That’s what Sony says it is trying to do with News Corp. and some of its publications. The partnership the two companies announced today won’t be nearly enough to make Sony’s Reader line competitive. But it does point in the direction both companies would like to head.

Dow Jones (which owns this Web site) will sell a version of its flagship Wall Street Journal for the Reader devices, as well as a “Wall Street Journal Plus” package that includes a second mini-edition of the paper to be published at the end of the day. Also on offer: A Reader-tailored version of the Marketwatch finance site and a subscription to the New York Post.

Sony (SNE) will have the only e-reader that sells the Post and the second edition of the WSJ. But that’s about it as far as exclusivity goes. The regular Reader version of the Journal looks to be the same one Amazon (AMZN) is already selling at the same price: $15 a month for the basic edition.

And even if you’re one of the people who loves to read a print paper on a handheld device, most of these offers don’t make a lot of sense for an e-reader.

The Post is a tabloid that’s pretty much designed to be consumed, then tossed away, in the course of a subway ride–and if you want to get it for free on the Web, you can do that too.

You can also consume all of Marketwatch for free on the Web, where it makes much more sense to do so, since that the site provides constant updates on…the market.

And given the Journal’s increasing emphasis on speed and breaking news, you’d think its paying subscribers would want the freshest copy possible. But the Sony Reader version is completely static.

So this is pretty much a symbolic deal, right? More or less, Sony CEO Howard Stringer told a press conference this morning. The big picture, he says, is that devices like the Reader are both a growth business for Sony and an opportunity for content owners to charge for stuff that has been free on the Web.

“The sense of losing control of our content is on all of our minds,” says Stringer, whose company is famously both a hardware manufacturer and an entertainment provider. “We’re trying to preserve the value of content in both movies and music and newspapers.”

That dovetails with News Corp.’s (NWS) big-picture plans, which CEO Rupert Murdoch has been has been hollering out at every opportunity: Pay up.

But there’s also a more practical side to the deal for News Corp., which wants to distribute its stuff on as many platforms as possible–and extract better terms than it gets from Amazon and its Kindle platform.

In November, Murdoch said his company was getting up to $6.50 for each $15 Journal subscription it sold via Amazon (AMZN), but noted that this isn’t enough. News Corp. and other publishers have also carped that Amazon keeps valuable customer data for itself.

The Sony deal offers better terms, said Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson, without getting into specifics: “I think you can assume that we’re getting a better deal and that our concerns about customer information have been addressed.”

Most of the usual suspects will be there: Google (GOOG), for instance, is sending Josh Cohen of Google News. Arianna Huffington is sending herself. And most of News Corp. (NWS), which owns this site, will show up as well: CEO Rupert Murdoch, digital boss Jon Miller and Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Robert Thomson are weighing in.

For what it’s worth, I talked to some of the FTC folks in September, when they were assembling the panel. They seemed like nice folks.

The full agenda is here (PDF), and you should be able to stream the event, beginning at 9 am Eastern time, here.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

There certainly is a lot of noisy swirl of late around the escalating fight between Google and some traditional media companies over content online.

The loudest voice in this fight has clearly been News Corp. (NWS) kingpin Rupert Murdoch, who seemingly has not met a television interviewer of late he did not regale with tales of Google’s nefariousness.

Part of what he is saying is surely justified–it’s definitely a crisis for the news business.

And in Murdoch’s mind, the blame should largely fall on Google (GOOG), which he believes is profiting from expensive content others have created and that the search giant is not paying for to such a warped and massive degree that it makes a mockery of fair use.

In Silicon Valley style, Google defends itself by saying it sends valuable Web traffic to News Corp. and other sites, so perhaps a hand-written thank-you note is really the proper response.

That missive is definitely not in the mail from Murdoch, who instead has sent a series of poison-pen letters to Google.

Most notable is that he has threatened to “de-index” at least some of his content assets–which are not insubstantial–from the now-inevitable crawlers sent out by the search giant.

These are, of course, vintage tactics from the Global Media Mogul Playbook: Causing a public hubbub and spooking perceived enemies by threatening drastic action and implying dire consequences, while simultaneously dealmaking behind the scenes.

Trying mightily to make the stakes more dramatic, News Corp. has pulled Microsoft (MSFT) into the fray as a possible white knight–if you live long enough, you do see it all–for publishers.

Under this scenario, the software giant would fork over some sum of money to get News Corp. and perhaps other key content companies, such as Associated Press, exclusively and prominently featured on its Bing search site.

The reward, presumably, would be increased searching on Bing for the stuff consumers could now not find on Google.

BoomTown reported earlier this week that, in fact, Microsoft was unlikely to hand over any kind of king’s ransom to publishers.

As I wrote:

While a spate of reports has Microsoft execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which many inside the company think will not help it gain much search share.

“While there is a lot of mutual interest, it’s doubtful Microsoft is going to pay to ‘rent’ a corpus of content that it does not own,” said one source close to the situation. “The economics are not there for anyone.”

In other words, this wrestling match is not about whether Google or Microsoft will serve up links to content online, but about how much–or not at all–they are willing to pay for doing so.

So, what’s really happening here? Here are five possibilities to consider, each of which is true in part:

1. Murdoch really means it.

In this scenario, Murdoch and others, like AP’s Tom Curley, truly believe that Google–like that creepy salt-seeking alien from “Star Trek”–is sucking the life out of the media industry by making bank from its news content, but not giving back nearly enough in return.

Of course, a lot of these companies have willingly done distribution deals with Google over the years.

But now they don’t like it because the increasing money being made by Google, even as their revenue has suffered, has developed into a growing problem.

Which is simply this: There is a lot more money to be made in searching for content than in making content.

This realization has to shake content czars like Murdoch to the core, but it is indeed the situation they find themselves in.

Murdoch makes a fair point in that journalism costs money to make and it used to have a solid economic system under it until Google and others on the Web disaggregated it wholly.

Thus, online aggregators become “tapeworms,” as The Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson quipped.

Thomson also, on a recent panel at the Web 2.0 conference, said to Google’s front page head, Marissa Mayer, that she “unintentionally encourages promiscuity.”

Ouch. That remark, which was was quite striking if you were there to hear Thomson say it, said volumes more.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

2. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Google.

Well, it would not be the first time Murdoch and many others of his ilk have used public sharp elbows and saber-rattling to get what they want.

Except in this case, the algorithm experts over at Google know precisely–down to the tenth decimal–how much linking to News Corp. makes for them.

And it is not much, especially when looking at the vast sea of data Google serves up.

Its money-making is widely dissipated, from searches for vacation information to mapping to car-buying to health. While news-finding definitely is part of the mix, it is not at the center of the Borg.

Ironically–and oddly left out of this debate–it is Yahoo (YHOO) that has a lot of power in this arena, with massive content sites that shoot traffic all over the Web (including to this site).

But, what Google cannot and never can quantify–although I have seen co-founder Larry Page try once or twice–is the impact of public perception on the company, which has slowly morphed from being a benign, brightly-colored digital, librarian-like helper to a scary, answer-to-no-one, evil-doing monster.

The company’s growing influence over what people see and do not see on the Web is palpably frightening to publishers, advertisers and anyone who wants to be digitally discovered.

Bad luck for Google: Creating and then attacking bogeymen is a Murdoch talent, bar none.

3. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Microsoft.

Also obvious is the full-scale obsession Microsoft has with Google. While the software giant’s execs try to hide it, their panic over the success of Google has been tough on the once dominant tech company, which has struggled in the Internet arena.

Worse still, Google rakes in the dough, while Microsoft, um, does not.

Finally, this year, Microsoft has created–with no small amount of much needed innovation–Bing, a laudable effort that is starting to show some traction.

While Bing still has a very small market share compared with Google–by a factor of seven to one–it definitely has some momentum.

And, after much turmoil, Microsoft finally did a deft and relatively inexpensive deal to join with Yahoo in a search and advertising partnership to give them both more heft, which will surely help matters.

More important, one of the ways Bing has differentiated itself is via product innovations and intense focus on search niches, such as health.

In this topic area, for example, Bing has struck a not-expensive content licensing arrangement with the Mayo Clinic in order to better feature content.

This is smart business and offers consumers something better and different.

But overpaying big media publishers for the same thing, even if they de-indexed Google at the same time, is not smart, unless it is for really niche things like special financial information.

And even then, there are so many other sources of information out there, it would not take Google long to mount a similar offering, even in the face of some kind of OPEC of News consortium.

Even more–how much do consumers love OPECs of any kind? Not much!

Sources at Microsoft agree:

“If it was everyone, that might become interesting. But even that has issues, since Microsoft is not interested in having exclusive news for a temporary period of time by overpaying for it. It’s essentially a marketing expense, and there are a lot better ways to spend that money to win market share than giving it to publishers.”

Finally, Microsoft has been to the Murdoch party before too, having been part of talks to fold News Corp.-owned social networking site MySpace into Yahoo, had Microsoft prevailed in its attempt to acquire it.

Microsoft missed that pricey bullet and might be more inclined to grow Bing the old-fashioned way–via innovation, marketing and product improvements–rather than just using up too much of its energy trying to mess with Google.

4. A deal will be made.

My not-too-surprising prediction is that in the end, News Corp. and others will probably strike some kind of lesser deal with Microsoft–although it will tout the heck out of it–while taking some of its content behind a pay wall and thereby de-indexing it from Google.

More damaging would be if AP, which actually provides the most used news content online, removes its links completely from Google, because–unlike the premium content from other publishers–this is the bread and butter of consumer usage of content.

As to promotional material or links to television shows and movies from publishers like News Corp.? Well, it would seem the most self-destructive form of pique to remove those links from any of the top search engines.

That said, even if it really pissed me off for publishers to do so, I would probably switch to another search engine to find information on “Glee” if forced to. That’s how much I love those singing kids and Jane Lynch!

Finally, Murdoch has also threatened to challenge the fair use doctrine–which allows others to use copyrighted content within limits, as Google and many others do (such as this site).

While some think that is a bridge too far, it might be Murdoch’s best argument of all. Why should Google make a fortune on the content of others, even if only listing it? Doesn’t the sheer volume of what the search giant vacuums up make its reliance on fair use as a defense pretty ridiculous?

You can be sure Murdoch has his many lawyers and lobbyists all over this one, as does Google.

5. The truth is out there.

In perhaps his most strident television interview, with his Sky News Australia service (which you can see below–oh, the irony–on Google’s YouTube), Murdoch said about those who use Google to find News Corp. content:

“They don’t suddenly become loyal readers of our content. We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site but paying.”

That really is the honest truth in all this hubbub: Murdoch and other publishers have to find a way to get a some pool of dedicated online readers to pay enough to be able to then provide them with content that will keep them coming back for more.

That’s a business that Google truly cannot help or hinder, really.

And more to the point, it is also a business that Rupert Murdoch does seem to know a thing or two about.

Here’s the internal memo from Journal Editor-in-Chief Robert Thomson:

From: Thomson, Robert
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:25 AM
To: WSJ All News Staff; Newswires_USERS
Subject: Boston

Colleagues,
Today we told our team in Boston that we are closing the bureau in its present form. The economic background to the closure is painfully obvious to us all. An investigative function will remain in Boston, but the core reporting team will be disbanded, though all nine reporters affected will certainly be able to apply for openings elsewhere on the paper. Coverage of the Boston mutual fund industry will switch to the Money and Investing team and we are creating an enhanced New York-based education team.

Any such decision inevitably stirs apprehension and uncertainty, but there are no plans, nascent or otherwise, to close any other U.S. or international bureau. Meanwhile, the Newswires bureau and the MarketWatch team in Boston will remain at their present staffing levels.

That there has been truly great reporting under the generalship of Gary Putka out of Boston over many, many years is not in doubt. But we remain in the midst of a profound downturn in advertising revenue and thus must think the unthinkable.

Robert

Representing new media, in a discussion over the future of journalism, are Federated Media’s John Battelle; Marissa Mayer, who leads Google’s (GOOG) search services and consumer products like Chrome; and Huffington Post CEO Eric Hippeau. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times (NYT), and The Wall Street Journal’s top editor, Robert Thomson, stand in for the old guard.

Aggregator sites like Huffington Post and online portals like Yahoo (YHOO) and Google have seen their readership, advertising revenue and influence increase. Meanwhile, traditional-media types have criticized these forces for unfairly leeching their reporting and hurting their business models. We’ll be alert for verbal sparring.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Earlier in the day, Robert Thomson joked about an 18-second expletive delay for Carol Bartz. “Do you want me to say something naughty now?” she quips as she takes the stage. She does end up dropping the much anticipated f-bomb, but much later in the interview–right before patting Kara on the knee with the disclaimer: “Don’t worry, it didn’t mean anything.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090527/d7-video-carol-bartz-live-and-uncensored/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20090527/randall-stephenson/ http://allthingsd.com/20090527/randall-stephenson/#comments Wed, 27 May 2009 15:17:09 +0000 John Paczkowski http://d7.allthingsd.com/?p=223

Randall Stephenson is just two years into his tenure as CEO of AT&T (T) but he faces challenges that have been decades in the making. Among them: remaking AT&T amid the steady decline of its landline business, future-proofing its business as our appetites for bandwidth grow, competing with the likes of Comcast (CMCSA) in the cable TV market and fending off the proponents of Net neutrality, who don’t care much for the idea of a two-tiered Internet.

Beyond this there is the issue of continuing to build out AT&T’s wireless business, which–if not iPhone-dependent–is certainly nursing a hell of a habit. In its fourth-quarter AT&T added 2.1 million wireless subscribers. 1.9 million of them were iPhone accounts. Astonishing. But AT&T’s exclusive deal to peddle the Apple iPhone in the U.S. expires next year. The company is obviously eager for an extension. But what is it willing to do to get it?

Incidentally, we had a fairly big announcement from AT&T this morning. The company said it is upgrading to High Speed Packet Access 7.2 technology. That means considerably faster mobile broadband speeds. The upgrade is slated to begin later this year, with completion expected in 2011.

Session Highlights

Live Blog

• After some brief introductory remarks from Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson, who jokes about implementing an 18-second delay for expletive-fond Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, and a welcome song from Jill Sobule, Walt welcomes Randall Stephenson to the stage and the second day of D7 begins.
• For a first question, Walt, referring to poll data, asks Stephenson why some folks might not be interested in buying an Apple iPhone because of AT&T. Stephenson notes that AT&T is improving network quality and reducing churn.
• Walt says he gets frequent reader mail complaining about AT&T service coverage. Stephenson says the company is way down the road in terms of the level of data traffic on the networks. Behavior changes radically. He says AT&T is a year ahead of other carriers in terms of network management, managing the volume and behavioral changes from adoption of new devices.
• Walt: Let’s talk for a moment about the iPhone. It’s a data-intensive device. You weren’t ready when you first launched the iPhone 3G. What happened? Stephenson says the company wasn’t quite ready. “But we’re improving.”
• Walt asks the audience how many people use AT&T. Many hands raised. How many had it before the iPhone? A fair bit. How many are satisfied with the service? Also a fair bit. Clearly, AT&T’s service must be getting better.
• The level of data volumes we are seeing on our networks is changing customer behavior dramatically, says Stephenson. This is challenging, but the company is addressing it.

• Walt: If we project out farther past the iPhone, are the mobile networks we have going to be able to handle these new data-intensive devices? Stephenson: The answer is clearly no. That’s why we’re buying more spectrum and moving toward LTE. What’s so good about LTE? Speed levels of 20 megs plus, for one, says Stephenson, who admits that real-world performance will be somewhat less than that.
• Stephenson says AT&T is more than doubling the theoretical speed of the network. Does this mean the speed of our handsets will also double, asks Walt. Not on current handsets. But on future ones, which will all be backward-compatible.
• When you upgrade the network to 7.2 will it have any negative impact on the network as data demands grow, asks Walt. Stephenson says no. “It’s all network management….We’ll have a whole new capacity.”
• Walt: In a world where both you and Verizon (VZ) go to LTE, will I be able to take my handset and switch to Verizon’s network? Stephenson says the LTE standard is consistent and should permit that.
• The conversation shifts to Wi-Fi. Walt asks about AT&T’s Wayport efforts. “When we look at the world today and the world of the future, the fixed-line bandwidth requirements are not slowing. Then you move to the wireless broadband world, where bandwidth requirements are not slowing either. You need a bridge between the two.” That bridge is WiFi, adds Stephenson, noting that the company sees extraordinary WiFi usage among it smartphone users.
• Stephenson talks for a moment about automatic authentication and says AT&T is working to implement it. “The current system is kludgey. People want it seamless.”
• Walt asks about the company’s broadband business. Stephenson says it’s doing well. Notes that it is doing nearly as well as Verizon’s FIOS business.

• Walt asks how the economy is affecting AT&T’s various businesses and the advance of the company’s capital spending plans. Stephenson says the board business has obviously been affected. Business is slowing especially in enterprise and the consumer phone business. Interestingly enough, people are more apt to disconnect the home phones than they are broadband. So AT&T continues to aggressively invest in mobile apps and in wireless infrastructure. He notes that the company is really pushing hard to build out its U-verse network. “I’ve been through a few of these recessions in my 20 years in this business, and it will turn. So you must continue to invest and prepare for the day when it does.”
• What about competitors? What are they doing? In wireless, says Stephenson, competitors also investing. A lot of capital is coming into the wireless business. In broadband, cable guys have not slowed down. Telecom structurally in a good place. Regulatory structure continues to bring in capital.
• Back to the issue of the iPhone. Was it worth it to sign the deal with Apple (AAPL)? How has it worked out? “It’s worked out terrific. We have no complaints.” He notes that the company incurred dilution, but has benefited by getting the premier customer in the space–one with high data usage and low churn. “I’m very pleased with the deal.”
• Walt asks if the company has suffered from the iPhone’s fixed data charges. It’s not a variable charge. How does that offset the dilution that AT&T has to pay? We made a bet, says Stephenson, that the industry was heading toward smartphones, and that was a good bet. Now we’re seeing dramatic uptakes in usage, so the pricing model must change. And it will change. The market will dictate that change more than anything else. But right now the economics of the iPhone are very good for us.
• Walt: Have you ever called Steve Jobs and just asked him to put a keyboard on the iPhone? Stephenson chuckles. No. “If Steve wants to put a keyboard on the iPhone, I’m sure he will.”
• Walt: Are all these new operating systems arriving at market problematic for AT&T? The iPhone, Palm’s (PALM) WebOS, Android? Would it be easier if there were fewer platforms? Stephenson: Do I want to see fewer platforms? Yes, it’s better for my business. Will I see fewer platforms? I don’t think so. So we need to take advantage of it and use it as an opportunity.

• What about the Palm Pre? “Would I like to see the Pre on our network some day? Of course I would,” says Stephenson. “We obviously talk to all the handset manufacturers. We want a broad selection of devices in the lineup. That’s important. Devices right now are what’s driving the customer adoption as much as anything.”
• Stephenson says he’s seeing dramatic uptakes in data usage. Pricing models will change over time, he says. How it changes will depend who you are. He notes that costs are variable in wireless–every new bit has a direct cost tied to it, unlike wireline business. AT&T margins are 40 percent-plus in Q1 on wireless business.
• Walt: Can you foresee a day when you’re not running retail stores? Why do you want to run stores when you’re really a network company? Stephenson says distribution is changing. But a retail presence is always going to very important, and I always want to have a part of that.
• Moving on to the Q&A: How do you transform wireline customers into wireless and broadband customers? Integration is very important, says Stephenson. If you already have AT&T Wireless, it’s a natural step to add broadband and even wireline if it’s offered as a bundle.
• Why can’t we have data roaming on LTE from the beginning and avoid the mistakes of the 3G networks? Stephenson says the LTE network will have similar roaming agreements as those on the current networks. “It’s in all our best interests.” The industry always evolves to a point where broader coverage is needed and these agreements become necessary. You’ll see that with LTE as well.
• Question about SlingBox on 3G network being rejected: Who decided that? Stephenson says that terms of service agreement for the customer do not allow customers to move live stream video over the wireless platform. Not like the fixed line side. If you start congesting network with data, voice quality goes down. We have to maintain some quality, so it’s not allowed under terms of service.
• Responding to a question on warrantlessly providing data about customers to the government, Stephenson says AT&T will act within the law in all regards to customer information and privacy. “We will comply with the law, absolutely,” he says.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as we were able. It was not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090527/randall-stephenson/feed/ 13 http://allthingsd.com/20090420/no-tech-tapeworms-here-we-update-voices-policies-on-all-things-digital/ http://allthingsd.com/20090420/no-tech-tapeworms-here-we-update-voices-policies-on-all-things-digital/#comments Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:20:54 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=12444

As of today, we have made important changes to the All Things Digital Voices section, which should be of interest to some (and not at all to others).

Why? Well, a few weeks ago, ATD was caught up in a bit of the controversy that broke out due to louder-than-usual complaints by several traditional media companies about how their content is treated on the Web.

Without going into a long explanation: They expressed displeasure that some sites were misusing their content via aggregation.

In fact, Robert Thomson, Dow Jones editor-in-chief and also The Wall Street Journal managing editor, was widely quoted in an interview in The Australian saying, “There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet.”

That sounds very painful, digitally speaking.

Many on the Web were incensed by that remark and then quickly pointed to the fact that ATD–which is owned by Dow Jones–has a section called Voices that publishes original columns done for our site and posts from other Dow Jones properties, but also points to third-party posts we admire and want our readers to be aware of.

Instead of using simple blue links, we feature these three kinds of content in a marked section on the front page and also in the Voices section itself, using their original headlines and short excerpts from the posts directly. We do not change the text we use, nor do we synopsize it.

We also identify the authors by title and picture (until now, we used a D icon if we could not get a picture, but have changed that going forward), and provide links to the original sites so readers can read the entire piece there.

But what we have been doing in Voices was not perfect or as clear as it should have been, which was written about by many, including Andy Baio of Waxy.org’s thoughtful piece on the issue.

In it, Baio talked to both bloggers and writers who were unhappy about being featured in Voices, as well as those who liked it.

While we did not agree with all the complaints in the story, the debate did make us realize we needed to be a lot clearer and more explicit about what we are doing, and to make those policies–which we had not posted in as much detail as we have, for example, about our ethics statements (you can see mine here, for example)–more prominent and transparent.

Some will disagree with the changes we have made and some will not think they go far enough.

But we hope we have addressed the key issues, including making it clearer that these posts are not ours, posting our policy prominently to avoid confusion about exactly what Voices is and removing all comments and sharing icons from posts that are not original to our site.

We are also now linking directly to original sites from the front page excerpt, without forcing anyone into the Voices section, where we also link to original sites.

We made a number of other changes, described below in their entirety, and are also now easy to find on both the front page and on the Voices page.

Let us be clear: We have always aimed for our Voices section to point to other posts around the Web that we find laudable, interesting or provocative in ways we think our readers should be aware, and we want readers to read them in full on their original site.

The myriad of issues around aggregation and linking is clearly likely going to result in a long and difficult debate, as the ways in which media are discovered by and delivered to consumers changes in the digital age.

Our site obviously believes deeply that linking and pointing and sharing are all an important part of the new media landscape and we remain open to trying to create a system that all players think is fair and equitable.

And, most of all, we hope no one will get too nauseous in the process.

Here’s the new explanation of what Voices is, which is permanently and prominently posted on the site:

This is a section of the All Things Digital Web site featuring posts from around the Web, from other Dow Jones properties and also original pieces we solicit. The section is now explicitly labeled that it comes “from other Web sites.”

We are fully aware of the controversies around how linking and aggregating are done on the Web, and we in no way are attempting to “scrape” original content created by others. Instead, regarding third-party posts, we are trying to point readers of this site to other posts from around the Web that we admire, and are trying to do so in the quickest manner possible.

The Internet is full of terrific content that is not ours and we want to help our readers find it by making editorial suggestions–Look, Mom, no algorithm!–of posts we think are worth their time.

That is why we have made even more changes to Voices to ensure we do this in the most transparent and timely way. While we don’t expect that everyone will agree with our policies, we have made changes that reflect our intent in pointing to content outside our site.

So here is exactly what we do:

We link directly to the post’s original site from the headline on the front page of All Things Digital and use the smallest amount of text possible to give readers a sense of the topic of the post.

Instead of using simple blue links, we feature these three kinds of content in Voices in a marked section on the front page and also in the Voices section itself, using their original headlines and short excerpts from the posts directly. We do not change the text we use, nor do we synopsize it.

We fully identify the site the author is writing for, to make sure readers are aware that this is not written for our site. We take attributions from the originating site, but if we have made an error or it is incomplete, we will make sure it is corrected as soon as we are informed of any problems.

We use pictures of the authors from their sites and, if one is not available, we now will be using generic male and female icons going forward, to minimize any confusion that the piece was written for our site.

You can also see the posts when you visit the Voices section, where we feature them, again with the smallest amount of text possible and direct links to the original site. In that section, we pick our favorite post of the day.

We have also removed comments and sharing icons from the posts that are not original to our site.

All content for Voices is selected by, and/or solicited by, the editors of All Things Digital.

If you do not want your pieces selected for our Voices section, please let us know immediately and we will refrain from pointing to any of your work. We will also, on request from an author or site, remove past posts, if so requested.

Regarding original material, we are open to proposals at any time. If you have an idea for an original Voices post, please send it, in the form of a short paragraph, to voices@allthingsd.com. Include a second short paragraph describing yourself and your relevant credentials.

If we like it, we may invite you to submit the full post, and consider publishing it. However, we lack the staff and time to acknowledge such proposals or to engage in a debate or discussion about their suitability. You will only hear from us if we are interested.

We reserve the right to edit the original posts we publish in Voices, but all legal responsibility for their content rests solely with their authors.

We do not make editing changes to posts from other Web sites we point to, except to add ticker symbols when appropriate. We obviously claim no copyright over any content that is not original to our site.

We welcome and feedback about Voices at voices@allthingsd.com.

Even more disclosure: Dow Jones is owned by News Corp. (NWS), whose CEO and Chairman, Rupert Murdoch, also complained about some Internet aggregators, which this site covered here in MediaMemo.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090420/no-tech-tapeworms-here-we-update-voices-policies-on-all-things-digital/feed/ 5 http://allthingsd.com/20090408/wsj-promises-new-pay-sites-some-day/ http://allthingsd.com/20090408/wsj-promises-new-pay-sites-some-day/#comments Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:52:42 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=6086 My colleagues over at The Wall Street Journal have been able to convince more than a million people to pay for full access to the paper’s Web site. Can it find even more people who are willing to pay for even more online stuff?

Yes, says WSJ.com Executive Editor Alan Murray, who alluded to his plans in an interview with Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab. Murray doesn’t go into any level of detail about what he has up his sleeve except to say that he’s thinking about niche products that might focus on energy, or a “news service for chief financial officers.”

In other words, trade newsletters, which have proven to be a very resilient business for the likes of McGraw-Hill (MHP).

The video of the interview is embedded below, and you can see a full transcript here. But here’s the relevant text:

Murray: We’re working on a premium initiative to launch a series of, as you say, niche or narrower information services that we can sell at a premium to smaller groups of subscribers on subjects that they care most about.

Question: What sort of subjects?

Murray: Oh, I mean, there are potentially thousands of them. Energy might be an example. Obviously a lot of our readers are deeply interested in financial subjects. Perhaps some sort of a news service for chief financial officers. There are a lot of ideas that are on the table. We’ve started prioritizing them–got a few that will probably come out first. But I’m not going to break that news on your video.

I’d complain about the Nieman crew not following up on this (and burying the lede, too–what are they teaching over there at Harvard?), but the fact is that Murray has been talking about this stuff internally for a while. So has his boss, WSJ Managing Editor Robert Thomson, so I’m not sure whether this qualifies as new news.

But it is worth noting that News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who was just forced to take a huge write-down on the Journal, has sounded increasingly disenchanted with advertising-based businesses, period. You may recall that when Murdoch acquired the paper in 2007, he was geared to take down the pay wall surrounding the Web site altogether, as the New York Times (NYT) had done with its flagship site. Now it looks like News Corp. (NWS) is willing to put up even more walls.

Also, while I’m at it, the disclosure: The site you’re reading right now is owned by Dow Jones, which owns The Wall Street Journal. But as far as I know, we’ve got no plans to charge for it. Enjoy, gratis!

Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal on charging for content from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090408/wsj-promises-new-pay-sites-some-day/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090205/wsj-lays-off-14-dow-jones-newswire-untouched/ http://allthingsd.com/20090205/wsj-lays-off-14-dow-jones-newswire-untouched/#comments Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:01:20 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=3954 Here are some of those cost-cutting measures Rupert Murdoch was talking about during today’s News Corp. (NWS) earnings call: The Wall Street Journal is laying off 14 people in its editorial group, managing editor Robert Thomson announced this afternoon.

This could have been worse: An earlier report from Portfolio.com floated the possibility of 50 jobs lost, though it suggested that some of that could be through attrition. This Web site is owned by Dow Jones, which also owns The Journal; I wish all my colleagues good luck.

Here’s the memo:

Dear Colleagues,

It is obvious to you all that we are in the midst of an unprecedented economic downturn. We are also in the midst of an unprecedented increase in our readership, in print and online, but a precipitous decline in print advertising revenue has forced a close examination of our structures and of our costs.

Over the past couple of months, teams have been reorganized at The Wall Street Journal and we have lost 11 journalists through attrition. Unfortunately, it has been necessary today to restructure several other teams at the cost of an additional 14 positions. The number, while regrettable, has been kept to a minimum because department heads have been vigilant in controlling costs and in maximizing our use of existing resources.

There are no plans for lay-offs at Dow Jones Newswires, where our international expansion is continuing, most recently through the launch of a Spanish-language venture and in India, where we are creating a new reporting team to take advantage of that country’s economic development. And we will continue to hire journalists for the Journal for projects of strategic significance.

At the Journal, we are closing the New York-based Fashion and Retail group, though we will maintain coverage and reassign some editors and reporters to other bureaus. Other groups losing a position include the Los Angeles and Boston bureaus, along with the New York-based Law, Health and Real Estate groups, and the Library.

There is no doubt that Dow Jones is in a far stronger position than our competitors and that the global influence of the Journal and Newswires is growing significantly, so there are genuine reasons for optimism. But we also must be realistic about the current trading environment and continue to reduce costs while maintaining the world’s highest standard of journalistic quality and integrity.

Yours,
Robert

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090205/wsj-lays-off-14-dow-jones-newswire-untouched/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20071207/the-crazy-cousins-thank-gordon-crovitz/ http://allthingsd.com/20071207/the-crazy-cousins-thank-gordon-crovitz/#comments Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:26:59 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/20071207/the-crazy-cousins-thank-gordon-crovitz/ One of the nice things about having a blog is that I can mouth off on just about anything I want and include whatever I want too (such as, for example, shamelessly making videos of my kids in a fruitless attempt to try to cajole Yahoo’s Jerry Yang into having lunch with me).

Today, that means being able to give credit where credit is surely due. In this case, being able to thank L. Gordon Crovitz (pictured here), the outgoing publisher of The Wall Street Journal, for all he has done for both Walt Mossberg and me and all he has done for our little Dow Jones enterprises–this Web site, AllThingsD.com and our annual conference, D: All Things Digital.

Today, with the change in leadership due to the purchase of Dow Jones by News Corp., it was announced that Crovitz is leaving the company as a manager next week, although he will apparently be writing a column on media. He had run the company’s consumer media group, including the flagship Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com, Barron’s and Barron’s Online, MarketWatch and the other properties.

And also its most outlying outpost, AllThingsD.com and our D conference.

Simply put, without Crovitz’s unstinting support, along with that of former Managing Editor Paul Steiger and a few others, we would never have been able to mount this clearly entrepreneurial effort within the confines of a traditional media company.

While the image of a mainstream media mandarin is a mutated creature–kind of a slow-moving turtle combined with a very shy ostrich whose head resides permanently in the sand–Crovitz was the key executive at Dow Jones who made it possible for us to push forward unusual new things like the conference and the site.

We had started the successful conference before he got the job as publisher, but Crovitz always backed us as we wanted to try new things. And he did not blink when we brought the idea of a separately run Web site to him, related to it.

Our pitch wasn’t exactly smooth or even appealing–we told him to think of us like we were the “crazy cousins” at Dow Jones, trying all sorts of new experiments in online media and without a committee of bureaucrats to muck up the process.

Still, Crovitz said yes and yes again, over and over. This is no small thing, especially against a backdrop of a mainstream-media world beset by frightening change. But Crovitz embraced and welcomed that digital shift.

More importantly, he–and we are in his debt for this–fully understood the need for change in all its forms, as long as we adhered to what makes Dow Jones great–high standards and ethics and great reporting.

Now the man who started his career at Dow Jones in 1980 as a summer intern writing editorials for The Wall Street Journal–he won a Gerald Loeb Award for business commentary in 1990–will head on out, to be replaced by a News Corp. exec and Times of London editor Robert Thomson (Bob! Bobby! Call! Write! We’re not that crazy!).

So, for all you have done for us, Gordon, Walt and I thank you and wish you well on your next endeavor. (And, if you really want to help us more, write a blog for us and make it snappy!)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20071207/the-crazy-cousins-thank-gordon-crovitz/feed/ 4