But iPad ads show an early glimmer of hope
UPDATE: A sharp-eyed reader writes me to question whether I misconstrued that last quoted sentence there. And it sure looks like I may have. While I thought the sentence implied that the six advertisers had signed up for $400,000 packages, it could just be juxtaposed by an unfortunate “and.” I’ll ask the WSJ for a clarification and update when I hear back.
UPDATE No. 2: I’m told that the six advertisers did indeed pay about $400,000 each for the packages.
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
What to do if you find a baby bird
Expert advice
Inside Google’s secret lab
We might deplore the practice, but posting pictures of our food online is a way to bring everyone to the table
How the ‘World’s 50 Best’ list changed the way elite restaurants do business
“Every time the restaurant switched up its format, it got plenty of accompanying media coverage that let judges know they needed to return to see what was going on”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
Anyone with an iPad obviously has extra money to burn. It's like they filled out a survey saying they I spend rediculous amounts of money on things I don't need. Why not charge such people extra, as the WSJ is doing.
#1 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 02:26 PM
Anyone with an iPad obviously has extra money to burn. It's like they filled out a survey saying they spend rediculous amounts of money on things they don't need. Why not charge such people extra, as the WSJ is doing.
#2 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 02:26 PM
Re. your:
“This is a good example of why journalists should always try to use real dollars, not nominal ones—especially when comparing two numbers separated by a lot of time.”
here’s a memorable example, numbers from:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/TABLEnum.html
At its January 2000 peak, the nominal Dow was a factor 30.9 times higher than at its September 1929 peak, 70.3 years earlier. But consumer prices (CPI-U) rose by a factor 9.8 during this 70.3 yr interval. So, the Real Dow (i.e., the Dow’s consumer purchasing power) rose by just a factor 3.2 during this 70.3 yr interval.
A stated factor 30.9 increase is far more impressive than a stated factor 3.2 increase -- but the factor 9.8 of ‘more impressive’ is ALL FALSE.
Chart is here:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf
#3 Posted by Ed, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 03:28 PM
The only significant advantages I can see with an iPad are its light weight and claimed 10-hour battery life.
The lack of a physical keyboard and being restricted to Apple's diktats about what software can be run are major negatives, along with no memory card slot or USB ports. You can buy a Windows netbook for less than $300, compared to $500 for the cheapest iPad.
#4 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 04:10 PM
The WSJ pricing for the iPad may indicate that the Journal doesn't think it will be able to sell enough ads to subsidize costs the way ads in the print paper are supposed to. Murdoch and Hinton have been outspoken in saying that Web-based journalism will evolve to a model in which advertising subsidies of the real cost of delivering news will inevitably diminish. That leaves subscribers to pick up the burden. Still, you'd think the avoided cost of newsprint and delivery people around would permit less aggressive pricing. .
#5 Posted by billinboston, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 11:52 AM
Ryan,
You're right that the inflation-adjusted numbers are more meaningful (though I think there are limitations there, too), and more striking. Mea culpa.
But I'm not so sure about your contention that selling out the ad inventory to a single "launch sponsor" for some period of time is a bad idea. I have no idea what sort of financial terms The Times made with Chase. But as you know, these arrangements aren't that unusual, the people who sell the ads know more about it than you or I do, and I think it's a fair guess that they wouldn't do it unless it reaped more money than the usual practice of selling to advertisers one by one.
#6 Posted by Richard Perez-Pena, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 12:01 PM
As an ad agency executive, I watch this closely because newspapers -- on paper or in pixels -- are a medium for reaching consumers and shoppers as well. Here was my take:
http://admajoremblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/party-like-its-1963.html
#7 Posted by Steve Schildwachter, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 10:52 AM