Moses Kagan's Aurora Borealis

Why are NY Times reporters anonymous in an age where reputation is all that matters, particularly online?

NY Times reporters create incredibly high-quality content. Yet, with the exception of the very small by-line atop (or sometimes below) each article, they are basically anonymous to everyone but hard-core media geeks.

So, NY Times Digital:

• Create a profile page for each reporter
• Include pictures and bio information
  
• Include links and intro paragraphs from each of the reporter's articles
• Include a comments area for interactions
• If available, include links to reporter's Facebook, MySpace, etc.

Doing this would cost nothing and would open up an entirely new, more social way to consume the content the Times is already paying to create. Plus, the addition of social features would spur entirely new kinds of interactions between reporters and their fans.

So, NYT, what are you waiting for?

Labels: internet, newspapers, ny times

Here's a quote from John McCain's communications director about the NY Times article alleging McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist:

"It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election."

I actually like McCain, but good old Jill may be over-stating her case a bit. Here's the relevant section from McCain's Wikipedia entry:

"McCain's upwards political trajectory was jolted when he became enmeshed in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s... Between 1982 and 1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet...

Eventually [Keating's] real estate venture failed, leaving many broke. Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators were convicted of any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating."

Labels: McCain, ny times

Ecstatic reports today about the NY Times finally dropping Times Select, the paid subscription wall hiding the NY Times Op-Ed content. Paidcontent has the numbers.

And, according to Alleyinsider, Murdoch is going to go in the same direction, trading the subs revenue from 1m online readers for ad sales revenue on an audience of 10-15m.

Everyone will, of course, be writing about how this is a big victory for the Internet, openness, blah blah blah. But what about reports that CPMs are trending down, at least at AOL? What happens when the newspapers, attempting to recoup the lost subs revenue, walk right into a (potentially) declining ad market with more volume to sell?

Not sure I'd like to own NY Times Co. stock right around when earnings reports next come out.

Labels: advertising, internet, newspapers, ny times

The NY Times is 33% better than the London Times.

Not in terms of content, which is not really measureable anyway. In terms of design.
Because the NYT incorporates a few simple elements into its front page, it has become a sort of de facto homepage for a highly desirable demographic of educated Americas.

This is where the 33% comes from: The average visitor visits the NYT site 1.6 times per day, compared to 1.1 times for the LT. That's 33% more often. (Stats from comScore, February 2007)

So what separates the NYT from the LT? Here are three quick items:
1. The NYT usually gives its most recently updated blogs a prominent position on the homepage. This means fresh content, everytime you visit. The LT hides its blogs away.

2. The NYT provides containts news feeds from Reuters or the AP. Again - new content each time you visit. The LT provides no feeds.

3. The LT homepage is highly monetised, with 4 major ad positions on the front page. The NYT, by contrast, has 1 major and many minor ad positions. Unclear whether this influences users at all.

Over the next few weeks, I'll spend some time looking at various newspaper sites and how they could be improved.

Labels: london times, newspapers, ny times