Chris Anderson’s post on LongTail.com contains an observation that is so obvious, it is missed by many self-appointed experts. (Okay, I’ll admit I live in that glass house.):

“Not only do small (Long Tail) publishers montetize their content at 3-5 times the rate of the larger publishers in PubMatic’s survey, but they’re improving in the current environment while the big publisher decline.

This is a fact of life in business-to-business-media, where the business model has long been focused on “free” distribution of content to decision-makers in specialized fields. The “cost per thousand” (CPM) model of advertising sales does not exist as a metric in this long-tail of the media world. Of course, if an advertiser selling a $100,000 piece of equipment can reach 90% of the decision makers in a market of 5,000 specifying engineers, then, hell-yeah, the publisher of that content should be able to monetize it at hundreds of times the rate of, say, a newsweekly.

The lesson here: Online, if you want to monetize content, the number of eyeballs seeing your content is less important than who those eyeballs belong to. And the more helpful that content is in assisting real people make important and valuable decisions, the more “monetizable” it will be.

Early this morning, there seemed to be a theme emerging in my RSS newsreader. Here are a few items that showed up:

Frank Anton of Hanley Wood, says:

“If the magazines published two or three years from now aren’t different, we’re in trouble. The current magazine model won’t take us into the next five years, let alone the next 100 years.”

Colin Crawford of IDG says:

“…being unburdened by print allowed the team at Infoworld the opportunity to focus on the changing needs of their customers and to develop online, event and mobile products.”

Jeff Jarvis responding to Colin’s post, says:

“Yes, print is a burden. It’s expensive to produce for it. It’s expensive to manufacture. It’s expensive to deliver. It limits your space. It limits your timing. It’s stale when it’s fresh. It is one-size-fits-all and can’t be adapted to the needs of each user. It comes with no ability to click for more. It has no search. It can’t be forwarded. It has no archive. It kills trees. It uses energy. It usually brings unions. And you really should recycle it. Wow, when you think about it, print sucks.

So what was the theme? Print is a burden. Unfortunately, saying “print is a burden” implies that there are other options out there that are not burdens. Frankly, the web is a burden. Traveling to events IDG puts on is a burden. Trying to synch my phone and computer is a burden. As Scott Karp displayed in a post yesterday, trying to discover which among 2,000 different news stories on the same topic is a burden.

Despite my love (and I use the word love very deliberately) of the magazine medium, I have never been burdened by thinking print is a hammer and every communications or marketing challenge is a nail.

Granted, my company has published magazines since the day it opened 16 years ago. But even back then, we also created lots of “interactive multimedia” (published on CD-ROM). And in those pre-web days, we also managed “forums” on CompuServe. As a custom media creator, I’ve never felt “burdened” by any medium that helps build strong relationships between our clients (associations and companies) and their members or customers. If smoke signals would help forge and sustain those relationships, we’d be all over it.

Those who know me — even through this blog — know I personally agree with Jeff Jarvis on his somewhat satirical indictment of print. I’m about as paper-free as someone can get in their personal and business practices, but I’m no print vegan (did I just create a new buzzterm?). As Jeff is writing a book and writes for newspapers and magazines, it’s not like he’s a print vegan either. But my print aversion is neither “environmental” (as I always say , if paper is the cause of global warming, someone needs to share that inconvenient truth with this guy) nor based on any belief that print is inherently bad. What I find a burden is poorly designed, written and produced print. What I find a burden is the clutter and confusion print and paper often add to my already cluttered life.

Bottomline: Print is not the burden. My time is the burden. If you publish a beautiful magazine with articles that really matter to me — that instruct, inform or celebrate something I feel strongly about, it is no burden on me. If you help me get to the information and insight I need to live a fuller life or conduct business in a more flexible and productive way, your blogging and tweeting and bookmarking does not burden me. Useless, redundant, meaningless, re-shuffled drivel is the burden. It can be delivered via print or on a weblog or a mobile device. Crap is a burden no matter what the medium used to deliver it.

Over on the Custom Media Craft blog on Hammock.com, I just posted some highlights from the annual survey conducted by the Custom Publishing Council called “Characteristics Study: A Look at the Volume and Type of Custom Publications in America”. (Note: Hammock Inc. was one of the founding members of the Custom Publishing Council). According to the survey, in 2007 a record number of marketers used custom media to promote their products and brands. Personally, I believe the numbers are still conservative as there are lots of online “content marketing” activities taking place that fall through the cracks of this research. For instance, most of the digital startups that have content creation for marketers (i.e., video distributed online) as part of their business model should probably be covered in this research — but aren’t.

One thing this survey underscores is a statistic that doesn’t click with many of my friends in the magazine and media industry who think of the magazine format as being, exclusively, a business model (i.e., consumer of B2B magazines). The magazine format is not just a business-model, it supports and serves other business models. I typically use university alumni or association magazines as examples here, but think of all the institutions and, now, companies, who use magazines and other media they create as platforms for fostering long term relationships with their constituencies (customers, alumni, members, supporters, etc.). While there are probably (and I’m guessing here) less than 20,000 magazines that have advertising and circulation-revenue as the focus of their business models, this survey indicates there are 143,173 magazines in America. Even if my number is low and their’s is high, the truth of magazine publishing is this: Most magazines in America “support” a business model — they aren’t a business model.

This is an important fact to consider when thinking about the “business model” of another media: blogging. Today — and forevermore — there will be only a small fraction of blogs that are, themselves, a business. The vast majority — as in 99% or more — of business-related blogs will support a business model (or a cause or institution or campaign), not be a business model.

Another thing: I confess: As much as I enjoy publishing — indeed everything about — magazines, I’m also very-much a new-media guy. I believe content-marketing, custom media, social media, conversational media — whatever you want to call it — should be front and center in any company or institution’s marketing effort (our company works with clients in doing just that). I see no “competition” or “conflict” or “irony” in me advocating new media while still championing the magazine format as the most compelling engagement media available.

At Hammock.com, view statistics and highlights from the Custom Publications in America survey.

Interesting article in the NY Times today about scionspeak.com, a new marketing effort by Toyota. It also provides the current state of a non-blogosphere “trend story” about where social media marketing is today. From that vantage point it’s a good story for tech bloggers and social media marketing types to gauge how those from the real world perceive what it means to be a trendy social media marketer:

1. Being a trendy social media marketer means you’re not considering setting up a “Facebook for [Your Brand or Product Category Here].” You know that your customers don’t “belong” to you, even if they are “members.” (Unless, of course, you’re Nike or Apple.)

2. Trendy social media marketers are supporting current customers, not “future” ones.

3. Trendy social media marketers work for clients whose products have tiny market shares and whose customers like being “misunderstood,” “quirky,” “hip” or “superior.”

4. Trendy social media marketers work for clients who have customers who use the word “freaking” as an adjective.

5. Trendy social media marketers recognize that mainstream reporters love Flash websites.

Quotes from the article:

“The Scion Speak campaign is aimed not at future Scion owners but at current ones. StrawberryFrog says that it wants “to reduce Scion’s investment on conquering new customers and increasing the passion for the brand among its core fan base…At least some Scion owners who have created their own coats of arms seem pleased with the results. A Scion driver, writing online as Monsterslovecandy, created a design that included a harlequin pattern, crossed wrenches and a phoenix, and wrote on a fan Web site, “I think it came out freaking sweet.”

No one asked, but here are the primary ways I’m currently expressing myself online.:

rexblog.com: Professional and business-related focus (media, technology, conversational & new media, marketing, magazines). Once each day, my blog includes a posting that aggregates all of the links I’ve bookmared on del.icio.us/rexblog that are related to those topics.

Hammock.com/rexhammock: My official Hammock Inc. “people page.”

RexHammock.com: Personal passions and random-topic tumble-log.

Twitter.com/r: Stream-of-life commentary in < 140 character posts, and where I "hang-out" online.

Flickr.com/rexblog: Where I post photos.

YouTube.com/rexhammock: Where I post videos.

Last.fm/user/rexhammock: Music I’m listening to.

Facebook, Linkedin, etc.: I don’t really “express myself” on these and other “social networking” sites, but on most of them, you can find me if you search for my name or the username “rexhammock.”

FriendFeed.com/rexhammock: A “lifestream” of everything I post anywhere.

Recently, I re-booted RexHammock.com, a URL on which I’ve been experimenting with Tumblr.com for several months. I had determined that I was under-utilizing it as merely a “lifestream” catcher — a place that collects all the different RSS feeds generated by my various online-expressions on Twitter.com/r, Flickr.com/photos/rexblog, etc. And, with services like FriendFeed.com and even MyBlogLog getting more into being pure-play lifestream platforms, I decided to go back and figure out how to better utilize the very cool features of Tumblr.

As you can see from RexHammock.com, one of the smart things they did was make it drop-dead-simple for me to use my own URL instead of some long / this-and-that account name. And, despite my design-free look on the site, the Tumblr platform has some attractive templates and is very CSS-friendly for those who want to (and can) be creative. I’m trying to master the functions and ethos of the platform and its community, before putting any time into determining what it should look like however. So, in my experiment, you can consider it now in a wire-frame state.

What I have determined is this: I’ll be writing about and pointing to mostly non-work or non-professional-related topics on RexHammock.com. For example, this week, I started off with my review of the Punch Brothers new release and have followed that up with posting quotes from the New York Times and the long piece yesterday on NPR’s All Things Considered. (I’m happy to note that if you had read my review on Tuesday, and had listened to a YouTube video I pointed to, you would have been better prepared to understand why such a “different” kind of recording is receiving such attention.)

So, to summarize: On rexblog.com, I’m gradually shifting to focused commentary and links related to magazines, new media (specifically, what I call “conversational media,”) marketing, corporate and association communication. Some of this is cross-posted on Hammock.com and elsewhere. My non-professional interests (stuff my wife & kids & pets do, the world, my hometown, travel, music, photography, books, movies, table saws, humor, tomatoes, Tennessee Titans, Vanderbilt basketball, etc.) are slowly showing up on RexHammock.com.

Warning: This post rambles on a bit about custom publishing before finally getting to the point of asking someone from the UK (Martin Stabe, are you out there?) to translate some English into American for me. But first, the rambling part.

In the U.S., the company I run is referred to as a “custom publishing” or “custom media” company.

In the UK, such a firm is called a “customer publishing” company or, sometimes, a “publishing agency.” So, I’ve grown to accept that in my small niche of the media world, in the UK and US, we often say different things that actually mean the same thing.

Customer publishing companies or custom media agencies are marketing services companies that provide a wide array of outsourced services and products for marketers and other communicators at companies or associations who want to create and manage on-going (recurring) media (magazines, online media [podcasts, video], email newsletters, wikis, etc.) that will help them develop closer, deeper and longer relationships with people known as customers or members (we typically call them readers or viewers or participants, as well).

In many ways, our firm operates like a custom media “agency” on behalf of our clients. And, more-and-more often, our clients are other media companies who want to outsource to us aspects of editorial or production processes.

I say all that because I’ve been instrumental over the years in trying to raise the visibility of the entire notion that companies like mine exist in the U.S. — independent media “agencies” or divisions of giant media companies — that are “custom publishers — or custom media” providers.

In the UK, the notion of “customer publishing” is more universally understood by publishers, marketers, journalists and readers. As I said, in the UK, they call it “customer publishing” a term that never caught on in the U.S., because, well, those of us who started the Custom Publishing Council didn’t want to limit our market universe to those who had only “customers” when a lot of our work was focused on publishing magazines for clients who have readers with names like: members, alumni, patients, employees, supporters, donors, passengers, etc. It’s sort of like back when a former head of the IRS wanted to start calling tax-payers “customers.” The designation just didn’t work.

Sorry for all that rambling on the way to getting to the following question:

Today, in The Guardian, there is an article about Dennis Publishing starting a customer publishing “arm” that includes this quote:

“Dennis Publishing is to launch a customer publishing arm under the creative watch of former Maxim editor Derek Harbinson to produce print and digital magazines for businesses in a bid to create new revenue streams. The new subsidiary, Dennis Communications, which will sit alongside the firm’s traditional consumer publishing division and focus on producing traditional print and digital customer magazines, which will offer bespoke video footage, moving imagery and editorial.

I followed that all the way to the part where it says “will offer bespoke video footage, moving imagery…”

As I know there are a few UK media-types who occasionally tune into my RSS feed, I’m wondering if any of you could translate that phrase “bespoke video footage and moving imagery” into American.

I’m sorry if you landed here thinking this was going to be a helpful explanation about what Twitter is. I’ve given up on attempting to explain Twitter. And chances are, if you’re someone who wants to understand something by reading about it instead of using it, then you’ll probably never understand it.

Twitter is really easy to explain: You set up an account so people can follow what you have to say via the web or instant messaging or via text-messaging on a mobile phone. Unfortunately, Twitter is apparently incredibly difficult to understand, because any time I explain it, the response is inevitably something like: “Uh, so why would you want people to do that — and why would they care?”

Unlike with some online phenomena, understanding Twitter is not a “generational” thing. Twitter is not one of those fads that caught on among kids that has worked its way up the age-chain. It’s more like Google, in that it started as a drop-dead simple solution to a problem no one knew they had — and has become an obsession with a sub-set of tech-geeks and people obsessed with the nature of online community and conversation (I confess).

My then 16-year-old son was with me last March at South by Southwest where Twitter first grabbed the attention of the geekorati. He observed the obsession’s ground-zero, but I’m sure he’d echo the quote from the daughter of this NY Times columnist, who says, “I’m looking at the site right now, and I don’t get the point.” Here’s my theory why teenagers don’t get the point: There’s a feature on Facebook called “status updates” that does everything a teenager would care to do with Twitter, so why bother? To high school and college students, Twitter is like Facebook without the dozens of other things they like about Facebook — except on Facebook, your parents can’t follow you if you don’t allow them to. (You can block someone on Twitter or opt to limit the visibility of your message to only those you follow, but the common practice is to allow anyone to become a follower — really, why not?)

I’d feel worse about my inability to convey to others any level of understanding of why Twitter is important but in comparison to some explanations I’ve seen and heard, I do a decent job. But, unfortunately, we all fail because we drift into explaining Twitter by telling how we use it. But the most amazing thing about Twitter is this: everyone uses it differently.

It’s a little like trying to explain the telephone by describing what people talk about on the phone. “Telephones are devices that teenagers use to spread gossip.” “Telephones are the devices people use to contact police when bad things happen.” “Telephones are the devices you use to call the 7-11 to ask if they have Prince Albert in a can.”

Like the Internet itself, Twitter is hard to explain because it doesn’t really have a point. And it has too many points. Here’s what I mean: All it does is provide a common-place to relay short messages to a group of people who agree to receive your messages. Here’s the second part of what i mean: When you stop thinking those short messages aren’t limited to “I’m about to get on the elevator” but can be eye-witness accounts of breaking news stories or bursts of business-critical intelligence, or warnings that a gun-man is loose on campus, or shared conversations about political debates you and your friends are watching on TV, the possibilities of what can be done using Twitter becomes amazingly confusing — I think in a good way. It’s easy to understand something when you think it’s limited to Prince Albert in a can prank calls. It’s more difficult to understand when you start imagining the ways something that’s today more toy than tool can be used to create new models of communication, conversation and community. It’s even more difficult to imagine that something called Twitter will morph into a serious business platform — or that it will one day save lives. But it will.

Technorati Tags: twitter

It’s true, I’m not a fan of the term “content marketing” and would never apply that term to the work I do. That said, I really like some people who are evangelizing the use of the term “content marketing” who have honored this blog with a high ranking on a new list of bloggers who write about what they believe the term describes (more on that in a minute).

So since I’m an accidental (but appreciative) “content marketing” blogger, I’d like to use this new authority to explain fully why I don’t like or use the term “content marketing” except when a potential client is using it to describe something they’d like to hire my firm to do. (The same is true for “Web 2.0″ or any other term I may accidentally be associated with.)

See, I have a problem with the word content when used to describe what I create. I believe using the word “content” voluntarily to describe what I do insults the talent, skill, creativity and craft that goes into the media my colleagues and I create and manage in collaboration with our clients. I believe the term “content marketing” makes it sound like I’m marketing a service to shovel out some commodity created primarily to fill up space or time. Creating “content” is not what we do. Helping tell brand stories. Adding value to products. Encouraging loyalty or involvement. Educating. Activating. Those are the things the talented individuals at our company do with and for the talented individuals who are our clients. “Generating content” is absolutely the least valuable of all the services we provide. And I say that knowing the “content” we create is consistently judged to be among the best “content” created by people at companies like ours.

Longtime readers of this blog know my go-to muse on the topic of the term “content” is the philosopher Doc Searls who summarizes everything I believe when he says (and I’m leaving it precisely in his vernacular), “Stop calling everything ‘content.’ It’s a bullshit word that the dot-commers started using back in the ’90s as a wrapper for everything that could be digitized and put online. It’s handy, but it masks and insults the true nature of writing, journalism, photography, and the rest of what we still, blessedly (if adjectivally) call ‘editorial.’ Your job is journalism, not container cargo.”

End of rant.

I need to be very clear: I have nothing personal against my friends and industry colleagues who want to use the term “content marketing” to describe a business category. I don’t use the term — but I’m not leading any faction that’s “anti-” anything. I’m for whatever anyone can do to let marketers know there are companies out there who can help them create and manage media used in building brands and creating communities. And I’m honored that my weblog is ranked #13 on the new Junta 42 Top Content Marketing Blogs. And I’m (big surprise here) enough of a self-promoter to encourage people to go there and “vote” (hitch) this blog up the list. And I’m also enough of a search-engine geek to know that if the marketplace wants to call the business I’m in “content marketing,” then I’m not going to try to hide from the term when potential clients are searching for it. So, “content marketing” searchers, head right over to Hammock.com if you’re looking for a company that can help you solve any editorial or graphic design or video or online content marketing needs you may have. Anything not involving container cargo ship content, in other words.

Oh, and another thing: if you haven’t fallen asleep yet, you must actually be interested in “content marketing” (or custom media, customer media, custom publishing, customer media, conversational media, conversation marketing, etc.) so let me also point you to a new weblog on Hammock.com called Custom Media Craft. It’s tightly focused on the “crafts” used in our development and management of brand story telling. Oh, wait. Another term for another post.

Technorati Tags: cluetrain, custommedia, custompublishing, doc searls, hammockinc

On a new blog at Hammock.com called “Custom Media Craft,” I’ve just posted a “think piece” called 2008: The Year of Mediacasting, along with a sidebar post called 8 Mediacasting Ideas for 2008.

Excerpt:

“The goal of most corporate and association marketers should be to use digital and online content to generate actions, not to attract eyeballs. The content doesn’t need to be on your website — the content needs to be in the hands, and ears, and eyes, and heads of your members or customers. Unless your business model is advertising, page views are not the correct metric to measure your online strategy. Action, engagement, sales, enrollment, loyalty, retention, increased contributions, advocacy and education are business goals that require you to get your message (”content”) to your audience — in any way they want to receive it. In 2008, let your content extend beyond your website. Cast it out in any way you can.”

Read the rest: here.

I was surprised to learn via an e-mail from a friend that my post yesterday about the election-night community experience of using Twitter became the basis of a story in this morning’s Nashville Tennessean. (Admittedly, I was more surprised that my ego-trackers did not catch it first.)

I’m a bit amused by the headline, “Local blogger turns on to Twitter during New Hampshire primaries” as it captures the addictive nature of using Twitter in such a context. Fact is, I’ve been turned onto Twitter for a long time as it has merely extended (and replaced) ways I’ve previously participated in conversational communities. For those who may wonder, why Twitter? I’ll say, it works for me — now. It has attracted a critical mass of early users among individuals I know online. Also, the key features of selecting how to receive and send messages (via text, IM, etc.) make it a drop-dead simple method of relaying messages if you’re a person (like me) who moves from browser to e-mail client to IM to mobile device constantly.

As I have many off-line friends who will read the print version of the Tennessean, I am already prepared for the type of comment I get whenever I show up in a story like this: “Hey, I read that story about you doing that whatch-a-ma-callit thing.”

“The Peanut Gallery” (via)

Last night’s post-primary coverage reminded me of something. Actually, it reminded me of many things. But, the first thing that came to mind was November 8, 1994. It was the mid-term election and for an association client of Hammock Inc., a group of us helped coordinate an online election-night forum on CompuServe — a quaint little online service that used to make buggy whips. A hundred or so participants from around the country — all watching TVs at home — were chatting away about the coverage they were viewing and their response to it.

That experience led me to appreciate the enjoyment individuals have in experiencing live events in a shared-way — even if it’s from the cheap seats way up in some dial-up text-only bleachers. That night, I realized that a news event — or any type of event, say a sporting contest — is no longer merely the topic of water-cooler talk the next morning, it’s a potential real-time community gathering. A giant couch filled with friends and foes who are witty or idiotic, but who all together give an additional dimension to the event.

Since 1994, I’ve participated — and hosted — many such online gatherings, primarily among a small group of friends or colleagues. Often the gathering is done via Instant Messaging or Internet Relay (IRC) if the group is comprised of tech-savvy participants. In the past, I’ve discussed on this blog how live events can be experienced in a completely new way when such “back channels” are available so that friends — or even strangers — can interact with one another about what they are both observing or participating in.

Last night, I had an I-see-the-light moment on Twitter when I realized that it has become — for a small segment of the world, at least — a giant real-time peanut gallery for experiencing events. I’ll admit, my additions to the conversation were mostly goofy or rude comments about what was taking place — sorta like watching the State of the Union Address on Comedy Central, but not funny. Others, however, were providing insightful and informative data (@patrickrufinni, for example).

While I’ve occasionally used Twitter for comments about sporting events, this is the first time I’ve jumped into the deep end of posting tweets on Twitter at a blistering pace. (Which is something I often un-follow people for doing.) My tweets were not worth reposting here as they — this can be said about Twitter in general — lose their meaning out of context.

However, I do know this. Using Twitter sure beats screaming at the TV.

Sidenotes: Twitter sure could benefit from having a feature that allows the creation of “groups” for topic-specific tweets. Also, the folks at Politweets.com are using the Twitter API to isolate and display tweets that include the names of candidates. A little bit glitchy but a very creative example of how Twitter can be used for something other than a confusing stream of unrelated chatter.

Note: I’ve also cross-posted this on my “People Page” at Hammock.com.

Marshall Kirkpatrick explains a new service called Tweeterboard that analyzes data about users of Twitter.

Quote:

“While you can look at the number of followers and friends a person has on Twitter to get some idea of how much weight they carry, that’s only good for so much. So is a black-box algorithm, but there’s a variety of data available on Tweeterboard beyond simple ranking and points.”

Currently, there are about 2,000 Twitter users being tracked on Tweeterboard (here’s mine),

Speaking of Twitter, good luck to my Twitter-friend @susanreynolds (#9 on the Twitterboard Top 100) who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and is under-going surgery on Friday (she’s blogging her treatment journey here). Several of Susan’s Twitter friends have added “peas” to their avatars (the little photos or illustrations representing the user) in moral support of Susan. Why peas? Well, it’s a long story. Let’s just say, it’s one of those “you had to be there” things. Being Southern, I’ve added blackeyed peas to mine. Peas on earth, Susan.

Following USA Today and other newspapers owned by Gannett, the Nashville Tennessean is in the process of relaunching its website with new “social media” and personalization tools. It even has a catchy new Web 2.0ish slogan: “Powered by You and The Tennessean.

The pre-release version of the site can be seen at beta.tennessean.com. As with USA Today and other newspapers in the Gannett chain, the new site’s social media features are being run on the SiteLife platform from the Austin-based company, Pluck.

Observation: Pluck recently announced plans to develop features for SiteLife that utilize Facebook and OpenSocial APIs, leading, in theory at least, to some far and distant promised land where one can centralize and manage ones identity and online activities with a little more ease. Did I say far and distant?

Opinion: My favorite online version of the Tennessean continues to be m.tennessean.com, the stripped down mobile version.

Despite trying for the past two decades, I’ve never come close to boiling everything I believe about marketing into a statement so efficient as the following one I read in the NY Times this morning in an article about Nike and where they are spending their “advertising” dollars these days.:

“We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive,” (Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global brand and category management) says he tells many media executives. “We’re in the business of connecting with consumers.”

Only change I would suggest: Instead of using the word consumers, use the word runners.

Tag tracking Networked Journalism Summit event I’m attending today: netj. I won’t be ‘live-blogging’ the event, but will be posting some random snips from sessions and will (I’m guessing) be tweeting some from it.

Random snips from Local Pioneers session:

BostonNow - BostonNow.com uses the incentive of getting into print as motivation for bloggers. So “fame” is an incentive. Also, driving traffic to ones blog.

“Reverse publish” is a term being used to publish content from bloggers in print.

Observation from Rex: “Reverse publish” is not a good term.

Random snips from Revenue session:

My Football Writer. Great story of a sports-writer and advertising guy who were laid off from a local newspaper. Decided to join forces, start a website and sell advertising old school — pitch local advertisers in person. Now their former employer is among the advertisers on their site. Makes no money from national ad networks. Selling ads the local way. “People want to see their local ads.” They have an auction model site for local ads in Norwich.

Stephen Smyth of Reuters says Reuters is “exploring the idea of creating an advertising network” for bloggers that will also provide bloggers (in addition to revenue) more information about demographics of their audience.

Henry Copeland of BlogAds. “We’ve written tens of millions of dollars of checks to bloggers” in the past ten years. Today is “late in the game” to get into the advertising network business.

Random snips from International session:

Robbin Hamman of the BBC says they used to invite people to email in photos of a breaking news event and they’d use only 1/2 or 1%, so now they are asking people to post on Flickr and add to a specific pool, or to blog about something and use certain tags. “These are the tools they are using…it’s more honest with people who want to share the things they create.” Also, it’s hard to go through 50,000 emails to find the photos that aren’t fluffy kittens.

Technorati Tags: netj