The offering will begin Monday on a test basis in New York City, where it will cost $39.95 per month, and northern Ohio, including Cleveland and Akron, where it will cost $29.95 per month. Those prices are 12-month promotions, and Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff said the retail value of the package is $49.99 per month.

The package is aimed at lower-income customers that have been struggling in the weak economy. Time Warner Cable and other major cable operators have suffered a slowdown in their subscriber performance in recent quarters, with some consumers dropping cable TV service as unemployment remains high and the U.S. housing market continues to struggle.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

But the troubled Web property is a…really troubled Web property, its News Corp. parent stressed today. And it needs to get its act together before it gets kicked off campus.

That’s the message that COO Chase Carey took pains to get across during his company’s earnings call this afternoon.

Revenue at Myspace was down $70 million compared to the same quarter a year ago, the company said, and “traffic numbers are still not going in the right direction, Carey said. Which means that its “current losses are not acceptable or sustainable.”

Okay. But Myspace has been in decline for some time, and Jon Miller and Mike Jones have been trying to fix it for more than a year. And last year at this time, we heard a similar assessment, only then Carey kept calling the site a “work in progress.” So how much more time do they have?

Carey: “We judge in quarters, not in years.”

My understanding is that when Miller took the job as News Corp.’s chief digital officer in the spring of 2009, he believed he had a real shot at fixing the social network, which had already cooled from red-hot to not at all.

But sources in and out of News Corp. tell me that Miller and his team are now merely hoping to patch the service long enough to find a buyer. Perhaps no one has told Carey, who seems to be conducting an anti-sales pitch.

——————-

EARLIER:

First look at Rupert Murdoch’s latest report card: News Corp. ended the September quarter with revenue of $7.4 billion and earnings of $0.27 a share (after factoring out a one-time tax gain). That’s almost exactly what the Street was looking for–expectations were $7.4 billion and $0.24 per share.

A quick run-through by unit:

• Cable: Up, because ad dollars are up and so are those affiliate fees that cable providers don’t want to pay but do.
• Movies: Down, because last year the company had an “Ice Age” movie in its results, and this year it’s fairly hit-less. It is making money selling reruns of “How I Met Your Mother,” though.
• Broadcast TV: Up, because local TV stations are doing better than last year, when they were still crippled by the recession.
• Satellite: Down, because costs were up.
• Publishing: Up, because newspapers are doing better than last year, when they were terrible. Ad revenue is up 13 percent worldwide. (This is where I note that News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)
• Random other stuff: Down, in large part because of Myspace and the rest of News Corp.’s digital unit, which is still trying to turn around.

I’ll come back to liveblog the conference call at 4:30 eastern, in the hopes that Murdoch says something interesting about politics, pay walls, the economy, Myspace, Apple and/or Google. He usually does!

LIVEBLOG:

BIG bummer: No Rupert on call today–because he’s traveling. (Some place with no phones? What’s up with that?)

CFO Dave DeVoe running through segment performance.

Cable: Some boasting about Fox News, FX, Big 10 Network, etc.

Movies: Nothing new here.

TV: TV stations up, but broadcast network losses up big “from higher cancellation costs.”

Satellite: [Apologies, had to duck out for a second.]

Newspapers: Again, ads up in all big newspapers.

Other/Digital: $70 million lower search and ad revenue at Myspace y/y.

Guidance: Leaving unchanged (though DeVoe notes that Myspace is still under plan).

COO Chase Carey:

Lots of focus on our retrans deals, and they are “critical” to our future. “We will be taking this business to a whole new level of profitability.”

Lots of growth ahead in International pay TV market.

Walk through of “key initiatives” throughout the company.

[Still sulking over Rupert-less call.]

Fox Film hasn’t had breakout hits, but no stinkers “in an industry known for them.”

We’ve got Jim Cameron locked up for Avatar 2 and 3, you know. And Modern Family is going to make us a pile of money in syndication.

Wish the World Series wasn’t such a bummer, and a short one. But NFL on Fox doing great.

WSJ still growing. Building digital business that “will take time to emerge.” “We feel very good” about subscription business in U.K.

“We’ve been clear that Myspace has been a problem.”

But relaunching “and we feel really good about” it. “Current losses are not acceptable or sustainable” and current management knows it, even though it’s not their fault.

But we know that we have to work very hard in coming months to get this thing sustainable.

[This is some of the most negative commentary I've heard yet from News Corp. on Myspace. Hard to sell an asset when you're describing it this way.]

Q&A:

Myspace: How much time do you give the relaunch to figure out if it’s successful. And what if it’s not?

Carey: We judge in quarters, not in years. Goal is to get to a place where top-line revenue is going in the right direction and “a clear path to profitability.”

We feel good about the relaunch. But “our traffic numbers are still not going in the right direction” and we have to stabilize that.

Fox TV content on digital platforms: It’s available on Hulu and Fox.com. How is that strategy going, and will you continue to be open?

Carey: Broadly: “This digital arena is still evolving.” We’re very focused on managing rights. Key issues: Windows, ad load, pricing. [Not answering at all, really.] “We think the digital arena is a very important one” particularly mobile, iPad, but “look, scarcity of our product is a real value.” But we’re learning as we go. “I do think it’s important that the digital platforms continue to develop dual revenue stream options.” That’s critical, and options are just beginning to evolve.

More on Myspace: There are a lot of operations in “other” besides Myspace: Mobile, Fox Audience Network, etc. What else could improve there?

Carey: Only two other businesses in there: Mobile, and outdoor networks, (and IGN). Not a lot of room for growth in those businesses.

So it’s really about Myspace?

Yes.

Avatar: What’s upside here?

Carey: Sequel to the most successful film ever? It should be pretty good! “Enormous events, without comparison or rival.”

[Please bring Rupert back!]

Please talk about terms of new Cameron deal?

Nope.

On retrans: Cablevision said they got better terms by holding out for a couple weeks. How do you react to that? If true, will we see more of these holdouts?

[Also a question about BSkyB I'm not that interested in.]

Carey: Mostly I saw Cablevision complaining that the government didn’t bail them out. But we feel pretty good about where we are. We didn’t think the government needed to get into it, and it would have been nice if the government would have been clear up front “it may not have gone off the air at all,” but whatever–”this was a matter to be dealt with between private parties.” [Ignore all those press releases we sent out!]

Can you talk about advertising trends and expectations?

DeVoe [I think]: They haven’t changed.

Cable margins: How long can you keep growing them?

Carey: We have room to drive a number of our channels, via more distribution, jacking up fees, advertising, etc.

What about getting more money from regional sports networks?

Carey: Won’t get into specifics.

[We want Rupe! We want Rupe!]

International channels seem to be doing well. Where is that growth coming from?

Carey: Part of it is the weak U.S. dollar. But overall, growth is “big and broad.”

Oh man. Even Chase Carey is yawning as he answers the question.

[Skipping accounting question.]

Back to network TV: Please talk about sports programming costs, etc. NFL, baseball, NASCAR. You spend a lot. Does retrans help support those costs? Or will you move some of that to cable?

Carey: I don’t think it makes sense to differentiate broadcast and cable much anymore. That’s the point of retrans–to make broadcast look like cable, with dual revenue stream.

On sports: It’s expensive, and draws big crowds. “It’s a unique strength in a world of DVRS” but “they come with big price tags.” We’d like to continue running it, but we have to do it at the right price.

Retrans does help, though–networks that are only ad-supported won’t be able to pay for these rights over time. Still, gotta be disciplined, etc.

Back to digital: What’s going on with Google TV? Are you thinking about different devices and different screens as a way to window, instead of calendar? I.e.: Make it available on PC but not on the big screen, etc.

Carey: I think within the house, the difference between screens won’t matter. I do think mobile is a discrete platform. [And some general chatter about tablets.]

But generally, “our content is incredibly valuable” and “we’re not going to throw it out there for everybody” unless we get compensated for it.

[Boring question about syndicated TV. Carey flipping through papers]

Hey, what about M&A deals, like Yahoo?

“Things like Yahoo are because the press needs things to write about.” [Zing! Also, hey, Jon Miller!] “We don’t need to make any acquisitions. But if there’s something out there, we should consider it, but we’ll do it in a very disciplined way” like we have in the past. Generally, we’d rather build than buy. “But if we see something we can acquire at a very attractive price that fits, we’ll take a look at it.” We’re not shopping.

[Skipping another cable channel question.]

Time for press Q&A:

How do you make broadcast look more like cable?

Carey: Retrans fees, like we’ve been talking about for the past couple years.

What about doing “premium video” (windowing movie release on TV?).

Carey: Looking at it.

What about further delaying movies to Netflix, Redbox beyond 28-day window (Warner talked about this today)?

Carey: We’re okay right now, but we’re looking at it. But as VOD grows, windows will change and evolve. But right now “we feel what windowing we’ve done has been good for us.”

Color on Apple TV 99-cent rental, please:

Carey: It’s pretty new. Only relevant for the past month or so. Too early to judge.

What’s your vision for European and British markets after you buy Sky? Will you buy Endemol?

Carey: Don’t really want to talk about it, too early.

Please talk about Times of London pay wall performance to date. Also, what are you thinking about your iPad newspaper in the U.S.?

Carey: Re U.K.: “We feel very good about it. Realistically, it’s very early….This is not something that’s a one or two quarter game.”

Same thing with the “whole digital arena” evolving, etc.

Hah. Refuses to talk about iPad newspaper. Which is not a newspaper!

Call finished, mercifully.

It’s a smackdown of chit-chatting ladies, as CBS’s “The Talk” debuted this week, in an attempt to grab audience from the powerhouse daytime ABC talk show “The View.”

It’ll be hard, since those are some tough women on “The View,” which recently was in the spotlight after Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off the set in the middle of a segment with Fox News cable pundit Bill O’Reilly, after he impugned Muslims.

Here is a clip from “The View,” in which O’Reilly comic clone Stephen Colbert pretends to walk off the stage.

It’s followed by an opener for “The Talk”–the best part comes at the end, when Julie Chen’s husband, CBS CEO Les Moonves, offers his support in a welcome video, but also threatens to cancel the show if ratings are not good.

Enjoy:

Remember Rupert Murdoch’s plan to convince other media companies to join him behind a pay wall and offer their stuff only via subscription? It’s still around, in some form. We’ll hear more about it in “three to four weeks” Murdoch said today during News Corp.’s earnings call.

Just what Murdoch has in store isn’t entirely clear. Last year, he sent digital media head Jon Miller out to convince rival newspaper publishers to join News Corp.’s Wall Street Journal in the pay-to-play ring. But it appears that Murdoch may now be thinking of a subscription offering that extends beyond newspapers and into entertainment.

I’ve asked News Corp. if it has anything to add to Murdoch’s hazy comments this afternoon, but I’m not optimistic. I do think we’ll hear more about this before the press conference Murdoch plans for later this month, though.

Meanwhile, here’s some background on “Project Alesia,” the subscription/pay wall plan that may or may not be what Murdoch was talking about today.

Earlier

We’ve seen the numbers, so we know that News Corp. had a very nice quarter. Now let’s hear what Rupert Murdoch has to say about his company’s performance. I’m also interested to see how much ire Murdoch expresses for Google (GOOG) and how much ardor he has for Apple’s (AAPL) iPad, among other digital topics.

The following is a live paraphrase that includes my editorial notes; I’ll note direct quotes where appropriate.

Liveblog

Dave DeVoe going over numbers from the release.

Earnings include one-time items of three cents per share. [Should net that out of earlier reports when comparing to Wall Street expectations.]

Newspapers: Operating income up nearly five times. Higher advertising across nearly all markets. Forex helps, too.

“Other” (includes Myspace): Lower search and ad revenue, but costs are down.

Some balance-sheet talk: We’ve got a lot of cash on the books, and we know it. Some of it will get paid out to Jim Cameron and other participants in “Avatar.” But we’re working on ways to deploy the extra cash. We’ll get back to you on it by the next quarter.

Guidance: We’ve done better than anticipated in lots of our business for the last nine months, but our next quarter will be down. That’s because we expect the film business to be down $100 million, even including “Avatar” DVD releases (reason: We had very good quarter last year). Also, Fox Broadcast will be down. So we’re only bumping up guidance a bit.

Rupert Murdoch:

Exceptional results, “pretty much across the board.”

We’re psyched for five reasons:

1. Content. Really important, and we’re really good at it. Shout-outs for “Avatar,” Fox News Channel, newspapers, TV shows. “Fortune favors the bold,” etc. “We have the no. 1 national newspaper on all three continents.”

2. Technology: We’re good at that, too. The Apple iPad, “which I believe will lead a revolution in content consumption.” First month, 64,000 active users for The Wall Street Journal iPad app. “Unlike the Kindle, we keep 100 percent of the subscriber revenue from the iPad.” Innovative subscription model coming to deliver content to people whenever they want it (paging Jon Miller, James Murdoch).

[Apologies, lost the thread here. But Rupert is gung-ho about TV and other core businesses]

Q&A

Is there concern that you can’t keep growth in the next fiscal year? Can you?

Murdoch: Absolutely! Hedges on numbers. “We have a great slate of films coming up, but we don’t have an ‘Avatar’ in there.” If ad growth keeps up, “I think we can be very confident.”

COO Chase Carey: I agree! The ad market is actually picking up. Sports has been a little slower than other ad markets, and they’re now picking up. “Looks great.”

Question for Devoe: Please talk more about that big cash pile.

Murdoch: I can answer that! “We’re well aware that our balance sheet…is inefficient at the moment.” Increased dividends, stock buy backs, investing in our businesses, possibility of “opportunistic investments,” which we’ve been “nervous” about doing in past year but now we have some things we’re looking at. Cue M&A klaxons!

More color on the TV biz, please.

Carey: Strong recovery in most categories. Not just auto and telecom. Financial, insurance, all sorts of stuff. “It’s pretty broad.”

Murdoch: “We’re seeing pretty optimistic and expanded advertising budgets from the big advertisers.” Not sure when that money is coming, but would guess Q2, when they’re launching new cars. “There’s a lot of money out there on the boards.” And as free over-the-air audiences shrink–and ours is shrinking less–that money is finding its way to cable. So any show that can show any sort of advertising can attract money. “It feels good; that’s all I’m saying.”

Please talk about new retrans/carriage negotiations.

Carey: Fox News deals starting to come up. Will be staggered over a couple of years. “I think the Fox News network…is certainly–maybe with ESPN–second to none.” So pay up, cable guys! (And customers!)

Carey mounts a long defense of Sky Italia. I’ll refrain from transcribing.

Similarly, you’re probably not interested to read what he has to say about satellite TV in Europe.

Netflix is killing it. What does that mean for you guys? Good news because it says good thing about your library? Or maybe an opportunity for you to do more with your library?

Carey: Noncommittal answer. But: “There is a question whether the Netflix model is getting us fair value for our product.” So we’ll keep looking at windowing content and whether we’re getting paid enough for our stuff. “I think it’s a focus.”

Please talk about Fox Audience Network plans and MySpace/Google plans.

Carey: Google plan doesn’t affect FAN. Not going to comment on “rumors.” “I don’t think that’s productive.” But! The key is to build enough traffic to attract enough dollars. FAN has a done a good job.

Let me try to re-ask the same question regarding restructuring or spinoff of FAN.

Murdoch: Praises MySpace. In the past few years “we made some big mistakes,” but we have fine new management now. “Early indications, and they’re only indications, are that we’re getting new visitors, and they’re staying longer,” so ad dollars will follow.

[Sorry missed this question, but I believe it is about guidance.] Murdoch is not talking up the film slate, but indicates that he’s spending a bunch of money on movies, and the company will take hits on those initially before they see dollars come back.

Carey: The film business fluctuates from quarter to quarter. But our team is great, and we have great movies coming. “We couldn’t be more excited and positive about the film business.”

Murdoch: Our movie investors praise us.

Any film properties you’re interested in?

Murdoch: “We’d look if something real came onto the market,” but we don’t put MGM in that category, at least not at the price it’s asking. We prefer to invest in our own stuff, and that goes for TV shows as well. “Glee” is a big hit and we own it. Same goes for “Modern Family.”

More info on digital, please. What about MySpace profitability? What happens when Google deal ends w/MySpace?

Carey: “Clearly, MySpace is a work in progress.” [This is a familiar refrain.] But promising signs. Talking up “Glee” tryouts. Improved the platform, etc. By the end of 2010, we want a foundation installed that we can go forward with, and we want to have a cash positive business going into 2011. “The trends are better but they’re not what they need to be….A number of the key metrics are not going up, but they’re better than what they were.”

Are you getting retrans fees for Fox broadcast now?

Not yet.

Why isn’t TV station top-line growth showing up on overall segment results?

Has to do with way we present results. [Confusing and confused discussion about bookkeeping ensues.]

[Still going!]

Press Q&A! (Usually much more entertaining)

Question about Australian news story about…mining?

Murdoch: “Nothing to do with media.”

Same guy has a question about Australian football (?). Rupert professes shock about whatever the scandal was.

Eighty-one advertisers bailed on Glenn Beck. Now it seems as if the only ads are in-house and for gold. When will you stop subsidizing the show and require it to carry its own weight?

Rupert says the 81 number is wrong and that Glenn Beck show doing great.

More color on that subscription model, please.

Rupert: Press conference coming in three-to-four weeks.

But: We’re getting about $4 a week for The Wall Street Journal… [voice trails off].

So this would be about entertainment as well?

Oh, you bet. Everyone’s been talking about negotiating with Apple.

[Both Rupert and FT's Ken Li seem confused. Me too.]

How much did you invest in Wall Street Journal New York edition?

Rupert. “Happy to tell you. We invested nothing.” Maybe $1 million in it. But ti already covers its costs. The notion that we’re spending $30 million on it is “BS.”

[Sorry, missed next two questions.]

Soon to-be Murdoch employee Claire Atkinson has questions about TV ads and online video ads.

Murdoch: WSJ.com is up 11 percent. $100 million in digital revenue at Dow Jones. At Fox news.com, “absolutely thriving.” [If he answered TV question, I didn't hear it, but I think he passed on that one.]

That’s all, folks.

Last week, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart spoofs Fox News’s Glenn Beck in a blackboard parody almost as good as Tina Fey’s spot-on impression of Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live.”

The conservative pundits seem to be the online comedy gift that keeps on giving.

Here it is in two videos:

• News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch tried to lower expectations that his Fox broadcast network would hire Conan O’Brien.
• Murdoch hinted that his book publishing unit is in line to get a new deal on e-books from Amazon, just as Macmillan has demanded (as will other publishers).

On the second point, here’s my on-the-fly transcription and paraphrasing of Murdoch’s comments about Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) and e-book pricing. It’s one of the most candid descriptions you’ll hear from a top executive about Big Media’s reluctance to embrace digital distribution at the expense of its existing system and revenue:

“We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much” because they cost us less to distribute, “but we want some room to maneuver.” The Apple deal…“does allow some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print versions. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again and renegotiate.

UPDATE: Here’s a more complete transcript from Seeking Alpha:

We don’t like the Amazon model of selling everything at $9.99. They don’t pay us that. They pay us the full wholesale price of $14 or whatever we charge. We think it really devalues books and it hurts all the retailers of the hard cover books. We are not against [inaudible] books. On the contrary we like them very much indeed. It is low cost to us and so on. But we want some room to maneuver in it. Amazon, sorry Apple in its agreement with us which has not been disclosed in detail does allow for a variety of slightly higher prices.

There will be prices very much less than the printed copies of books but still will not be fixed in a way that Amazon has been doing it. It appears that Amazon is now ready to sit down with us again and renegotiate pricing.

Again, it’s impossible to stress how scarring the music labels’ experience has been for Big Media. And they’re determined not to repeat the experience. Their takeaway, though, seems to be that they can stave off digital distribution by keeping prices high and inventory relatively scarce. Hard to believe consumers are going to go for that.

Earlier

A first glimpse at News Corp.’s fourth-quarter earnings (which, due to the company’s weird fiscal calendar, is technically the company’s Q2 for 2010): Pretty good. And much better than a year ago (thankfully). After factoring out one-time charges, the company posted earnings of 25 cents on revenue of $8.7 billion.

The Street was looking for earnings of 20 cents on revenue of $8.23 billion, and analysts were also hoping the company would boost its earnings forecast, due in part to a bump from the ginormous success of “Avatar.” No word on guidance in the earnings release, though.

I’ll pick through the release for other worthwhile nuggets for the next few minutes. And then the real show begins at 4:30 Eastern, when the company’s earnings call–easily the most entertaining one in its peer group due to the censor-free presence of CEO Rupert Murdoch–begins. We’ll be looking for commentary on his battle/negotiation with Google (GOOG), upcoming content deals with Apple and the iPad, his thoughts on paid content in general, a dash of political commentary or two, and an update on the turnaround effort at MySpace.

From the release: A pretty nice quarter at most of the conglomerate’s divisions, including the previously battered broadcast TV and newspaper groups. News Corp. says print revenue at The Wall Street Journal was up five percent and ads on the Journal’s digital network were up 17 percent.

MySpace and the company’s other digital properties, shuffled into the “other” category, don’t get much of a mention, but don’t seem to have done much, not surprisingly.

But News Corp does mention that digital media earnings were down $32 million compared with a year ago, “principally due to lower search and advertising revenue.” And the company lost $29 million on “digital media dispositions”–i.e., the fire sale/giveaways of properties like Rotten Tomatoes and Photobucket.

Here’s the breakdown by segment (click table to enlarge):

Liveblog

CFO Dave DeVoe: “Extremely pleased” with the quarter.

Movies: Revenue up due to decent DVD sales (no MGM problem here). Also high costs due to “Avatar,” but big profits from the movie will be coming in during the next couple quarters.

Broadcast TV: Local ads are improving; the telecom, fast food, finance categories are all improving.

Cable: Revenue is up 18 percent. Affiliate revenue is up 21 percent (more money for Fox News subs), and there was a “single-digit” boost in ad dollars.

Newspapers: Journal dollars are up, operating costs down. Ad revenue got better as the quarter progressed.

Books: Revenue up, expenses down.

“Other”/MySpace: Digital media revenue down, but cost-cutting helped trim losses.

News Corp. is boosting its dividend by 25 percent.

Guidance: The company’s operating income growth rate is expected to grow from single digits to the high teens. Better than anticipated: Film group, TV and cable. But revenue goals for digital media, including MySpace, will take longer than anticipated.

Murdoch sings the praises of content. [I will not argue with him, for now]. “Avatar” is awesome, he says, a “harbinger of fundamental change in the industry.” Also really good: “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Fun to hear Rupe say “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

WSJ is the No.1 paper in U.S. in terms of circulation, influence, quality. WSJ.com is a “digital model for newspapers around the world.”

Fox News Channel’s audience is both “loyal and lucrative.” Roger Ailes is doing an “admirable job” [translation: Bite me, Michael Wolff--the author of a recent Murdoch biography].

Last year, Murdoch says, News Corp.’s pay-to-play ideas sounded nutty, but now “the content clan has gathered around our ideas.” Consumers must pay and will pay “to be entertained and informed.” All those awesome new gadgets being made in China and sold at the Consumer Electronics Show need content or they’re worthless. Content, content, content. Get it? Content, content, content.

Murdoch says he’ll be wringing more dollars from cable operators. And “when it comes to online news, we’ll be changing that model too,” adding that News Corp. is in “substantive conversations with device makers on developing subscription models” to deliver content. And don’t forget about 3-D!

Not performing well but “long-term growth drivers”: Sky Italia satellite service. Also Sky Deutschland. And MySpace is “not yet where we want it.” In the last quarter, however, MySpace “started to see signs of traffic stabilization.”

Shout-outs for Chase Carey and other managers (but not by name).

Q&A

Question: How big a deal is retransmission consent in coming years? $40 million a month? $100 million a month?

Chase Carey: No numbers, but it’s going to be a “transforming event.” We have two of top 10 distributors done, more coming. It’s a three- or four-year process to knock these deals out.

Q: Does this fix the broadcast model?

Carey: “Yes, I guess you could say simplistically, it fixes it.”

Q: What’s the timing on an “Avatar” DVD, and what about a sequel? Also, how do TV ads look this year?

Murdoch: For “Avatar,” we think about 60 percent of profits will be in the next six months. Which means the DVD will be coming “as soon as possible,” but the movie will stay in cinemas for a while because we’re doing huge dollars in theaters still. Sequel? “Very early talks about it. Jim has ideas for one. We haven’t come to any agreement with him….Being Jim Cameron, I wouldn’t hold your breath for an early one.” Asked about the economics of a future release (“Will you keep the same revenue split?”), Rupe sort of rumbles and growls and sort of doesn’t have much to say. “Ask anybody; it is very easy to drop a $100 million in a hurry on a film, and we’d like to lay off some of the risk.”

Carey: TV trends for this year are “positive.”

Murdoch: TV stations will be up 18 or 19 percent, but last year was terrible. We’re still down compared with two years ago. Hard to see more than a quarter in advance. In newspapers, it’s hard to see more than a few weeks.

[Missed a question on Sky Italia here.]

Q: What are growth prospects for cable networks? They’ve been driven a lot recently by new subscriber fees. How much longer can you get those boosts?

Murdoch: Overall, “we think we have great potential for growth. Quite a long way to go yet.” Look at how NBCU’s USA is growing.

Carey: In the U.S., we’re moving to “quality over quantity”–we can wring more out of foreign exchange, etc. Fox News is only getting more powerful; it has “great upside.”

Q: Regarding newspapers, what growth came from organic increase versus currency fluctuations?

The majority is from foreign exchange.

Q: Does your guidance assume that the “Avatar” DVD is coming in the next two quarters?

Murdoch: “Yes, but it won’t be 3-D” [which I don't think the analyst was asking about].

Q: Back to retransmission consent: You’ve been getting more and more money from cable guys. Why can’t you get $4 or $5 per subscription for Fox broadcast subs?

Murdoch: “We’re modest people.”

Carey: Hyuk, hyuk. Real answer: It takes time. “We try to approach this constructively. We’ve built businesses with [cable guys], we’ve built valuable cable channels” [translation: patience!]. We want to extract more without killing the cable guys.

Murdoch: That said, we’re asking for the same thing [for broadcast channels] that the cable networks are getting, which “certainly won’t kill the cable companies.”

Q: Please talk about value of film libraries (i.e., MGM). They’re generating big operating profits for cable now. How long will this last?

Murdoch: Regarding the MGM auction, “you can count us out of that one altogether” because others will pay more than we’re willing. And we’re not pursuing the Miramax catalog at all.

Carey: A film library by itself, without new stuff coming through, is a “depreciating asset.”

Q: On guidance: You say the ad market getting better, etc., but it sounds like you’re saying Ebidta growth is slowing.

Murdoch: “We honestly do not have any visibility about the last quarter.”

Q: On books/e-books/Apple, what’s going on with that?

Murdoch: We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much, lower costs to us, but we want some room to maneuver. The Apple deal does allow “some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again.

Press Q&A

Q: What’s up with plans to charge for newspapers on the Web?

Murdoch: “Not ready to announce yet [long pause]. We won’t be ready yet to make an announcement.” A “lot of talks with a lot of people.” There will be more to say within the next two months, Murdoch adds.

Q: Are you still going to fall $100 million short on the Google deal?

Murdoch: Yes. People using social networks don’t use search a great deal. Facebook has seen this, too. It’s “really too early to make confident predictions…but from going down, we’re beginning to go up.”

Q: Can we get some details about Time Warner Cable (TWC) deal?

Nope.

What about Conan O’Brien on late night?

Murdoch: If the programming people can show us we can do it and make a profit on it, we’ll do it in a flash. I’m sure there have been conversations with Conan, but “if you mean real negotiations, no.”

[Missed two questions here.]

Q: Another late-night question: If you do go into negotiations with Conan, how do you placate your affiliates?

Murdoch: It’s a different deal than NBC. They screwed up 10 pm, which reduced the lead-in to local news. Our affiliates run syndicated programming at 11:30, though, so it will take time to adjust there.

Call ended. This one seemed short to me.

More or less redundant disclosure: News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.

BoomTown did an interview last night with outgoing RealNetworks (RNWK) CEO Rob Glaser after the announcement yesterday of his departure from the company he founded and led for 16 years.

That will be posted later today, but here is a profile of Glaser I wrote after spending time with him in Seattle, when I was covering the Internet for The Wall Street Journal.

It’s from Feb. 12, 1998–yes, that means Rob and I are genuine Web antiques–and focuses on Glaser’s decidedly complicated relationship with his former employer, Microsoft (MSFT).

As you will see, it comes from a much different era of the Internet, when Microsoft was much scarier, RealNetworks represented innovation and the medium was still in its infancy. My favorite line is a description of Glaser as “radiating so much intensity that his face resembles a clenched fist.”

Here it is:

Rob Glaser learned the software business as one of Bill Gates’s most aggressive proteges at Microsoft Corp. So he knows all too well the anguishing strategic decision that most software entrepreneurs inevitably confront: Go head-to-head against Mr. Gates and risk annihilation. Or cooperate with him–and risk annihilation.

Now an Internet entrepreneur himself, Mr. Glaser thinks he has another strategy: A delicate dance with Microsoft that combines a little bit of competition and a little bit of cooperation.

His newly public company, RealNetworks Inc., popularized the use of realtime audio and video on the Internet’s World Wide Web. It already has more than 18 million registered users of its free “streaming” software for receiving multimedia over the Net. It also has a rapidly growing business selling server software for transmitting audio and video to Website operators.

But it stands squarely in the path of the strategy that has drawn Microsoft into trouble with antitrust regulators: Emulating innovative products, integrating them into its operating systems and then giving them away free. RealNetworks’ daunting task is to prove it can do a better job of outmaneuvering Microsoft than Netscape Communications Inc., the browser pioneer whose market share and profitability have been devastated by Microsoft’s integration strategy.

Mr. Glaser insists he and the software giant can coexist. “I learned an amazing amount from Bill,” he says, speaking in staccato bursts and radiating so much intensity that his face resembles a clenched fist. “We knew we could either compete head-on like Netscape or do something a lot more interesting.”

His strategy is known internally as “coopetition.” Out of mistrust, Netscape two years ago rejected an unsolicited offer from Microsoft to become a partner and investor. But Mr. Glaser approached his former colleagues last summer seeking just such an alliance. In July, he sold a nonvoting 10% stake to Microsoft for $30 million, and licensed RealNetworks’ technology to the software giant for another $30 million. Microsoft also agreed to bundle RealNetworks’ software with Internet Explorer.

In making the deal, Mr. Glaser helped himself to Microsoft’s cash and prestige and calculated that Microsoft wouldn’t consider streaming technology to be as strategic to its future as the browser.

“What we were trying to do in the partnership is to set it up so that our success would not disadvantage their core business,” Mr. Glaser says. “Microsoft is a very paranoid company and so we have tried to create an environment where while they might be covetous of some of our success, analytically they would not fear it.”

The deal gave Mr. Gates the opportunity, if he so desired, to clone RealNetworks’ products during the period when they were licensed to Microsoft. “There’s no question they could use our own technology to become extremely vigorous competitors and try to put us out of business,” says James Breyer, a director and member of Accel Partners, a venture-capital firm that helped finance RealNetworks.

So Mr. Glaser needs to stay ahead of Microsoft by rapidly improving his software, accumulating enough customers to become the standard for sending audio and video over the Internet and diversifying into related businesses.

Last month, for example, he announced an agreement with one of Microsoft’s archrivals, Sun Microsystems Inc., to finetune his software to perform better on Sun’s popular Internet servers than on Windows-based servers.

“They are neither friend nor foe, but Microsoft is most certainly the environment we live in,” says Mr. Glaser, now 36 years old. “It’s how we work within that environment that will make all the difference.”

Mr. Glaser’s own personality seems suited to the relationship’s contradictions. He has been a committed liberal since his days at Yale University, where he wrote a column called “What’s Left” for the student newspaper. He initially named his company Progressive Networks to reflect his politics. And he donated 700,000 RealNetworks shares to causes related to freedom of speech and environmental issues after the public offering, and promises to contribute 5% of the company’s future profits as well.

But he became a notoriously hardcharging and sometimes arrogant manager after he joined Microsoft in 1983, at the age of 21. Some colleagues dubbed him a “screamer.” When deadlines approached for projects, several former colleagues at Microsoft say he became increasingly revved-up, downing one Diet Coke after another and erupting at even tiny mistakes. “My intensity sometimes manifested itself in less positive ways,” Mr. Glaser concedes.

“Like Microsoft, Rob was smart, young, perhaps a little hard to take, and convinced he was absolutely right about a lot of stuff,” recalls Mike Slade, a friend of Mr. Glaser’s at Microsoft who now runs an Internet publishing company, Starwave Corp. “But that was what was rewarded at the company and everything was going too fast there for a lot of management training.”

The pace did take its toll. Even though Mr. Glaser rose to become vice president of multimedia systems and one of Mr. Gates’s favorites, his last years at Microsoft were rocky. Some at the company point to an internal power struggle with Microsoft’s head of technology, Nathan Myhrvold. “They both wanted to be Bill’s boy genius and visionary for the company,” says a colleague. “Obviously, Nathan won.”

Mr. Glaser dismisses tales of infighting, blaming his departure on a diminishing feeling of “joy” in his work. “I began to think that Bill had the best job of all,” he says. In 1993, at the age of 31, he resigned, with about $15 million of stock in his pocket.

His retirement didn’t last long. Soon after, he saw a version of the Mosaic browser, the first graphical interface software for navigating the Web. He had an epiphany, he says, realizing that the Internet could eventually become a major purveyor of audio and video.

Mr. Glaser sank about $1 million of his own money into a start-up that would first produce software for compressing and transmitting sound. With additional funding from friends, such as Lotus founder Mitch Kapor, RealAudio 1.0 quickly made its debut in April 1995.

RealAudio was greeted with more than a little disdain from the Internet elite because it was a tinny and unsatisfying experience for most users. But it gave the Internet a voice, and Mr. Glaser kept plugging away, improving fidelity and striking deals with more content providers to use it on their Web sites. The hook: Free player software for consumers.

He is attempting to repeat the process with RealVideo. It currently provides small, jerky moving pictures but will, he believes, someday transform the Internet as data transmission speeds increase. In a recent demo of the player, Mr. Glaser selected a music video by the languid singer Jewel, he joked, “because she doesn’t move around too much.”

Meanwhile, Microsoft has been developing its own Media Player and NetShow streaming software, partly with technology acquired by purchasing VXtreme, a RealNetworks competitor.

The Microsoft products are now free. But the company may decide to charge for the latest version of NetShow coming out this year, which would be good for RealNetworks. Meanwhile, Microsoft will continue to bundle RealNetworks’ player software with the Microsoft browser, also good for RealNetworks. And the day after RealNetworks’ Sun deal, Microsoft announced an agreement to make its own Media Player compatible with RealNetworks’ server software, yet another positive development for RealNetworks.

“The user only wants it to work,” says Rich Tong, a Microsoft marketing vice president. “So it is good business to work with RealNetworks to set standards for compatibility and expand the market for all of us.”

Skeptics assert that RealNetworks has forged only a temporary truce with Microsoft. Like Netscape, it must continually confront the challenge of trying to make money on technology that Microsoft gives away. RealNetworks charges $29.95 for an enhanced version of the player it gives away free, and $695 and up for its most powerful server software.

Some large companies are snapping the products up. Mercedes Benz, Eastman Kodak and Lockheed Martin are buying RealNetworks’ latest software, RealSystem 5.0, to bring their internal networks to life. Boeing Co., for example, uses RealNetworks’ software to communicate with employees world-wide and conduct training sessions. A variety of media concerns such as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the Public Broadcasting System, AOL, Fox News’s 24-hour newsfeed and Paramount Pictures use it as well.

Mr. Glaser recently cut a deal with Macromedia Inc., the largest provider of animation-editing software, to transmit animated material over the Internet. RealNetworks is also operating multimedia Web sites for other companies, and has a joint venture with MCI Communications Corp. to create a broadcast network on the Web.

All these initiatives are running up big bills. Earlier this month, RealNetworks reported that revenue more than doubled for 1997, to $32.7 million from $14 million the year before. But heavy research and development spending tripled losses to $11.2 million, or 40 cents a share, from $3.8 million, or 14 cents a share. The company’s high costs, plus the looming threat of Microsoft, have depressed the stock, which hovers at around $16 a share, only slightly above the $12.50 a share it opened at when it went public in November.

But Mr. Glaser exudes confidence. His intense personality seems calmer these days. Once divorced, he now has a steady girlfriend and is traveling more frequently, including a summer trip to New Zealand, Australia and French Polynesia, where he made the decision to take RealNetworks public. His 13.5 million shares are worth $218.5 million. And he thinks he has Microsoft figured out. “People in Silicon Valley see things unnecessarily in black and white: You either hate Microsoft or you are a vassal of them. I am saying there is a third way.”

But it sure looks like the Times is charging online readers if you visit Apple’s iTunes Store, which is selling two different New York Times (NYT) iPhone apps at 99 cents a pop.

The Times has nothing to do with either app, both of which are called the “New York Times Mobile Reader.” And both are supposed to do the same thing: Spit out the paper, along with other Web content like podcasts, in iPhone-friendly form.

You’d think the Times would want Apple (AAPL) to remove the miniprograms, if only to protect the value of the paper’s own app, which is both free and very good.

When I pointed out the apps to a Times spokeswoman on Tuesday, she asked around and later confirmed that the two apps “are not authorized and our legal department is looking into the matter.” But as of Thursday morning, the apps are still there, ranked No. 14 and No. 18 on Apple’s list of top paid news apps.

As Josh Quittner notes, hijacking publishers’ names and content and turning them into paid apps isn’t uncommon at iTunes. I count at least eight such offerings among the top paid news apps at the online store.

But it shouldn’t be that hard for Apple to put the kibosh on this stuff. For instance: It ought to be fairly obvious that developer Chad Rivoli, who has produced one of the “New York Times” apps–along with ones that boast brands like CNET, Fox News, the BBC and the Drudge Report–is not authorized to do so.

But Apple’s approach to this is weirdly passive. Here’s the statement I got from Apple PR’s Trudy Muller yesterday:

As an IP holder ourselves, we understand the importance to developers of protecting their IP. We have a process in the App Store for developers to alert us to possible IP infringement. When we’re notified, our policy includes the removal of the infringing app until a resolution is reached between the parties.

If this approach sounds familiar, it’s because it’s a lot like the one Google (GOOG) takes toward YouTube copyright complaints: Put it up, then take it down if someone complains.

In Google’s case, the company claims it has no idea what people are uploading to YouTube–anyone can throw anything up there. And that approach may well be protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (we’ll see). But Apple knows exactly what it’s selling via iTunes because it approves every new app individually.

Maybe the Times isn’t hell-bent on griping to Apple because it has other priorities, like working with Apple on something for the upcoming wondertablet. And maybe every other publisher whose stuff is getting repurposed for profit doesn’t want to bother Apple either. Hard to believe there is really big money being made here, after all.

All I know is that this situation wouldn’t last long at all on the regular Internet: Good luck starting a “New York Times” Web site and charging people to visit–or even just linking to the paper while using its iconic “T.”

What’s different about iTunes?

UPDATE: At least two other publishers are aware, and unhappy, about unauthorized apps. CNET tells AdAge that it has asked at least one of the developers using its stuff to take it down, apparently without success.

And Fox News says it complained directly to Apple in December, says MediaWeek. In that case, though, it seems to had at least some effect:  “Mobile News Pro — Fair & Balanced” is still available in the app store, and still aggregates Fox News content, including radio feeds. But the app’s description does note that it has “removed FOX wording per FOX request.”

That’s the idea behind a brace of new sales guys, brought in by sales head Greg Coleman, who is himself a newish addition to the site.

The hires:

• Andy Wiedlin, formerly at News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, and Yahoo before that, will run West Coast sales.
• Phil Cara, formerly at AOL, and Yahoo before that, will run East Coast sales.
• Peter Cherukuri, the former publisher of Roll Call, will run sales in Washington, D.C.
• Brian Kaminsky, formerly at Reuters, and Yahoo prior to that, will run sales operations out of New York.

Note the connection for three of the four new guys? Not a coincidence.

Coleman was the longtime Yahoo (YHOO) sales head until he got pushed out in 2007. He resurfaced last year as head of AOL’s (AOL) sales group but left less than three months into the job when new CEO Tim Armstrong brought in his guy.

At the new gig, Coleman’s plan is to use his new/old team to convince advertisers to start spending significant money. The site was on track to do something in the $10 million range last year, but CEO Eric Hippeau wants to goose that number to $100 million in the next few years in order to justify the $37 million that investors have sunk into the company.

Coleman came to the site last fall when it already had a good traffic story to tell–comScore (SCOR) counted 6.8 million unique users in September, which is more than WSJ.com’s 6.7 million. And that story will get better very soon, as comScore rolls out its new “hybrid” measuring system. Coleman says the new numbers will push Huffpo above the 17 million mark.

His team still needs to battle the perception that Huffpo is an all-politics (and lefty, to boot) site, since advertisers are often leery about anything political.

Sure enough, as I’m typing this Monday night, the site’s front page is dominated by Washington coverage–a banner headline about the Republican Party’s opposition to something called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. And no matter what Coleman and his guys say, no one’s going to confuse the site with, say, Fox News.

Still, the site has long argued that it isn’t dominated by political coverage, and Coleman now says less than 25 percent of its traffic comes from that stuff. A heavy dose of entertainment/media coverage–did you know the dude from “300″ now has man boobs and a paunch?–helps make that claim plausible.

Will advertisers buy it? People who aren’t Greg Coleman tell me marketers were already warming to the site this year, a result of work done by the previous regime. And in large part due to interest from entertainment companies pushing new movies and TV shows.

But if Coleman and his employers want to hit their $100 million goal, they’ll need to do a lot more work. For more on Coleman’s strategy, check out his conversation with Kara Swisher from last fall.