Everyone knows that newspapers have been at a steady decline over the last couple of years. In France, their trying to come up with new ways to keep their newspapers in circulation. Their new idea is to get a younger crowd to start reading the paper. In regards to that, they are giving away papers to young readers in an effort to turn them into regular customers.
The government Tuesday detailed plans of a project called “My Free Newspaper,” under which 18- to 24-year-olds will be offered a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice.
It may seem like a good idea at the moment, but in the long run if it doesn't turn out the way they hoped for it will cost them more money giving away free yearly subscriptions to numerous amounts of kids.
Even if I didn't read the paper, I would take a free subscription. Just so I could have the option to read it or not. Especially if it wasn't costing me a penny.
Readership in France is especially low among young people. According to a government study, only 10 percent of those aged 15 to 24 read a paid-for newspaper daily in 2007, down from 20 percent a decade earlier.
There are about 60 publications that are participating in the new project.
Costs of the project are being shared by the newspapers and the state, with the government allocating $22.5 million, over three years.
The government said 30,000 people had already signed up for free subscriptions under a preregistration program with individual newspapers; a special Web site will be available soon to speed the process.
I hope it works as according to plan. If it really boosts numbers, and ratings maybe it will continue over to the U.S.
Even though our newspapers are very inexpensive, who would not want a free subscription.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
As a TV Market, Los Angeles Is Staggering in the Playoffs
So what the Yankees are beating the Angels and the Phillies are beating the Dodgers, that's no reason for the nations second largest market (Los Angeles) to be ridiculously low in T.V. viewers.
Compared to New York and Philadelphia, Los Angeles is not coming close to generating the numbers that there putting up in reference to viewers watching the game at home on T.V.
Could it be the time zone difference? When they play in New York or Philadelphia, the game starts broadcasting at 8:00 P.M. When played in Los Angeles on the Dodgers or Angeles behalf it starts air time at 4:00 P.M. Many people could still be at work or completing their daily chores at that time. Or could it be because by the time viewers do get home to watch the game, their local teams are already losing, so they turn it off.
The Los Angeles market peaked with a 10.9 rating for the Dodgers’ Game 1 loss to the Phillies, according to Nielsen Media figures. That game showed substantial growth during the game, with the rating more than doubling to a 14.8 in the late innings from a 7.1 early on. But the Dodgers’ afternoon victory in Game 2 produced a 5.9, and Sunday night’s 11-0 loss generated just a 7.3.
A closer look at Game 3 reveals a well-earned dissatisfaction among hometown Dodgers fans as the debacle unfolded. The game peaked at a 9.6 locally (or 543,000 households) from 8:15 to 8:30 p.m. Eastern — it had barely begun — and as the Phillies took a 6-0 lead in the second inning, the rating tumbled until it finished with a 4.3 (242,000 homes).
One-quarter of all TV homes have been watching the games in Philadelphia.
It’s not easy for a market with 2.95 million TV homes to beat one with nearly twice as many, but that’s what Philadelphia has been doing to Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles market is losing to New York in the Angels-Yankees American League Championship Series on Fox, but not as sharply. For Game 1, the New York rating of a 17.4 (1.3 million homes) was 83 percent better the 9.1 (or 514,000 homes) in Los Angeles. For the 13-inning Game 2, which started in late afternoon on the West Coast, the Los Angeles market produced a 10.8 (610,000 homes) and New York a 19.3 (1.4 million).
I really think it has to do with the time zone difference's.
Los Angeles is huge, it takes a lot to make headlines. Maybe they need better fans.
Compared to New York and Philadelphia, Los Angeles is not coming close to generating the numbers that there putting up in reference to viewers watching the game at home on T.V.
Could it be the time zone difference? When they play in New York or Philadelphia, the game starts broadcasting at 8:00 P.M. When played in Los Angeles on the Dodgers or Angeles behalf it starts air time at 4:00 P.M. Many people could still be at work or completing their daily chores at that time. Or could it be because by the time viewers do get home to watch the game, their local teams are already losing, so they turn it off.
The Los Angeles market peaked with a 10.9 rating for the Dodgers’ Game 1 loss to the Phillies, according to Nielsen Media figures. That game showed substantial growth during the game, with the rating more than doubling to a 14.8 in the late innings from a 7.1 early on. But the Dodgers’ afternoon victory in Game 2 produced a 5.9, and Sunday night’s 11-0 loss generated just a 7.3.
A closer look at Game 3 reveals a well-earned dissatisfaction among hometown Dodgers fans as the debacle unfolded. The game peaked at a 9.6 locally (or 543,000 households) from 8:15 to 8:30 p.m. Eastern — it had barely begun — and as the Phillies took a 6-0 lead in the second inning, the rating tumbled until it finished with a 4.3 (242,000 homes).
One-quarter of all TV homes have been watching the games in Philadelphia.
It’s not easy for a market with 2.95 million TV homes to beat one with nearly twice as many, but that’s what Philadelphia has been doing to Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles market is losing to New York in the Angels-Yankees American League Championship Series on Fox, but not as sharply. For Game 1, the New York rating of a 17.4 (1.3 million homes) was 83 percent better the 9.1 (or 514,000 homes) in Los Angeles. For the 13-inning Game 2, which started in late afternoon on the West Coast, the Los Angeles market produced a 10.8 (610,000 homes) and New York a 19.3 (1.4 million).
I really think it has to do with the time zone difference's.
Los Angeles is huge, it takes a lot to make headlines. Maybe they need better fans.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Web Display Ads Attract Fewer Clicks
A big part of Internet advertising is the display, or graphical, ad. Just about all of online ad spending goes to these ads, but the amount of clicks they are receiving is significantly decreasing.
The research firm comScore, has been following this trend over a 20-month period. Concluding that the proportion of American Internet users clicking on display ads at least once a month fell to 16 percent from 32 percent.
Most hosting websites are paid by the click, witch means they're not making money if no ones clicking their ad's.
Andrew Lipsman, comScore's director of industry analysis, says “measuring the ad's success by the click grossly understates the importance of an advertising campaign”. He also stated that comScore studies found that merely looking at a display ad increases the likelihood that a viewer will later search for the brand or make a purchase.
Isn't that what an ad is made to do, build brand awareness. Even if it doesn't receive a click, it still gets the brand circulating in the viewers mind.
Maybe hosting websites should do away with some of the paid by the click ads, and focus more on another point of view, or attention grabbers to lure the consumers in.
The research firm comScore, has been following this trend over a 20-month period. Concluding that the proportion of American Internet users clicking on display ads at least once a month fell to 16 percent from 32 percent.
Most hosting websites are paid by the click, witch means they're not making money if no ones clicking their ad's.
Andrew Lipsman, comScore's director of industry analysis, says “measuring the ad's success by the click grossly understates the importance of an advertising campaign”. He also stated that comScore studies found that merely looking at a display ad increases the likelihood that a viewer will later search for the brand or make a purchase.
Isn't that what an ad is made to do, build brand awareness. Even if it doesn't receive a click, it still gets the brand circulating in the viewers mind.
Maybe hosting websites should do away with some of the paid by the click ads, and focus more on another point of view, or attention grabbers to lure the consumers in.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Wanted: Pot Critic With Shrewd Taste and Medical Need
Believe it or not, an American paper is shopping around for a medical marijuana critic.
The name of the paper is Westword, it's an alternative weekly newspaper in Denver.
It has the standard lineup of food, film, and music critics, but wants to become the first American paper with a medical marijuana critic.
It's not just the marijuana itself they want to assess, its more of wanting to review the dispensaries that have sprouted in Denver.
They want to see how their ran, are they strict, do they really look to see if you have the “medical marijuana card” issued by a doctor. Or do they allow anyone to come in and make a purchase.
There are now over 100 dispensaries in Denver, compared to just a couple of dozen in the spring.
This is a good idea. I find it hard to believe nobody has tried to cover this story yet. It has potential to become a good story, make the media, and get public. After all, they may even prove something.
The name of the paper is Westword, it's an alternative weekly newspaper in Denver.
It has the standard lineup of food, film, and music critics, but wants to become the first American paper with a medical marijuana critic.
It's not just the marijuana itself they want to assess, its more of wanting to review the dispensaries that have sprouted in Denver.
They want to see how their ran, are they strict, do they really look to see if you have the “medical marijuana card” issued by a doctor. Or do they allow anyone to come in and make a purchase.
There are now over 100 dispensaries in Denver, compared to just a couple of dozen in the spring.
This is a good idea. I find it hard to believe nobody has tried to cover this story yet. It has potential to become a good story, make the media, and get public. After all, they may even prove something.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
