The company, called Ongo, filed a trademark registration in April. In the filing, Ongo describes itself as providing “computer and telecommunications software for use in aggregating and viewing news and syndication feeds.”

The reason for the Times’s investment in Ongo was unclear. As news organizations have grappled with how to deliver their content to digital devices and make money off of those readers, there have emerged a number of efforts to collaborate on packaging and selling content. News Corp. (NWS), which owns the Wall Street Journal, has been talking to media companies about creating a cable TV-type business for news, allowing consumers to set up one bill to access digital content from multiple media companies.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Bleacher Report is a two-year old company roughly similar to the better-known SB Nation. The start-up employs lots of writers and stringers to produce lots of local content, claiming it is now churning out more than 500 stories a day.

The company is trying to make money by selling ads on its core site, which Quantcast says draws eight million monthly uniques. And it’s doing syndication deals with the likes of USAToday.com and some of Hearst’s newspapers; last I heard, it was also trying to get a deal with Tribune’s Los Angeles Times.

Bleacher Report has raised $8 million in two rounds; investments include Series A financing completed in February 2008 from Hillsven Capital, Gordon Crawford, SoftTech VC and, sort-of oddly, Vimeo founder Jakob Lodwick.

Twitter has quietly been reaching out to marketers about its new ad platform for a few months, but now it’s a full-fledged marketing blitz. The messaging service rolled out its ad strategy to the press last night; today it’s going directly to the ad industry, via COO Dick Costolo’s presentation at Ad Age’s Digital Conference.

I’m not sure how much more Costolo will reveal that Twitter hasn’t put out already–or may be waiting to talk about at tomorrow’s Chirp conference. But since I’m here I’ll liveblog it anyway.

Liveblog

Costolo says he has been waiting five or six months to give this presentation. It’s time to walk through the rollout, he adds, making note of his “fascinating nontraditional” prediction last fall.

He explains the Twitter ecosystem. The ad platform has to go everywhere, not just to Twitter.com. He refuses to call the ads, “ads.” They’re “just tweets.”

“Promoted tweets,” that is.

He walks through the @hashtagtees example.

There’s a menu from which ad buyers can pick search terms and associate them with specific tweets they’ve already published.

Promoted tweets look and act like regular tweets except that they’re labeled as promotions and stay at the top of the Twitterstream.

A promoted tweet “combines earned media and paid media in one space,” Costolo says.

“Earned” media are free, Costolo reminds the audience. That is, if people retweet your paid tweet, there’s no charge additional charge.

The pitch continues: Ads are “real time,” and so are analytics–you can see how ads are performing second-by-second.

Twitter will start with Twitter.com search. That’s phase one. The plan will roll out more broadly, but the company is doing it this way because it wants a “thoughtful, user-centric approach” to figuring it out. “We will quickly expand into syndication…all of our syndication partners.” And here, Costolo specifically mentions UberTwitter in the list of partners.

Important: Twitter will definitely expand into the regular timeline at some point. That is, you will be getting ads in your stream whether you search or not. Ad-free Twitter is over.

Costolo talks about the “resonance” metric Twitter will use to figure out which promoted tweets show up and where.

Each ad partner will see a scoreboard with different metrics: Retweets, @replies, #tag click, avatar clicks, link clicks, views after RT.

Advertisers won’t pay for ads that don’t resonate with users.

Next, Costolo describes communication on Twitter as both “one to many” and as a “real-time interest graph.”

Pricing will start as CPM. Twitter is doing this because it doesn’t know how to correlate “resonance” with value yet. As the company figures this out, it will move to a pricing model based on ROI.

Here comes Porter Gale, VP of marketing for Virgin America, a launch partner. She notes that @jack is flying VA right now.

[You're not missing anything here.]

Um, here’s a free ad for two-for-one tickets on Virgin. Don’t really follow it but sure you can figure it out if you’d like.

And here’s Ellen Stone, SVP of marketing at Bravo.

She is also excited!

[You're not missing anything here, either.]

Stone describes some sort of live, real-time convergence between shows broadcast and users’ tweets. Makes my head hurt. Hope it doesn’t pop up during “Top Chef.”

Back to Costolo: More monetization coming. Commercial accounts coming after promoted tweets will “feather into this platform very very nicely.” One dashboard will manage both products.

Q&A

Will tweets be syndicated to Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), and other partners that take the stream?
Costolo says yes, without mentioning any specific search engine or media pub.

Will there be revenue-sharing with publishers and bloggers?
Yes, with developers and publishers. Costolo says Twitter will talk about this at its Chirp conference and focus on the syndication piece there. Revenue sharing will be “very transparent,” he adds.

Early reaction from consumers?
Yes, Twitter is getting a “wait and see,” Costolo notes. [From whom? Who's seen it?] The company will take its “learnings” from search and go forward. Twitter ads should be live and running now.

What CPM are you charging?
Twitter is playing around with different numbers, trying to figure it out. When a term is owned or created by a client, like Virgin America, should it have “rights” to that hashtag, whereby no one can outbid it? Some hashtags only have value at certain times. Like “Super Bowl,” which is only useful for a couple hours in the year. So we have to play around and test different kinds of pricing. “We don’t know the answer to that yet.”

What kind of reactions are you looking for from users?
Costolo says Twitter is looking to see whether people click or interact with ads and paying attention to the tenor of reaction: Positive or negative, etc. Think about the iPad launch this month. People were having battery issues. Someone could have jumped in in real time and bought a promoted tweet that dealt with that. Twitter’s hope is that when people see these, they’ll get why they work.

Please talk about search volume.
“Massive. It’s huge.” Will talk about hashtags tomorrow. But on Twitter.com, it’s a small piece of traffic. So we’re not maximizing revenue now. We’re figuring it out.

How will location work with ads?
“We think significantly.” There are lots of opportunities down the road. As this gets more sophisticated, will see opps for small and big business.

Will marketers be able to get resonance scores for companies that aren’t using promoted tweets?
Not at first. But possibly.

Will you share revenue with TweetDeck, etc.?
Yes. We’ll talk about this tomorrow so we can save something for those guys. Revenue-sharing will be very transparent. Costolo name-checks Iain Dodsworth of TweetDeck and Loïc Le Meur at Seesmic.

Finished up. I will have some questions for Costolo myself, a little later this afternoon.

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

Working with Seth MacFarlane, creator of the “Family Guy” animated series, Google (GOOG) will in September begin distributing “Seth MacFarlane’s Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy,” a series of digital shorts
to be embedded on Web sites as free, ad-supported streams.
About two minutes in length, the shorts–which MacFarlane describes as “animated versions of the one-frame cartoons you might see in The New Yorker, only edgier”–will be syndicated through Google’s AdSense advertising system, which will target them at MacFarlane-friendly segments of the Web. Some will be accompanied by standard pre- or post-roll ads, some by “brought to you by” tags, and others by original commercials created by MacFarlane.

The shorts are essentially like little Assisted Ad Delivery Devices, intelligently targeting advertisements at those receptive to viewing them. “We believe the revenue could be formidable,” said Karl Austen, a lawyer who worked on the deal. “What is exciting is that this is a way to monetize the Internet immediately. Instead of creating a Web site and hoping Seth’s fans find it, we are going to push the content to where people are already at.”

We do a good job of educating users about copyright law.”

–-YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, D5 Conference, 2007

I was very interested to hear Chad and Steve talking about educating consumers about copyright earlier today. Perhaps I’ve given them a graduate degree in copyright law.”

–Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, D5 Conference, 2007

Google’s apparently finished “educating users about copyright law” and has moved on to the far more important business of making sure not to run afoul of it. After a year of delays and excuses, the company this morning uncrated an antipiracy system for its YouTube video-sharing site.

YouTube Video Identification, as Google colorfully identifies it, matches videos uploaded to YouTube against a repository of legitimate master videos provided by their owners. In the event of a violation, the system notifies the copyright holder, who can then request the video’s removal, its promotion or its ad-supported syndication. Yes, ad-supported syndication. “Like many of these other policies and tools, Video Identification goes above and beyond our legal responsibilities,” YouTube Project Manager David King explained. “It will help copyright holders identify their works on YouTube and choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even—if a copyright holder chooses to license their content to appear on the site—monetize their videos. In implementing this technology, we are committed to supporting new forms of original creativity, protecting fair use and providing a seamless user experience—all while we help rights owners easily manage their content.”

Ah. A “Don’t vaporize, monetize!” program (see “New From Google Labs: Google Big Friggin’ Video Ad”). Surely, just the sort of thing Viacom was hoping for when it filed that $1 billion copyright infringement suit/“mistake” against YouTube earlier this year. Well, it’s a step in the right direction, anyway. Said Viacom general counsel Mike Fricklas, “We’re delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and ending the practice of profiting from infringement.”

Time Warner spokesman Ed Adler offered similar sentiments. “We’re encouraged that they recognize the need to recognize copyright,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “I’m told by our general counsel that there’s still some work to be done before we would say it’s totally sufficient to protect copyright, but we’re encouraged so far.”

But not for long. Because Google’s system doesn’t prevent copyrighted content from being posted to YouTube, does it? But it may well prevent media companies from suing over it.

We do a good job of educating users about copyright law.”

–-YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, D5 Conference, 2007

I was very interested to hear Chad and Steve talking about educating consumers about copyright earlier today. Perhaps I’ve given them a graduate degree in copyright law.”

–Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, D5 Conference, 2007

Google’s apparently finished “educating users about copyright law” and has moved on to the far more important business of making sure not to run afoul of it. After a year of delays and excuses, the company this morning uncrated an antipiracy system for its YouTube video-sharing site.

YouTube Video Identification, as Google colorfully identifies it, matches videos uploaded to YouTube against a repository of legitimate master videos provided by their owners. In the event of a violation, the system notifies the copyright holder, who can then request the video’s removal, its promotion or its ad-supported syndication. Yes, ad-supported syndication. “Like many of these other policies and tools, Video Identification goes above and beyond our legal responsibilities,” YouTube Project Manager David King explained. “It will help copyright holders identify their works on YouTube and choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even—if a copyright holder chooses to license their content to appear on the site—monetize their videos. In implementing this technology, we are committed to supporting new forms of original creativity, protecting fair use and providing a seamless user experience—all while we help rights owners easily manage their content.”

Ah. A “Don’t vaporize, monetize!” program (see “New From Google Labs: Google Big Friggin’ Video Ad”). Surely, just the sort of thing Viacom was hoping for when it filed that $1 billion copyright infringement suit/“mistake” against YouTube earlier this year. Well, it’s a step in the right direction, anyway. Said Viacom general counsel Mike Fricklas, “We’re delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and ending the practice of profiting from infringement.”

Time Warner spokesman Ed Adler offered similar sentiments. “We’re encouraged that they recognize the need to recognize copyright,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “I’m told by our general counsel that there’s still some work to be done before we would say it’s totally sufficient to protect copyright, but we’re encouraged so far.”

But not for long. Because Google’s system doesn’t prevent copyrighted content from being posted to YouTube, does it? But it may well prevent media companies from suing over it.