New Gig Commences tomorrow

As of Monday, May 2, I am the VP/CM of CXO Online, overseeing five domains — CXO.com, CIO.com, CSOonline.com, CMOmagazine.com and Darwinmag.com.

CXO was formed in 1987 with the launch of CIO Magazine by former IDG marketing exec Joe Levy (now at TechTarget) and Lew McCreary, a former colleague of mine at PC Week. CSO was launched in 2002 and CMO was launched last summer (edited by Rob O’Regan, former colleague also at PC Week and McKinsey’s Business Knowledge Services and TomorrowLab).

 I went after this position because of the huge opportunity to make something happen in the B2B space — CXO is in the sweet spot of B2B and tech advertising, wins tons of prizes for its editorial and design — and because IDG has been such a consistently strong performer in the tech publishing space since Pat McGovern founded it in the early 60s.

 I’ll be in the company of some smart online innovators. Colin Crawford sets the online strategy as IDG’s head of business development, and my counterparts across IDG are all very strong, engaged pioneers. Ulla McGee at PC World took home the Neal award earlier this year for best website, Matt McAlister (formerly of the Industry Standard) at InfoWorld is doing amazing stuff with tags, design theory, and analysis, and Martha Connors at ComputerWorld is reviving that publication’s online presence after building a great online operation at the MIT Technology Review.

The first 90-days will be predictably hectic and a true re-education after five years out of the magazine-online space, and more than 17 years out of the tech trades. Ping me for coordinates.

Wired 13.05: The Wired 40

Wired 13.05: The Wired 40

And nary a single Main Stream Media company on the list. 

Wired News: The New Old Journalism

Wired News: The New Old Journalism

Adam Penenberg on reforming the way journalism is taught, tossing aside "objectivity" and opening the profession to "transparent bias."

I’m indifferent, coming from a world where during an interview for my first newspaper job I was hired on the basis of two facts:

1. I could type fast.

2. I didn’t go to journalism school (the editor hated J-school grads). 

Time for a change: The Associated Press as Napsterized news

Time for a change: The Associated Press as Napsterized news

As the news business moves to an aggregated model — Google, Yahoo News, RSS readers — the arms merchants who are building the original reporting have a couple choices.

1. Build the walled garden and keep it to themselves, hoping their value will attract traffic to their ads.

2. Be promiscious and syndicate their stuff anywhere and everywhere.

Here, in the Online Journalism Review, Benz and Phillips urge AP not to charge websites for running AP items, but to "Napsterize" their model.

 

 

IAB report on Internet Advertising Growth

5/24/2004 Press Release

IAB reporting that Internet advertising is topping $10 billion in 04 — 40 percent of that is search advertising.

CPM display and performance based units are neck and neck.

Good news for me, in new role as GM of CXO Online, is that computer services advertising is the biggest category for the spend. 

Yahoo News is re-launched

I’ve kept an eye on Yahoo News since Neil Budde took over the operation late last year. Neil’s reputation from founding the WSJ.com — and stature as the first man to dare to put a national newspaper behind a cost-wall and then succeed at it — makes him a true pioneer in online news.  Like many others in the first wave of online business news — Merrill Brown at MSNBC, Dave Kansas at TheStreet.com — he bailed out around 2000, resurfacing last fall at the helm of one of the biggest news portals in terms of potential to match the much-feared offerings of Google News.

Yahoo News has relaunched and I took a look last night. The first thing that struck me was how vertical the design is — the different news categories are stacked one-atop-the-next vs. Google’s two column horizontal format that leads with top news (as does Yahoo), but then does a side-by-side of each news category.

Second is that Yahoo is playing most-favored-nation status within each category — a tabbed menu for the Business category shows the following headline sources:

AP | Reuters | AFP | BusinessWeek Online | USA Today | NPR | FT.com | My Sources

Click on My Sources and this is displayed: "Sign in to add your favorite news sources from around the web here. For example, popular Business sources are MarketWatch.com, TheStreet.com, and Forbes.com."

Right off the bat I begin to wonder, okay, Yahoo News is giving tabs to those news organizations it did a deal with. That means this has, out of the gate, a high degree of editorial (or business development) pre-selection. Someone made the decision that BusinessWeek Online should lead over Forbes.com. Wonder what agreements were forged for positioning in this most-favored-nation tabs?

Sure, I can go into my sources and set up Xinhua if that is where I want to get my business news. But you know what? I like the machine-based democracy of Google News better. No selection bias. Okay, so AFP told Google News to knock off displaying its content and photos, but Yahoo News was able to come to terms with them, I guess that’s what AFP’s placement in Yahoo’s tabs means.

Sorry Neil. I’m going to stick with the blind impartiality of Google News for the time being. I’m sure this is an improvement over the old Yahoo News approach, but there’s no big kick in the butt in terms of layout, tools, personalization to make me drag the URL down to my nav bar, register, and customize an account. The killer is the pre-placement of the sources. I like the machine-based objectivity of Google, dredging up Michael Jackson stories from the Kerala Times in India, it’s weirdly random and democratic.  The pre-populated placement of sources in Yahoo’s category makes this an exercise in strategic alliances and deals.

MercuryNews.com | 04/26/2005 | Discord over Jobs biography?

MercuryNews.com | 04/26/2005 | Discord over Jobs biography?

Jeff Young is a good buddy and an excellent writer. He worked with me at PC Week and later at Forbes where he was a contributing editor and a contributor to the early success of Forbes.com.

 I love it when a company gets vengeful and does things like boycott magazine’s with their ads (as IBM did to Fortune) or yanks books off of shelves. Apple’s decision to yank all of Wiley’s books from its stores’ shelves is just the kind of publicity publishers would kill for.

Apple is turning into a real friend of the First Amendment — not.  

 

Update: In conversations, some friends are disputing the responsibility of a corporation to assume first amendment ownership, arguing that trade secret protection and IP rights predominate in a corporate environment.  While the press, particularly the trade press, has a long tradition of ferreting out corporate information via anonymous sources inside the company, dumpter diving, and hard leg work — sometimes publishing the results under nom de plume columns such as Mack the Knife and Spencer the Katt — there have been some notable instances of corporation rattling their legal sabers at publishers for divulging trade secrets.

Whatever the legal footing I’ll wimp out and back off the first amendment argument, admitting its specious in the case of Apple allegedly yanking Wiley’s titles from its shelves in retaliation for Young’s upcoming Jobs bio. As a PR tactic, I still don’t understand why corporations play into the controversy by threatening to block the publication of negative news, insuring they will, in the act, create yet more negative news. Sort of the way publisher’s used to welcome a "Banned in Boston" designation in the days when the Watch and Ward Society would encourage the City Censor to ban objectionable books. 

CNN.com – Congress may extend daylight-saving time – Apr 7, 2005

CNN.com – Congress may extend daylight-saving time – Apr 7, 2005

Please make it so. The energy savings would be in the billions and my mood would improve immensely. 

Google ain’t about search any more

The media’s inflation of Google’s reputation over the past two years is typical of the tech press pigpile that takes every new big thing and cover-stories it to death.  Google’s place in the world is certainly due to some smart fundamentals — their design was, and still is, wonderfully functional and spare. Their search methodology is generally accurate and fulfilling. They’ve made some good acquisitions. But to cast them as David to Microsoft’s Goliath, as the next big Borg in technology, dominating everything they touch, is to fall prey to the breathless vapors that saw Netscape in its early days get cast in a role it didn’t deserve, AOL over-inflate to the point of high humor, and Yahoo become the wunderkind of all things digital.

Today’s Saul Hansell piece in the biz section of the Times carries the great quote by John Batelle that Google ain’t about search anymore, but is now an advertising company. Commenting on the news that Google would begin expanding its pay-per-click Adsense model to include "image" advertising, Batelle said:

 "This drives the nail into the coffin of the idea that Google is a search business. It is an advertising business that has nothing particularly to do with search."

Right on, John. And that, my friends, is called taking one’s eye off of the prize. Google is squarely in the business of selling ad inventory to marketers. The premise is context and the premise is neither new, nor, in the end, particuarly compelling.  Google was just the first and best to deliver on the promise of putting scotch ads in front of scotch drinkers. First they did it with text links, now they’re going to do it with rich media.

 From the WSJ.com:

"Among the changes: Google will let advertisers run animated display ads on non-Google content sites that contract with Google to sell ads. It will allow advertisers to specify the sites on which they want their ads to appear, without having to pick a keyword tied to the content on a page. It will begin auctioning ad placements for its partner sites based on how many people see the ad, known as cost per impression, as well as its traditional cost-per-click method."

Publisher’s don’t need to quake. Indeed, some, like CNET and the NYT, have already signed onto the program. Ad agencies and marketers aren’t going to shut their doors to the ad sales force at Fortune and tell them to go away, we’re buying inventory from Google. Never. First off, Google has nothing close to an integrated sale — no conferences, newsletters, special advertising sections and the other side dishes a publisher has to offer. Second, Google has squat for content. Google is a remora sucking on the side of the information industry. If the fish stops swimming, so does Google.

What’s the strategy for co-existing with Google in the advertising marketplace?

1. You can compete with what you don’t know. Publishers should sign-up for, and selectively enable their pages to accept Google advertising. It’s found money, particularly if there is any unsold inventory. Firing the ad sales force and using Google as a rep firm is lunacy.

2. Enable vertical search within their own niche — and every good magazine is about defining a niche — and then deliver new ad units against it. No one can better broker the relationship between reader and advertiser than a capable publisher.

3. Optimize your pages for not only Google, but all engines. That’s found traffic when implemented correctly. I suspect more than 50 percent of arriving traffic is shot deep into a site through search results.

4. Expect, and plan for, the next Google. Google has no defensible advantage in this space. Once we all get over our infatuation with the company — like those publishers did in the late 90s who paid millions for "tenant" space with AOL and quickly figured out it didn’t deliver — another one will come along with a better idea and methodology. Bank on it.

Google needs to focus on search and searching better. It’s desktop search pales against Blinx. Picasa is nice, but no Flickr. Blogger is no WordPress. As Google sticks Wall Street’s needle into its arm, it will scramble to make numbers one quarter after another. My prediction — Google is in the content business within two years, it has to now that it’s turned into an advertising company. 

Update: Google’s Letter to AdSense Publishers