There are many other Fortune 500 CEOs in the same boat, and they certainly have plenty else to do with their time than post Facebook photos from Davos.

But non-Twittering CEOs are likely a dying breed, as transparency and authenticity in corporate communications come into vogue, and the younger generations move up through the ranks.

Google’s entire executive leadership is particularly anti-social for an Internet company, although unlike Page, Eric Schmidt, its CEO of the last 10 years, had the gumption to at least try Twitter and post updates every couple of weeks.

That their bosses decline to participate in what many see as the future of the Web is particularly grating for some young Google employees.

While the company circles around launching its own fully fledged social strategy, many Googlers feel that accountability for “getting social” starts at the top by leaders using the products themselves, rather than outright ignoring them.

Certainly, Page is incredibly private in all sorts of situations, both online and off. Here’s a memorable section from Ken Auletta’s book “Googled”:

“Larry Page is aggressively disdainful of marketing and public relations. In early 2008, Page instructed Google’s public relations department, which consisted of 130 people, that he would only give them a total of eight hours of his time that year for press conferences, speeches or interviews.”

That doesn’t seem like an approach that will go over well now that Page will be CEO of a company of Google’s stature, although perhaps he could save some time by crafting short tweets in lieu of full speeches.

While Page seems to be ignoring the social Web’s existence (he said Thursday he thinks it’s at the “very very early stages,” ceding comment on the topic to his co-founder Sergey Brin), the category has already had a significant competitive effect on Google.

The company says social is not yet negatively impacting its search business, but there are other ways it is creeping in: Through a significant talent drain to companies like Facebook, and a tarnishing of the company’s position as a tech leader.

In a way, part of the reason Page took control seems to be in response to the rise of Facebook, although there are clearly many other factors at play).

That’s because Page has now reinstated himself in a sacred position in Silicon Valley: The founder CEO.

One of the most impactful things the social Web has done is raised a new founder CEO to the tip-top of the tech industry: Mark Zuckerberg.

And, according to sources, the rise of Zuckerberg has been especially hard for Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to watch.

Zuckerberg was also just named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, an honor Page and Brin have never received.

And his company also just arranged a deal to raise money at a $50 billion valuation, making his own stake worth $15 billion, which happens to be the approximate net worth of each Page and Brin.

(As for Zuckerberg’s social media presence, he obviously uses Facebook quite actively, and also has a bare-bones LinkedIn profile and a Twitter account that hasn’t been updated in more than a year. And, like Page, he would not be considered a social butterfly in real life.)

So now Page has returned to presumably make Google innovative again with the passion of a founder. But with 10 years elapsed since he last had the job, he may want to go out and do a little personal market research on this whole social thing.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

That goes for almost every other story in this week’s issue, as well–even the magazine’s letters to the editor section has been cut short. But everything on Time.com that isn’t in the magazine–and there’s whole lot of that stuff–remains free.

Reuters’ Felix Salmon saw fleeting evidence of a Time paywall last month; now NiemanLab has spotted it again. It is possible it’s an experiment, and I’ve asked the magazine for comment. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Time Warner’s (TWX) magazine unit is going to stick with the strategy for a while. (UPDATE: Not an experiment, Time Inc. confirms. No more free Time magazine on the the Web. Expect walls to show up on other titles, too.)

After all, they’ve been talking about this for at least a year–recall Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore’s memo about trying to stuff the digital “genie back in the bottle”. And in theory, the move helps protect the paper’s print edition and its new Apple (AAPL) offshoot: It answers the “why pay $5 when I can read it online for free” question.

But here’s the thing. Nearly every magazine publisher with a substantial Web site swears that their online audience is different than their print readers. And their sites are certainly designed that way: They’re supposed to attract twitchy Web surfers who want to read about something that happened today, not seven days ago.

So if that’s the case, what’s the real downside in keeping the magazine stuff free? Maybe that online/offline split isn’t as real as we’ve been told.

Here’s a look at where it’s headed, via a video Time Inc. showed off at a panel discussion this morning. About half the features in this clip–embedded video, that cool table-of-contents feature with geographic hotspots, chat, sharing–don’t exist yet, but will eventually, the publisher says.

Compare and contrast to the promotional video for the first iteration of the magazine, launched with Apple’s (AAPL) iPad in early April.

Future tense:

Present tense:

If you’re someone who balked at the app’s price when it debuted, you’ll continue to be bummed out, as it’s staying at $5 per issue for now. But I’d guess that when Time rolls out subscriptions later this year, it will offer a 52-week bundle at something like $35.

Meanwhile, you can expect other features to crop up on Condé Nast’s well-received Wired app in the coming months, too.

There was this from Google Senior Product Manager Rishi Chandra: “We’re going to have the same impact on the TV experience that the smartphone had on the phone experience.”

And then this from Google CEO Eric Schmidt: “TV has not been reinvented in any significant way since color television was brought in in the mid-1960s.”

With Google TV, Google clearly believes it is ushering in the rebirth of television. But, to Schmidt’s point, sure, TV hasn’t been reinvented in 50 years, but not for lack of trying.

The evolutionary path of the device is littered with failed Internet-TV initiatives. As the Time Magazine cover from Apr. 12, 1993 suggests, this is not a new idea. Nor has it been a successful one, at least not in implementations to date.

Steve Perlman’s WebTV, one the earliest products to bring the Internet to television, failed to gain significant market traction and didn’t do much better after it was acquired by Microsoft (MSFT) and turned it into MSNTV.

AOL TV, America Online’s (AOL) effort to extend its dominance from the PC to the television with a Web-TV hybrid, was scuttled in 2003, three years after it launched.

Brought to market with the help of some impressive hardware partners, like Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Microsoft’s Media Center Extenders never really caught on.

Launched more recently, Yahoo’s (YHOO) Connected TV initiative hasn’t garnered much notice. Then there’s Kodak’s (EK) Theater HD Player, which doesn’t seem to be doing that well either.

So what makes Google (GOOG) think it’s going to succeed where so many have failed? Particularly with a platform that, frankly, looks a lot like TiVo (TIVO) with a Web browser?

Aside from arrogance, that is?

Well, there’s an impressive list of partners. Certainly, adoption of Google TV stands to benefit quite a bit from Sony (SNE), Logitech (LOGI) and Dish Network (DISH) baking it into television sets, Blu-ray players and set-top boxes. And sources tell me other electronics manufacturers will soon join them. Content partnerships with Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN) will also help.

But the partnerships that matter most with an effort like this–cable company partnerships–are entirely absent. The simple fact is that cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX) not only distribute the majority of the set-top boxes in the U.S, they also have a strong hold over content providers. Unless Google can convince them that their current business model is in need of something like Google TV, pushing the platform into the mainstream is likely to prove quite difficult.

[Image Credit: Time Magazine]

From the release:

“The losses at Newsweek in 2007-2009 are a matter of record. Despite heroic efforts on the part of Newsweek’s management and staff, we expect it to still lose money in 2010. We are exploring all options to fix that problem,” said Donald E. Graham, chairman of The Washington Post Company. “Newsweek is a lively, important magazine and website, and in the current climate, it might be a better fit elsewhere.”

In corporatespeak, this is equivalent to hastily scrawling out a “Going Out of Business–Name Your Price” sign and plastering it on the front window.

Anyone want to make a bid? Newsweek saw revenue decline 29 percent last year and ended up losing $29.3 million on sales of $184 million.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that things are comparatively awesome for rival Time Magazine: Owner Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. just reported that ad sales are up (unit-wide) for the first time in two years.

Ah. Here’s Time’s grave-dancing statement right now, via a press release: “TIME continues to be healthy and profitable, and a trusted source of news, reporting and analysis for millions of people in America and around the world in print, online and on the iPad. We had a highly profitable year last year and will have an even more profitable one this year.”

Example A: Time Magazine, which is asking $4.99 a week for its app–the same price you’d pay if you bought the paper edition at a newsstand.

The electronic version of the weekly does contain some bonus features, like extra photos and video clips. And some iPad users seem to be okay with it: As I type this, the app is ranked No. 16 on the iTunes “top paid” list.

But to hear the digerati tell it, Time Inc. is crazy to ask users to pony up full price for a digital good that’s available for free on the Web–even for Apple’s (AAPL) iPad browser. What are the people at Time Warner’s (TWX) magazine unit thinking?

I asked them and got this response:

We are offering a compelling, robust and beautiful product. The production of this high quality, fact-checked reporting takes resources. We believe there is a real value to this product and as consumers experience it, they will agree. We are currently only offering single copy sales, just like at your local newsstand–and, the price is the same as the physical newsstand. We will soon be offering subscriptions–both digital subscriptions and print/digital bundled subscriptions. We anticipate these subscriptions will be discounted off the newsstand price.

Two notes:

• We’re less than a week into the great iPad experiment and none of this pricing is set in stone. So it’s entirely possible that Time Inc. will eventually lower the price for some of its iPad apps. But the company can’t do that if it starts low to begin with.
• Note that the publisher says it will offer subscriptions at a discount from newsstand prices–not from paper prices. That’s because magazine publishers famously give away their subscriptions for a fraction of their cost. If you Google “Time magazine subscription,” for instance, the first thing you’ll see is a $20-per-year offer, (“Save 92% of the cover price!”). I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a scenario whereby the publisher asks subscribers to pay more for a tablet subscription than for a paper-and-ink version, at least for some titles.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Next up, apparently: Steve Jobs.

The New York Times (NYT) reports that Isaacson is working, with Jobs’s consent and participation, on a history of the Apple (AAPL) co-founder and CEO. The paper’s story is scant on details except for reporting that Jobs has invited the former Time Magazine managing editor to tour the house where he grew up.

The article does note, however, that Isaacson’s earlier books have all been published by CBS’s (CBS) Simon & Schuster unit. Which is good, since that’s one of the five big publishers allied with Apple’s upcoming iPad.

This prompts at least one big question: When the bio gets released in e-book form, will iTunes sell it for $12.99 or $14.99?

UDPATE: Reader Ray Duncan is onto something here. Why don’t we crowd-source a title suggestion for Jobs and Isaacson? Ray has offered up “iRock” and “iRule” for starters, and I’ll throw in “iAm,” as well. Anyone else?

No replacement has been named, and if Adler has a new gig, he hasn’t announced it yet.

Adler is the kind of old-school big-media gatekeeper/messenger you see less and less of these days, simply because there’s more flux among old-school big-media companies.

Beyond that, he’s of note among us media types for a couple of reasons:

• He is a long, longtime veteran of what used to be described as the world’s biggest media company. He moved into the top PR slot there in 1997, which means he was there for all of Time Warner’s last couple decades of ups (AOL) and downs (AOL), as well as three CEOs: Gerald Levin, Richard Parsons, and now, Jeff Bewkes.
• He also used to be one of us: Many moons ago, Adler was a reporter at Time magazine, before he wised up and got out.

The founder, Christopher Poole, also known as “moot,” received 16.8 million votes. Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim was a distant runner up, with 2.3 million votes, followed by evangelist Rick Warren with 1.9 million. The rest of the top 10 included Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, Google.org (GOOG) head Larry Brilliant, Attorney General Eric Holder, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, basketball star Kobe Bryant and Bolivian president Evo Morales.

While 4chan is one of the most popular sites for kick-starting viral videos and online trends like Rickrolling, with a self-proclaimed 3 million unique visitors a month, it’s unlikely that Mr. Poole tops the list of influential people in the lives of 16 million Time magazine readers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

There’s lots of experimentation with different approaches. Many journalists, old and new, are operating as stand-alone bloggers, but finding it hard to make a living. Web advertising has weakened with the economy, and often can’t cover the costs of expensive reporting. A couple of respected traditional publications have successfully attracted large numbers of paid subscribers online, but many others who have tried have failed.