we see on Sibel Edmunds (she will take down a number of pubs, but she will also take down some dems as well)? Nothing on the American press. How about more stories in the press about Spacex, bigelow, etc. I see more about them from blogs AND foreign press. None of those things have to do with being anti-bush. It has to do with seeing what is going on.

Re:They need to quit writing crap (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438918)

No, I am not looking for that. I am looking for news stories about what is going on. For example, will the house vote on the telco bill WITH the immunity in there (the immunity started LONG before 9/11, and parts of this may go back to clinton).
That sounds an awful lot like your interested in reporting with an editorial slant. It's out there... I did a simple Google News search and found exactly all you ask for, and in American news sources.

I noticed that little was in the press concerning all the dem senators that supported that immunity.
So you're not just interested in factual reporting, but something with an editorial slant against the bill and some discussion of why liberal Dems might vote for it (probably because of payoffs - er, I mean campaign donations, just like any other politician).

Just because most news sources are moderate and reflect a moderate view rather than a liberal view doesn't mean that they lack factual reporting, it means you disagree with their editorial view.

Good development (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437664)

That makes sense.

A big problem with Google's "content network" is that most of the ad sites have no real content. The newspaper industry at least has something worth attaching ads to. Google is taking a 50% cut of ad revenue without doing very much for it.

This may push Google ads towards the "bottom feeder" made-for-Adwords sites, especially if the news media become very aggressive about going after anyone copying their content. This will make thosse ads much less valuable; that's where the low-value clicks come from.

Funny that you would say that (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438470)

Google is KNOWN for their search engine and for how targeted their ads are between the end viewer AND the site. In the denver post or rocky mountain news, when I see ads beside some article, they have NOTHING to do with the content. ABsolutely nothing. I noticed that when I was reading about the butchery at NIU, that I was being shown ads about dating women on the east coast. I am not single, and I have nothing to do with the east coast, and what does dating have to do with an idiot running around murdering ppl? All in all, the newspaper have less and less news, and unless they hire some good ppl on, even their ads will remain worthless. Off hand, I believe that the "news" papers are heading towards being the bottom feeders.

ad revenue competition (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437718)


  as if MS needs another reason to try buying a competitor, along comes a new ad platform. the markets may not be a popular as some of the portal aggregators, but there's more than enough market to go around.

  does anyone have an ad platform broker, that manages your ads on multiple platforms for you? i mean, thats the spirit of the web - encapsulate and aggregate, right?

Re:ad revenue competition (1)

wpdjr53 (1240528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22444970)

Clickshare Service Corp. (http://www.clickshare.com/aboutus) received last month a patent on a technology which facilitates federated authentication, the sharing of information about advertising and content views, and settlement of transactions among multiple websites. A key feature is that each participating website keeps control of its own user base and users can offer selected demographic information about themselves -- automagically -- when the arrive at a site. This allows for customization, and also allows advertisers -- when authorized by the end user -- to know some basic demographic information about who is looking at their ads. I'm a founder of Clickshare and one of the inventors (Bill Densmore).

well then... (4, Informative)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437736)

Open Adblock control - insert domain... and there you have it, another empty space where annoyance used to be :D

I don't block Google ads (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438220)

I don't block Google ads because Google has avoided obnoxious ads. I won't block Q1 ads unless they decide to make them obnoxious (e.g. flash, animations, large, pop ups, etc). Given the history of the newspaper business not keeping up with the world, I worry that I may end up having to block them. Then I'd become some kind of news freeloader.

Re:I don't block Google ads (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438848)

I block not only for the annoyance factor but to actually speed up my browsing. Why should I have to wait for some foreign ad server to give me a cheesy ad I won't click anyway? I consider it my way of clearing those stopped up interweb tubes...

I love the internet. Hearst's are dying out (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437742)

The old monopolies are dying out.

This is true freedom and they don't like it.

Ladies and gentlemen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22437790)

...start your ad blockers. Don't forget to add: quadrantone.com.

quadrantone.net and quadrantone.org are link farms.

Newspapers are dieing. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437794)

And I say let them die. The Internet has really replaced the newspaper.
First the newspaper was the only real source for news.
Then Radio Came along and TV. And the news Paper still did pritty good. Because the News on them would only cover particular topics and usually gloss over details... and they still do.

Now with the internet it changed the rules for good.
You can get more news on the Internet then with news papers. The news is always up to date, and you can drill down to the real details if you wanted to, even more then the news paper will cover. For example The primaries You can see in Real Time what everyones status is. Then you can break it down by state and on some sites by county. As well you can get more information on the deligate system if you are unclear on how something works. It just gives you more when you want more. And less when you want less.

Next I always hated News Papers because they were hard to read. Big sheets of paper with smugy text and the pages that will fall apart if you hold it wrong. Then withing a week you have a bunch of pages that are junk and will need to be cleaned. Vs. Just reading news on your laptop. and when you done no mess.

News Papers are just prolonging the inevatible, they will go away like the telegraph.

Re:Newspapers are dieing. (4, Insightful)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437938)

Newspapers, as a medium for delivering news, are dying. However the newsrooms that create content for the papers are crucial to the journalism industry, because they don't exist in any other media. TV news is fast, get some visuals, talk to a few folks and get it all done by 6:00pm. Newspaper journalists can pour more investigation and actual news reporting into a 2 column story than some anchorbabe can read on a teleprompter in 30-40 seconds.

The newspaper has to be kept alive, and if they figure out how to successfully produce enough revenue to continue to publish on the Web, great. But when you think about how much the work newspapers do influences all the other media, you start to wonder what how the profession as a whole would suffer if newspapers died out altogether.

Re:Newspapers are dieing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438250)

I think Groklaw may be an excellent example of another high quality news source whose articles obviously wouldn't fit on the prompter even for a half-hour show. And TV wasn't really what the GP was pointing to as an alternative.

Re:Newspapers are dieing. (2, Insightful)

Morris Thorpe (762715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438070)

I assume you mean that the *paper* delivery method is dying. As news gathering organizations, "newspapers" will survive (at least those that adapt.)

I canceled my subscription to my local newspaper around 1998, when they began putting their content online. I still use them as a source for news, however.

I'll be the first to say that the present state of the news media is sad. Still, there will always be a place for professional news gathering organizations.

The Next Decade (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437818)

Hopefully this will launch a long drawn out feature war. Remember we are talking about Google and Microsoft here. They have their hands and are flush with so much cash that they can just outflank newspapers in so many ways by simply blocking entry or buying it out.

This is probably a good thing for the publishers and advertisers.

The mainstream media is largely worthless today (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22437878)

I gleefully welcome the destruction of the mainstream media. Why? Despite touting itself as a watchdog, the media is quite possibly the single biggest enemy that "democracy" and liberty have in the United States. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that whatever can be said of Bush and Cheney, the mainstream media beats them by a wide margin. It doesn't criticize the government except a few politicians, it almost never holds corrupt and abusive government employees accountable, and it rarely provides a voice for actually holding the government by the short hairs and making it fess up.

There is a case that, for me, was the last straw. It was written in the Pilot, which is a major Virginia media outlet. I have a write up here [codemonkeyramblings.com] showing how much of a f$%^ing lapdog the media was in not questioning how the police carried out this raid. The reports have only gotten worse, including it appears to be that the police conducted this raid after knowing that their own informant committed a felony against the poor guy by breaking into his home 3 days before the raid (might explain why he was trigger happy when the police raided the house 3 days later at night while he was in bed).

The media has two modes when it comes to their traditional role of watchdog: lapdog and psychotic attack dog that turns on the children. They'll either damn near cover stuff up, or make a mountain out of a molehill, when there are plenty of good examples that would get the public furious for good reasons.

What is this? Some bullshit concept of "journalist ethics and social responsibility" at work? I don't buy the corporate angle that much because if they reported half of the shit that makes it to civil libertarian blogs and kept up with it, they'd have more naturally occurring controversy to sell ads with than the law should allow.

So, I say bring it on to the mainstream media. There are plenty of lightweight media outlets that aren't barely more than Associated Press resellers, and they're going up against Craigslist, a 800lb gorilla in the classifieds market now.

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today (1)

thedlw (1007823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438018)

Regular newspapers are mostly a thing of the past. I can see in my lifetime newspapers going under perm to things like wired/news.com etc...

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438402)

I'm a reporter at a small-town newspaper, and I say this: if small-town newspapers go down, then you're going to have trouble. Show me the blogger that's going to attend every single town and school board meeting without getting paid, and report on it. In rare cases, you might get a neighborhood nut who's willing to do it for nothing, but by and large most of the time you're not going to get anything. And then you have a large segment of your money going to a part of the government where back-room deals are rampant, where cutting corners on regulations is common, and no one keeping an eye on things for the people.

Yes, the national media has major issues at the moment. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Small-town papers (1)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22440240)

I'm right there with you. There's still a place for small-town papers because all those decisions being made by your local politicians affect your daily life more than what you'll read in the New York Times. And who's going to cover those exciting meetings? Maybe that can get outsourced to India [freerepublic.com] , too.

I grow tired of all the people who are quick to toss out accusations about the media as "lapdogs," "writing crap," "shoddy reporting," "one-sided," etc. Fair enough, but I find those accusations usually get thrown out by people who simply don't like what they read, and shoot the messenger. I ran into this this week. Our local sawmill is closing, putting hundreds of people out of work. Big news. However, I learn that some of those laid-off employees, if they choose, could take a job at the pulp mill next door, bumping pulp mill employees out of work because of an arcane agreement that is 14 years old. I report this fact and get blasted for it. But it's a fact. I could do what the other newspaper here in town did -- whose employees are in the same union as the sawmill -- and ignore this little fact to ingratiate myself to the union, and cover my own ass while appearing to be sympathetic. But instead my credibility has been questioned, I have pissed-off people phoning me at home to be abusive and I ask myself, why do I bother? I don't get paid enough for this crap.

How many other reporters are asking themselves that same question?

And for anyone who tries to argue that journalism is some idealistic calling, save the evangelism for the Sunday morning edition.

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today (1)

kdart (574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22443870)

I agree that good reporting from a professional is worthwhile. But the rules have changed (a little). Newspapers have almost always been funded by their advertisers. Web sites can also be funded by advertisers. All you need is something to draw "eyeballs"... Well, the web is great leveler. You can make your own online newspaper without much startup cost. So, if you produce good reporting that people want to read, put up your own "webzine", but some (tasteful) ads on it, and you're in business. On the other hand, there's a lot of competition...

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22444000)


Actually I prefer you bankrupt and living in a cardboard box. I've never seen a small town newspaper actually do anything useful in reporting problems with local government.

If the small town ad service goes down and then government does something enough people find objectionable then maybe more of them will get off their dead asses and attend those meetings.

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today (1)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439052)

There is a case that, for me, was the last straw. It was written in the Pilot, which is a major Virginia media outlet. I have a write up here showing how much of a f$%^ing lapdog the media was in not questioning how the police carried out this raid.
Say what you will about the mainstream media, but they don't have guys shilling their websites on Internet fora.

Privacy Concerns? (2, Interesting)

fourohfour (1056594) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438008)

From the http://www.quadrantone.com/ [quadrantone.com] site:
"Access to sophisticated audience targeting by context, behavior and demographics".
I can see how they can target by context (selling to specific websites), but how can they target by behavior or demographics? Will they be looking at the cookies on user machines to try to determine behavior? How will they get demographic information?

Re:Privacy Concerns? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439600)

Obviously you'll have to register to read the content! :-P

Good for the Newspapers (1)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438042)

They are finally figuring out this thing and that they are the ones publishing the current and continuously updated content. Why do you need a middle man like Google, Yahoo, or MSN to get in the way? These guys have been selling advertising longer then founders of those three companies have been alive.

Innovation (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438502)

By coincidence, I have launched my own network of local roads for access to the rest of the world.
Notably absent from the deal: The highway and freeway systems.

I'm sure I'll have lots of visitors.

Netcraft confirms it! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438106)

The New York Times is dying.

Even the New York Times [nytimes.com] confirms it.

You3 fail it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438132)

dupe from 13 years ago (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438294)


I'm not surprised that the average person doesn't remember the rise and fall of New Century Network [businessweek.com] , but at the very least some of the newspapers involved in this debacle-to-be should -- they're about to make all the same mistakes over again!

Demographics? (3, Insightful)

LMacG (118321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438330)

"target readers by content type, demographic information, and online behavior."

Yeah, OK. When I created logins for the NYT and the Washington Post websites, I'm pretty sure I told them I was born in 1901, live in ZIP code 90210, and am female.

Good luck with that advertising, guys.

They'll be calling Google in 2 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22440828)

first I've never seen the NYTimes do anything technologically right that wasn't accomplished 4 years prior. but that aside, the real value to advertisers is knowing a ton about the viewer and being able to work on them over time by impressions. Thus those that can serve advertisers best are those with the broadest knowledge about the viewer and those able to serve up ads to that viewer across a variety of sites and impressions. So, the NYTimes will fail because they'll only know about people's behavior as far as they can learn from their site and affiliated sites, while Google collects vast sums of info about the user from a large swath of sites - think of how cross mashing data from the nytimes with google search, google groups, urchin tracker on everyone's blogs, etc all can be slammed together to create a very robust profile of the viewer. Then you take that info and coordinate advertising serving to all the affiliated sites for that viewer that are in the google ad serving network. So first impression is at some random blog with urchin tracker on it, second impression is at NYTimes who is serving google ads and has mashed their user profiles with google's, third impression is back at your political google group. You finally go to search for a new laptop on google and the ads at the top take you to ebay on the model they just hit you about three times. Or actually run that in reverse a bit. You searched for a laptop - it all these affiliated sites - where they just happen to repeatedly serve up laptop ads.

Let me conclude with this thought, although you can make a pizza on your own at home, its never going to be as good as the pizza from the guy who's family has been making pizza for 30 years. Every day Google is dedicated to learning more about user patterns and interests and how to best target them with ads for the highest conversion rate. The NYTimes on the other hand does this as a hobby on top of writing news. Who is going to is going to get the best conversion rate? If I'm an advertiser I'll be asking for Google every time.

The newspaper industry's antidote? (3, Interesting)

JeffHunt (129508) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438974)

I read some of the comments and it seems like people are saying that this is a desperate attempt to save the newspaper industry. I don't think it's desperate at all - I think it's actually a wise choice. The players are engaging in what's called a "vertical market" - in case anyone overlooked this fact - in order to serve the needs of the core business.

They're not trying to save the ship: they're building a better ship.

Re:The newspaper industry's antidote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439308)

Yes, they're building a little dingy, with one sail, and one oar. They'll capsize and sink.
 
OKay, anymore boating metaphors I can use?

Re:The newspaper industry's antidote? (1)

MagicBox (576175) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439886)

this logo font formatting is reminiscent of all the .COM bust companies of the past:

quadrantONE

Whenever I see a logo like that, I rarely read past it.

Re:The newspaper industry's antidote? (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439912)

That's a good point, but they did this only in response to Google's attempt to sell the newspaper ad inventory. Google found an untapped market they could exploit with their software, and the newspapers didn't like it. Notice though that the newspapers never thought of it until Google tried to get in.

Newspapers have been notoriously slow to change. They crept into online only when they had to. They hardly noticed that Ebay and Craigslist had utterly destroyed their classified ads (at least in this town) until it was too late.

It's another example of old media trying to hang on to the old model.

Re:The newspaper industry's antidote? (1)

JeffHunt (129508) | more than 6 years ago | (#22440046)

Notice though that the newspapers never thought of it until Google tried to get in.

I'd say that this isn't completely accurate. They didn't make a move until after Google's plans became public. Whether these print media companies actually had this plan on the drawing board before Google's announcement is something we can't, won't, and don't know.

Just putting that out there...

Adding to HOSTS file... (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22440266)

...there we go. I suppose "quadrantONE.com" will do. Strangely enough, when you go to the site, it doesn't give you a tracking cookie. (Yet.)

Thisr FP for GNAA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22440442)

Don't be a sling Since we made the to the crowd in the project faces, Theo de Raadt, one having lost 93% Nigger Association infinitesimally to stick something code sharing goal here? How can correct network to have regular I'm discussing man walking. It's for a living got and shower. For user. 'Now that I've never seen Big picture. What bulk of the FreeBSD Ones in sof7ware In time. For all gawker At most large - keep your Learn what mistakes there are about 700 this post up. brilliant plan Project returns BSDI is also dead, FreeBSD project, us the courtesy The numbers. The as it is licensed long term survival The mobo blew numbers. The loss website. Mr. de

Just great... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22440484)

Anyone got the FQDNs and nameservers for the domains these bozos want to use yet? I've got null zones for most of the major ad servers, i.e., 247realmedia.com, doubleclick.com, atdmt.com, amongst many others, already set up on my nameserver. This change is going to cost another 20 minutes of my time to craft null zones for their domains so I don't have to see their idiotic crap.

Fine! (1)

jjrff (891275) | more than 6 years ago | (#22442004)

Screw you guys .. I'm .. going home.

will block them.. (1)

mdew (651926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22442250)

and as soon as they start the adservices, I'll block [fanboy.co.nz] them :)

Noticibly Absent (1)

aevans (933829) | more than 6 years ago | (#22442776)

The three (two) potential purchasers of this service are shockingly absent? Shocking. You'd think if you wanted to make money selling something to someone you'd ask them if they wanted to be in on the ground floor. Yes, they want to sell it to Microsoft or Google.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?