Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Publishers Should Create 'Toll Gate' For Premium Content?

.
I just wish they would be a little "moore" truthful in their dealings with many 'fringe' players in this fledgling
digital advertising - publisher industry. (As I'm seeing it all).

The fore-runners (the many early starters) in the business of Ad Networks (in particular) are appearing to me to be, well, almost "wood-duck-like" the further this all goes. (Many won't survive).

Instead of the IAB (Club) continuing to 'spin' all sorts of stories to shield what would obviously appear to me to ultimately be, a 'win-win-win' overall for those concerned (or, I mean, at least for those that come through the other side) - so it's time they got 'fair dinkum' (yes, "moore" honest) for a change, is how I feel.

This somewhat (and yet, another controversial type article of diatribe coming from the IAB's poor pathetic attempt at being a 'flag waiving' public relations machine, of late) has IMHO, more than raised the ire of those that should (or, could by now), know better.

Certainly if a few comments that have been made on the 'theme' contained in it, are anything to go by.

And I'd imagine (?) like [-minded] consumers (& in regards to this
'Toll Gate' idea) - there are many of them (& myself), who just won't "buy it"..

< David Moore the IAB board of directors chairman, posed the question to attendees during his opening remarks at the IAB Annual Leadership Meeting 2010 on Sunday night in Carlsbad, Calif.

The digital premium content model is broken and advertising alone cannot support the cost of premium content, according to Moore, who laid out several predictions that will change online advertising forever.> 

"Bold Predictions From 24/7 Real Media's Moore: Publishers Should Create 'Toll Gate' For Premium Content" by Laurie Sullivan

The very 1st comment made (Mark McLaughlin's) and the link he has provided does tell it in pretty good fashion, I feel.

http://www.mcstrat.com/audiencesdon'tpayforcontent

McLauglin points out (and rightly so, I feel), when he writes ...........

"do not lose sight of the value of the advertising supported model. ... We are in the middle of a complex media transformation and a brutal recession".

That with
the advent of real-time bidding (RTB) that has barely started, there are many changes that lie ahead and certainly (it would appear), for a sustainable (and profitable, at that) future for the very players that the IAB's board of directors chairman, has so kindly gone in to 'bat' for.

http://www.adexchanger.com/ad-exchange-news/iab-meeting-tolman-geffs-exchanges-networks/

And with the very (global) 'nature' of RTB whatever happened to those stories getting about, like..... (as an eg;
Sep 2008).

"The Guardian is a strong brand to work with. The site showed a global audience of 20.6m unique users and ... over 186m page impressions in July's ABCE audit, which just goes to show how popular the product is internationally." - The Guardian signs ad inventory deal with Ad2One - (Yes, it's a 'pay-wall')

It was only yesterday that I had read of the 10 Things to Consider When Choosing an Ad Network - Food Blog Alliance

........."Ads for the most part work off of a CPM model, or "Cost Per Thousand" impressions..Let's just say you can get a $3 net CPM for all the ads (combined) on your pages. That means at 1000 page views a day, you'll make $3 per day from those ads, or $90 a month."

Have those International "uniques" suddenly stopped reading the news on The Guardian, I wonder? It's the smaller and dedicated publishers I feel for, unless they have a 'unique' (and vertical-ised) type content, that they can then (hopefully) survive on.

And a (such) "worse case scenario" for the UK's Guardian, means?

[186m page impressions/1000 ='s 186,000 x's $90 ='s $16,740,000, no?]

The UK's Guardian (12 months) ='s $200,880,000 - resulting from those International "uniques".

LC

ps; [Added 3rd of Feb, 2011 - How do those eCPM's (that were quoted 12 months ago @ just $3 net) appear NOW (for the Guardian et al), when "users" are NOW capable of being 'targeted' across the whole web and at the individual impression level? 

The steady 'rise' in share-price value shown here in recent times is 'no fluke' and tells the story to unfold, is what I am saying.

finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NYT+Interact...;range=1y]

Disclosure: Long LOOK