Categories
Opinion

“Monetizing Content” at The Commercial Appeal

It started with two little words: “sponsored by.”

Those words appeared in tiny type above a small Boyle Investment Company logo and a collection of short news items about commercial real estate in the Sunday business section of The Commercial Appeal two weeks ago.
The column is called “Done Deals.” Many readers probably paid little or no attention to the sponsorship. But the issue of sponsored news, or “monetizing content” as the CA calls it, is sending a shock wave through the newsroom at 495 Union.

Sources at the CA say sponsorship of an upcoming series of stories about Memphis and world business was scratched after the writer, editor, and other reporters objected. A staff meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 17th.

The reporter, Trevor Aaronson, and the editor, Louis Graham, declined to comment. Flyer sources said as many as 50 newsroom employees signed a petition expressing their concerns about sponsored stories. The story is about business in China and was to be sponsored by FedEx.

CA editor Chris Peck declined to comment about the FedEx sponsorship or the series, which has not yet been published. He did comment about “Done Deals” and the general issue of sponsored news.

The Commercial Appeal, like most newspapers these days, is looking for ways to monetize content,” Peck wrote in an e-mail. “This is part of the new business model that will support journalism in the future. The Web is way ahead of newspapers on this. Online, many ads already are linked directly to particular content.”

Peck said there was no expectation by Boyle or the CA that the sponsorship would influence content. “Advertisers clearly understand the value of having their paid messages associated with independently reported, relevant content,” Peck wrote. Some newsroom employees apparently do not share that view.

Flyer sources say Peck, Graham, and Aaronson had what is sometimes called a “frank exchange of views” about the proposed sponsorship of Aaronson’s series, which involved considerable investment in time and travel expenses by the newspaper. Representatives of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school and resource center in Florida, were called in.

“Two of us on the Poynter faculty, myself and Butch Ward, have had telephone conversations with individuals at The Commercial Appeal,” said Bob Steele of Poynter. “We play this role as a guide on ethics issues hundreds of times every year.”

Poynter’s input was confidential, Steele said. Flyer sources say Poynter sided with the employees who objected.

Three weeks ago Peck and Rob Jiranek, vice president of sales and strategic planning, sent employees a three-page letter on “monetizing content guidelines.” The main message was that “we are in a new world of newspaper survival” and looking for ways to “attach ads in print and online to specific stories, features, and sections.” The memo said “no longer are there thick, impenetrable walls between the newsroom, advertising, and circulation departments.”

“Survival” apparently means big profits. The Commercial Appeal is owned by E.W. Scripps, a publicly traded media company based in Cincinnati. In 2006, its newspaper division, with papers in 17 markets, earned $196 million on revenue of $717 million, for a profit margin of 27 percent. The CA’s share of that was not disclosed. On Tuesday, Scripps announced that it is splitting into two separate companies, one focused on lifestyle media, such as HGTV, and the other on local newspapers and television stations.

“The proposed separation is not expected to have a material effect on the day-to-day lives of employees,” the company said.

Sponsorship is a relatively new wrinkle in a murky area that includes “special sponsored sections” and “advertorials,” or text-heavy advertisements that look like news stories. Such sections have long been a staple of business at the Flyer, Memphis magazine, and national publications. Targeted ad placement, where an ad appears near or next to a particular story or type of story, is also commonplace.

But most newspapers maintain separate advertising and editorial staffs. That is sometimes referred to as a mythical “10-foot wall.” Advertisers, of course, are free to complain about sensitive stories, and they sometimes withdraw ads. Sponsorship of specific news reports goes back at least to the 1950s when Gillette and Camel cigarettes were big on sports. The Philadelphia Inquirer has a business feature sponsored by a bank.

Most reporters, however, are comfortable with their employer being sponsored by a collection of advertisers but not their specific reports or stories. Many newspapers, including the CA and the Flyer, are quite strict about what perks their reporters can accept. Bob Levey, a former columnist for The Washington Post who holds the Hardin Chair of Excellence in Journalism at The University of Memphis, said, “News columns should never be for sale or for lease.”

Internal CA Monetization Memo

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant

Well, gosh darn. Shoot. Heck yeah. Finally.

Believe it or not, the Bush administration military is saving you

some money! That’s right, just when you thought you’d heard all you could possibly hear from those cowardly, whining liberals about the government spending all of your money on an illegal war

about oil and commerce and hiring those monstrous, over-charging companies like Halliburton and Blackwater to march in and help the peace process going on with Operation Iraqi Freedom, your United States military has figured out a way to cut costs so that your tax dollars aren’t spent so frivolously. Did you ever think that would happen? I didn’t. What with all of the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent on the war so far to keep us all safe here “on American soil,” I really couldn’t figure out a way for the government to shave some of that spending without really making us more and more vulnerable to attack here at home again. That kind of protection does really cost a lot of money, you know. But they did it. They found a way. There’s been a little coverage of it on some of the cable news networks but not really all that much, so I figured I would at least do my part in congratulating them. Have you ever heard of the Minnesota National Guard or, as they are sometimes called, the Red Bull Brigade? Well, just in case you haven’t, they volunteered to serve and help out during crisis situations in their own state, like most National Guard units. When the war with Iraq busted loose and they were needed, they did their duty. And they did so longer than most anybody who’s served over there yet. Most of them were there for an unprecedented 22 months. They were there in the middle of all that hell, fighting on the ground, never knowing from one minute to the next if they were going to be blown to bits and they stuck it out — ALMOST until the bitter end. Luckily, the military let them come home a little early. While some of them were home in May of this year, Vice President Dick Cheney was so moved by their service — you know what a nice man he is! — he went up there and gave a speech. He was so impressed with his words, he put the speech on the White House Web site: “America is also deeply grateful to the men and women of the Red Bull Division — the 34th Infantry Division. Your recent missions include operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Egypt, and Honduras. And you have mobilized and deployed in the global war on terror. You’ve sent in units as part of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and right now soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team are on the ground in Iraq as part of the largest overseas deployment of the Minnesota National Guard since World War II. Our nation owes an incalculable debt to all branches of the armed forces, and to the Guard and Reserve units all across the country. It is impossible to overstate how much they’ve done to make this nation safer, and to bring freedom, stability, and peace to a troubled part of the world.” That was really sweet of him, wasn’t it? And really sweet of the military to let them come home early. Yes, it was just one day early, but still. And now there are some left-wing nuts out there who are angry because it has come out that the reason they let them come home one day early is because that way, they don’t have to give them as much financial aid to go to school as they would have if they had stayed there in hell that extra ONE DAY. See, if they had stayed the extra ONE DAY, the government would have to give them roughly $800 a month in education benefits. But since they brought about half of them home ONE DAY early, they have to pay them only about $200 a month. And that is where the army is saving you, the taxpayer, a lot of money! See, it was a really smart move on the Army’s part. Oh, yes, some of the soldiers think it stinks while some of the others, who are just a bit more patriotic, say they think that the decision to bring them home a day early could possibly have been just an oversight or a fluke. Shame on those soldiers who are complaining about being treated this way for their service in the war in Iraq. It’s not like they really did all that much. So what if they had to live through that nightmare for almost two years of their lives and lose jobs and be away from loved ones and all that? Don’t they know the government and especially its military chiefs have to show some fiscal responsibility? In fact, they just did it again. Get this from CBS News: “The opening of a mammoth, $600 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which had been planned for last month, has now been delayed well into next year, U.S. officials said. The Vatican-sized compound, which will be the world’s largest diplomatic mission, has been beset by construction and logistical problems. ‘They are substantially behind at this point’ and it would be surprising if any offices or living quarters could be occupied before the end of the year, one official told the Associated Press on Thursday.” Now then. See? I bet if they just cut out the $200 in benefits altogether, rather than giving these veterans the ridiculously high sum of $800 a month in benefits, they might just be able to go ahead and get this construction project finished. I bet if this building is for the top officials in the army, it will be really swell.