Newspaper Ad Network Shuns Google, Yahoo, MS

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.'"

Good, and not so good

[zappepcs]

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They need to quit writing crap

[WindBourne]

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:Good, and not so good

[Intron]

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Newspapers are dieing.

[PriceIke]

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:Good, and not so good

[sm62704]

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:Newspapers are dieing.

[Morris Thorpe]

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.

Demographics?

[LMacG]

"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.

Re:The mainstream media is largely worthless today

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:They need to quit writing crap

[WindBourne]

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.