Keep up the good work.

Is that sentence in English?

Hi, and apologies for not responding sooner – I’ve celebrated the New Year by feeling increasingly unwell!

To set the record straight a bit, I definitely did not claim that Unique User figures should be treated as an equivalent to print readership data, although I realise I should have made that clearer in my comment on Jeff’s blog.

And I’d agree that aggregation, behavioral targeting and productive conversations are definitely signs of effective transition.

However, and with the greatest respect to my colleagues in research, I would say that the appropriate online measurements are a more effective tool for seeing how people really interact and respond to content than print readership data.

Any online measurement is susceptible to an amount of inaccuracy due to people deleting cookies, using proxy servers, using different computers at work and at home, etc.

But offline measurement is susceptible to assumptions based on delivery/sales, and the simple fact that most people will claim they act in a different way to what they actually do! Surveys, for example, are often as much as measurement of how people would like to act/be perceived as much as what they’ve actually done.

The only real way to measure what a person does is to be able to monitor them without them being consciously aware of it – something that’s happened in ‘retail science’, and something which can be done online with a reasonable amount of accuracy, but much less offline.

Lastly, I’d agree that local business need, and will pay to reach local customers – however, I’d want to make sure that there was a caveat that this might not be traditional display advertising on, or offline – more businesses are discovering having their own website, blog, or alternative method can be productive, and although this really is still in the early stages, it’s going to accelerate pretty quickly!

Catching up on the later comments – personally I can’t see any content providing me with a reason to pay for a print product which degrades, gets lost, doesn’t allow interaction etc, when I can access relevant content quickly and easily online at home, on the train, and at work with the very latest updates.

However, editorial staff can create value which will ensure I visit their sites if they’re able to convey the best information, with additional context, insight, and in ways which are engaging…

Odd, I see it just the opposite. My local station just featured a “Palestinian Family” (there is no country of “Palestine” waiting for the residents of Gaza to leave behind terrorism and become a non-failed state)

Also, there is a magical morphing of the victims referred to in the first post that I quote. Israel was quite effective in targeting Hamas fighters and rocket launchers.

So I would say instead “Over three hundred terrorist thugs in Gaza have been killed and some unfortunate civilian victims – and still the terrorist thugs are launching rockets into Israel — and still the truth isn’t being portrayed in the lefty media”

Take your Ritalin, maybe you can stay on task for a few moments…

I agree with part of the comment about local coverage. However, how many times are you going to fling the newspaper in disgust over the national coverage on the front page, which is ancient news in internet time, and which you already know the other side of the story from sites like National Review. The assumption on the part of the news editor is that the average reader has no idea that they are having information withheld from them, but this is just not true anymore. It used to be that you could get the alternative news from Rush, but now you can get it anywhere.

Newspapers are fast becoming as popular as self published novels, and for the same reason. Self indulgence just doesn’t sell.

I have this fantasy that newspapers would simply report facts, and ask questions of politicians to which they did not already know the answers they wanted to hear. Things like that. Instead, it seems that the whole mission of the news media is to game elections in particular ways.

and many others…all free and excellent content providers.

I suggest a few core issues for reflection and discussion:

What is the value and purpose of advertising? Is it to raise revenue OR connect a real client with a needed product? It has too long simply “covered space” e.g. ads even on restroom stalls and shopping carts, purchase receipts, etc.

Shouldn’t cost of advertising be primarily paid by the purchaser of a product or service when they buy either?

What is the value and purpose of journalism? Most people appreciate and often enjoy a well written and reasoned article (paper OR on-line), even if written by the “opposition.” Are readers willing to pay for “journalism” in any form?

What information does society need to educate the populace to make informed decisions, especially in a representative democracy like the USA? Should this information be provided “free” or for a cost? How can “bias” be minimized?

Many times I find the comments section to be as informative and thoughtful as an original article being commented on.

This is one CLEAR advantage for on-line readers – the ability to respond to an author and to find others views both pro and con.

I use a STRONG ad-blocker on web pages, so I don’t have to put up with UNWANTED “PUSH” advertising.

However, I often use search engines, particularly on Amazon, if I WANT to purchase something (PULL advertising).

In the end, I think technology will resolve advertising issues because users will find appropriate suppliers/distributors in the most efficiently way possible due to electronic technology.

Advertising as done in the past may be a dinosaur, except for visual advertising as done in magazines or commercial literature.

More difficult is how to determine the “value” of intellectual information. It may take a long time, or never.