WebProNews

Tag: media

  • Yahoo Taps David Pogue To Lead Tech Coverage

    Yahoo announced on Monday that well-known tech columnist, author and TV host David Pogue is joining the company to lead the expansion of its consumer tech coverage.

    Pogue will publish columns, blog posts and video stories about gadgets, apps and other technology on a new Yahoo site.

    CEO Marissa Mayer blogged about the news on Tumblr, saying, “Yahoo is in a unique position to bring to life great editorial about the technology consumers are using every day. David is tremendously talented, has a great sense of humor, and is gifted at explaining technology. He also just happens to be one of the nicest and most positive people I’ve met. He has always been one of my favorite journalists, and I can’t think of a better person to make technology more accessible and helpful for the hundreds of millions of people who come to Yahoo every day.”

    Pogue has been a bestselling author and Emmy-winning television personality, writing for the New York Times and penning various iPhone, Windows and Mac books. He has been a correspondent on CBS Sunday Morning and hosts NOVA ScienceNow on PBS.

    Mayer shared this NYT video from Pogue, illustrating what she calls ” a taste of the humor, irreverence and know-how that David brings to Yahoo.”

    “Yahoo is a company that’s young, revitalized, aggressive and, under Marissa Mayer’s leadership, razor-focused,” Pogue said. “We all thrive on new experiences, and as someone who loves to build cool new stuff, I’m excited to jump in head first.”

    This follows a move Yahoo announced last month, adding New York Times deputy news editor Megan Liberman as the new editor in chief at Yahoo News.

    Image: David Pogue

  • Glenn Greenwald Is Leaving The Guardian for ‘Dream Journalistic Opportunity’

    The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald has announced that he will be leaving the publication for a “once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity.”

    Greenwald, as you probably know, broke the whole NSA surveillance story wide open when he published leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. His work led to the current conversation over the United States’ secret domestic spying initiative.

    Here’s what Greenwald had to say about his departure in a statement:

    “My partnership with the Guardian has been extremely fruitful and fulfilling: I have high regard for the editors and journalists with whom I worked and am incredibly proud of what we achieved. The decision to leave was not an easy one, but I was presented with a once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly decline. Because this news leaked before we were prepared to announce it, I’m not yet able to provide any details of this momentous new venture, but it will be unveiled very shortly.”

    The Guardian’s Jennifer Lindauer had this to say:

    “Glenn Greenwald is a remarkable journalist and it has been fantastic working with him. Our work together over the last year has demonstrated the crucial role that responsible investigative journalism can play in holding those in power to account. We are of course disappointed by Glenn’s decision to move on, but can appreciate the attraction of the new role he has been offered. We wish him all the best.”

    Greenwald wasn’t too forthcoming on the nature of his new gig, but he did tell BuzzFeed that it would be a well-funded, “substantial” new media outlet.

    “My role, aside from reporting and writing for it, is to create the entire journalism unit from the ground up by recruiting the journalists and editors who share the same journalistic ethos and shaping the whole thing – but especially the political journalism part – in the image of the journalism I respect most,” he said.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Twitter Experiments With News By Direct Message With Event Parrot Account

    Twitter has been running a lot of experiments lately, and the latest one deals with helping users keep up with what’s happening in the world. It’s being conducted using an account @eventparrot, which has already accumulated nearly 10,000 followers despite not having tweeted yet.

    It may not be tweeting much anyway, however, as in the bio it says followers will receive direct messages that help them keep up.

    Event Parrot

    Twitter discussed its experimentation process a little bit in a blog post last month.

    “We also experiment with features that may never be released to everyone who uses Twitter,” wrote Twitter VP, Engineering, Alex Roetter. “Those experiments are perhaps even more valuable because they help us decide what not to do –– which is important as we work to keep Twitter simple while improving the user experience. Ultimately, our goal is to learn and keep making the product better; we aren’t necessarily looking to launch all of the experiments we roll out.”

    “In recent months, that trend has picked up –– so much so that it’s rare for a day to go by when we’re not releasing at least one experiment,” he said. “We’re able to run tests more frequently because we’ve built a more robust experimentation framework, which we use to run tests not only on the web, but also in our mobile apps: Twitter for iPhone and Twitter for Android. With the majority of our users accessing Twitter from a mobile device, it’s important for us to be able to test on mobile. Over time, you’ll continue to see us test and introduce new features first on mobile. For example, we recently introduced the people button which suggests accounts for you to follow.”

    One of the ways some of Twitter’s experiments have been surfacing has been through these experimental accounts like Event Parrot.

    It used the account @MagicRegs, for example, before rolling out its new personalized recommendations. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these accounts popping up in the near future. Twitter must have quite a bit of experimenting to do with the IPO on the way.

    [via TechCrunch]

  • Amazon’s Set-Top Box Reportedly Coming by Christmas

    Amazon’s Set-Top Box Reportedly Coming by Christmas

    The fact that Amazon is developing its own set-top streaming device shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Not only does Amazon have its own content library to promote (Amazon Instant Video), but the company’s also been stepping its toes into the original content production game through Amazon Studios. Plus, much of Amazon’s competition already has such a device on the market.

    Amazon’s set-top box has been rumored since last Spring, and today we’re getting another report that the company is readying the device for a big holiday sales push.

    The Wall Street Journal cites sources familiar with the matter who say that Amazon’s set-top content delivery device will be here soon, and it’ll look something like a Roku.

    The sources also indicate that the device will stream content from a variety of providers, not just its own video offerings – which means we’ll be getting things like a Netflix app. No word yet on pricing.

    Oh, and it’s apparently codenamed “Cinnamon.”

    Speaking of names for said device, 9to5Google unearthed a new Canadian trademark filing that shows Amazon registering the name “Firetube,” an obvious portmanteau of the Kindle Fire and “tube,” as in the boob tube, as in TV. The generic description refers to a device that is capable of…

    …transmitting, accessing, receiving, uploading, downloading, encoding, decoding, streaming, broadcasting, sharing, displaying, formatting, manipulating, organizing, book marking, tagging, storing, caching, and transferring electronic works…

    So yeah, not much to go on there. Could the new set-top box be called the Firetube? Hang tight, folks. We’ll know pretty soon.

  • Bezos’ Acquisition Of The Washington Post Is Now Complete

    The Washington Post Company has officially completed the sale of The Washington Post to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The deal was first announced back in early August. Bezos would buy the publishing business from the company, including the newspaper.

    The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi writes:

    Bezos’s $250 million purchase was completed as expected with the signing of sale documents. The signing transfers the newspaper and other assets from The Washington Post Co. to Nash Holdings, Bezos’s private investment company.

    As a reminder, The Washington Post does not become an Amazon property, as this wasn’t an Amazon acquisition. It was a Jeff Bezos acquisition. The price was reported to be less than 1% of Bezos’ personal net worth.

    Bezos, in addition to The Washington Post, gets the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing. He does not get Slate, TheRoot.com or Foreign Policy, which will all remain part of The Washington Post Company.

    The WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets like the headquarters in Washington D.C. also remain with the company.

    The Washington Post Company will be changing its name in light of the deal, but what that name will be has yet to be determined.

    This is the first time in 80 years that The Washington Post hasn’t been run by the Graham family.

  • Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal Part Ways With AllThingsD

    Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal are parting ways with tech blog AllThingsD, which is led by tech journalist heavyweights Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher.

    Gerard Baker, Editor in Chief of Dow Jones and Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal put out the following statement on the matter:

    For years, Dow Jones/The Wall Street Journal has enjoyed working with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to bring the best of tech coverage to readers around the world under the All Things Digital brand; however, after discussions, both parties have decided not to renew the agreement when the contract expires at the end of this year.

    Technology is the central driver of economic growth and the Journal is committed to being the indispensable global source of news and information in this critical area. We plan to embark on a major global expansion of our technology coverage, which will include adding 20 reviewers, bloggers, visual journalists, editors, and reporters covering digital. As part of this global push, we will also be expanding our conference franchise to include an international technology conference and building a new digital home for our first-class technology news and product reviews on The Wall Street Journal Digital Network. This new initiative will be an integral part of The Wall Street Journal and will be rooted in the Journal’s reputation for excellent, fair, objective, reliable and stimulating journalism.

    As part of the mutual separation, Walt Mossberg will be leaving the Journal at the end of this year. I want to offer heartfelt thanks for more than twenty years of Personal Technology columns as well as his very fine reporting on national and international affairs in the years before he turned his attention to technology coverage.

    Mossberg and Swisher released a joint blog post about the news. The AllThingsD site and Mossberg’s column in the Wall Street Journal will continue through the end of the year.

    “Then, starting Jan. 1, 2014, we will still be Web-siting and conference-producing and much more, albeit under a new corporate structure with new partners and investors,” the two write. “While we can’t give any details yet — and there are details — you can assume that this new independent business will be laser-focused on continuing and extending Web journalism and conference journalism with the highest standards. Plus, we will finally be able to have added resources, so we can grow in new and exciting ways, including hiring more journalists and doing much more video.”

    Mossberg will continue to write reviews on the new site, and they’ll be adding additional ones from other writers. Swisher will continue to report and grow the team.

    Image: AllThingsD

  • Yahoo News Gets NYT Deputy News Editor Megan Liberman As New Editor In Chief

    Yahoo has just added New York Times deputy news editor Megan Liberman as the new editor in chief at Yahoo News. The company says she will lead a “major expansion” of Yahoo News, which will bring in “new voices and defining features”.

    Specifically, Liberman will be focusing on original reporting, social news gathering, video and live events coverage.

    “Megan is a dynamic addition to the Yahoo News team,” said Robertson Barrett, Vice President of Yahoo News and Finance. “As deputy news editor at The New York Times she drove some of the most successful digital initiatives, from its blog network to Nate Silver’s multi-platform presence to live streamed coverage of the 2012 elections. She is a natural fit to lead editorial for the world’s largest news site, and she will help us take Yahoo News to the next level.”

    Liberman has also served as deputy editor at The New York Times Magazine. There, she oversaw digital features and strategy, as well as political coverage and other Times magazines. She also launched Motherlode, the Times’ parenting blog.

    According to recent comScore data, Yahoo is the largest web property in the U.S., surpassing Google in July.

    Image: Yahoo

  • Here Comes Facebook’s Big TV Push

    Here Comes Facebook’s Big TV Push

    Facebook announced on Monday that it is launching new tools for media organizations to make use of trends on Facebook. This is the latest in Facebook’s series of releases related to public conversations.

    The new tools come in the form of two APIs: the Public Feed API and the Keyword Insights API. The former will display a real-time feed of public posts for a specific word. It only works with public Page posts and public Profiles that have “Follow” turned on.

    The latter aggregates the total number of posts that mention a specific word in a given time frame, and can display anonymous, aggregating results based on gender, age and location.

    The APIs are rolling out now, but only to a few select partners, including: Buzzfeed, CNN, The Today Show (NBC), BSkyB, Slate and Mass Relevance. Facebook’s Justin Osofsky writes:

    Starting today, selected news organizations can begin to integrate Facebook conversations into their broadcasts or coverage by displaying public posts of real-time activity about any given topic. For example, CNN’s New Day can now easily incorporate what people on Facebook have to say about the latest, breaking news event during their show.

    Partners can also use these tools to show the number of Facebook posts that mention a specific word over a period of time, including a demographic breakdown for the people talking about that topic. For instance, now every week during the ‘What’s Trending’ segment of The Today Show, NBC can easily include how many people on Facebook talked about a popular subject, where it’s getting the most buzz, whether it’s most popular among males or females, and with which age groups. Mass Relevance, a technology company that enables social experiences, is also leveraging these new tools in interesting ways to highlight the trends and conversations happening on Facebook for their media clients.

    Availability will come to additional media outlets soon, as the company says it is beginning discussions with other media partners and marketing developers.

    The company also shared some stats about the NFL season opener from Thursday: 20 million likes, comments and shares on Facebook by over 8 million people. Here’s an infographic showing the relationship between TV events and Facebook engagement:

    Facebook and TV

    It’s been happening gradually for years, but we’re clearly seeing Facebook adopt more of a Twitter-like strategy of late, at least when it comes to public posts. It’s going to be interesting to watch what kind of effect, if any, this has on Twitter moving forward. Will Twitter get as much love from media outlets as it has historically with Facebook providing its version of what Twitter has been offering?

    Twitter meanwhile continues to push further and further into the TV world with things like a partnership with Nielsen, TV ad targeting, and the recent acquisition of Trendrr, to name a few.

    Twitter is also still shattering its own records in television engagement. The recent finale of Pretty Little Liars garnered 1,973,418 tweets, making it the most tweeted-about episode of a TV show in history.

    Image: Facebook

  • The Implications Of Bezos’ Purchase Of The Washington Post

    As you’ve more than likely learned by now, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is buying The Washington Post for $250 million. The news was announced Monday afternoon, and the Internet (at least the business end of it) just about exploded with excitement, skepticism and other reaction in general.

    Can tech mogul Bezos reinvent the newspaper? Let us know in the comments.

    Just in case it hasn’t been made immediately clear by whichever source you first learned the news from, Amazon is not buying The Washington Post, but rather Bezos is himself, and reportedly only for less than 1% of his personal net worth, no less.

    Bezos wrote a letter to Washington Post employees, which has been published at WashingtonPost.com. He begins by noting that he understands the news will be greeted with “a degree of apprehension,” and that “it is only natural to worry about change.”

    “So, let me start with something critical,” Bezos says. “The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes. When we do, we will own up to them quickly and completely.”

    He notes that he will not be leading the company day-to-day, and that the Post already has “an excellent leadership team” that is staying on. It was noted in the initial announcement that publisher and CEO Katharine Weymouth, president and GM Stephen P. Hills, executive editor Martin Baron and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt would continue in their respective roles.

    “There will, of course, be change at The Post over the coming years,” Bezos continues. “That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.”

    “Journalism plays a critical role in a free society, and The Washington Post — as the hometown paper of the capital city of the United States — is especially important,” he adds. “I would highlight two kinds of courage the Grahams have shown as owners that I hope to channel. The first is the courage to say wait, be sure, slow down, get another source. Real people and their reputations, livelihoods and families are at stake. The second is the courage to say follow the story, no matter the cost. While I hope no one ever threatens to put one of my body parts through a wringer, if they do, thanks to Mrs. Graham’s example, I’ll be ready.”

    Donald Graham, CEO and Chairman of The Washington Post Company, also put out a letter about the sale. In that, he says, “Our revenues had declined seven years in a row. We had innovated, and to my critical eye our innovations had been quite successful in audience and in quality, but they hadn’t made up for the revenue decline. Our answer had to be cost cuts, and we knew there was a limit to that. We were certain the paper would survive under our ownership, but we wanted it to do more than that. We wanted it to succeed.”

    Weymouth put out a letter as well, referring to Bezos as “one of America’s great innovators and most respected business leaders.”

    “The Washington Post has earned a worldwide reputation for tough, penetrating, insightful, and indispensable journalism. With the investment by Mr. Bezos, that tradition will continue,” Weymouth says.

    “While he expects The Post to remain profitable, his focus is on the essential role that our journalism has on dialogue and the flow of information in our society,” she says. “Mr. Bezos knows as well as anyone the opportunities that come with revolutionary technology when we understand how to make the most of it. Under his ownership and with his management savvy, we will be able to accelerate the pace and quality of innovation.”

    To many, the news of the deal came as a pretty big surprise, but as Quartz points out, there were signs that it was coming. They give three of them: Bezos sold roughly $185 million in Amazon shares on Friday, Bezos is friends with Graham, and he “love running unprofitable businesses.”

    Okay, that last one might be a bit of a stretch, but writer Tim Fernholz does have a point when he says, “At Amazon, Bezos has focused on market-share and customer satisfaction, often at the expense of his margins. Nonetheless, markets have continued to reward his disinterest in their metrics, sending Amazon’s stock soaring above $300 despite the company’s $7 million in losses last quarter.”

    And it’s not as though Bezos hasn’t shown an interest in the news industry in the past. He did, after all, invest in Business Insider, which has quickly become a major web publication since expanding beyond its original Silicon Alley Insider model.

    The investment came in April, when BI CEO Henry Blodget had this to say in an email to staff about the $5 million investment (which wasn’t all from Bezos, but also included some financing from other investors):

    This capital will allow us to continue to invest aggressively in many areas of the business, including editorial, tech/product, sales and marketing, subscriptions, and events. As we mentioned last night, it will also allow us to expand our office.

    Jeff’s investment grew out of a dinner he and I had about a year ago. We talked about the business, and he was excited about it. (He sees some parallels with Amazon). A few months later, he expressed an interest in investing. My reaction was basically “Hell, yeah!”

    Naturally, Blodget had some thoughts about Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post as well. He notes that having Bezos as an investor has been great, then speculates about why he might have bought the Post:

    First, I’d guess that Jeff Bezos thinks that owning the Washington Post will be fun, interesting, and cool. And my guess is that, if that is all it ever turns out to be, Jeff Bezos will be fine with that. This is a man who invests in rockets and atomic clocks, after all. He doesn’t necessarily make these investments for the money. Or bragging rights. Or strategic synergies.

    Second, I’d guess that Jeff Bezos thinks that there are some similarities between the digital news business and his business (ecommerce) that no one in the news business has really capitalized on yet.

    After listing some specific similarities, he suggests that the Washington Post business could be complementary to Amazon in that Amazon already produces content, is in the subscription and media-gadget businesses, and is getting into local deliveries. Also, in the sense that news might sometimes encourage people to buy things.

    Some have suggested that Bezos’ purchase of the newspaper business is something of a charity case. You know, like he has a lot of money, and feels that he has some kind of duty to contribute to the saving of journalism.

    Washington Post reporter Lydia DePillis doesn’t see it that way. She writes, “First of all, don’t be deceived by the fact that Bezos is buying it himself, rather than Amazon–there’s little reason to believe this is a passion project. It just would’ve been tricky to make it a public takeover, because corporations don’t know how to value a newspaper’s future earnings. And besides, though the markets have been remarkably patient with Amazon’s continued losses, a money pit like the Post would’ve been harder to stomach.”

    She notes that while $250 million may not seem like a lot compared to some other acquisitions, it’s a lot for “a company with a lot of liabilities,” noting that the Boston Globe just sold for $70 million.

    She speculates that the Post’s site will get a big redesign, and “could become a major new sales and advertising platform”. She also suggests that Bezos can obtain a lot of data from owning a new service, among other things.

    Despite Bezos buying the business on his own, rather than as Amazon, plenty are still expecting there to be some Amazon connections. Whether or not these occur remains to be see.

    Search Engine Land’s founding editor Danny Sullivan made an interesting comment on Twitter: “The once inconceivable idea Google would buy [The] New York Times took [a] giant leap toward reality with Amazon-Wash Post deal.”

    This stems from comments Google executives allegedly made a few years back. Here’s what Eric Schmidt said back then:

    “We had a series of conversations about what to do about content, and we ultimately decided to not to get into the content business. We looked at the New York Times but also other institutions. Rather than naming them, let’s just say we did a survey. And our conclusion was we are not very good at [content].

    “We like information, but we think it’s better for those to be managed the professionals that are managing them well. I’m careful not to ever rule out anything, because that’s a mistake as a CEO. But I would tell you it’s highly unlikely we would get into the content business.

    “It’s fundamentally better for us to be the supplier of platforms and monetization and revenue and advertising and subscription services to all of these players. We desperately need the newspapers, the magazines, the media companies to be successful because we need their content.

    “The thing we can offer is better monetization, better targeting and a better user experience viewing content created by very, very sophisticated people. … If it’s content, where you have people producing content that viewers are looking at, we’re better off powering it, not writing it and owning it.”

    Of course, a great deal of time has passed, and Google has already had to start putting money toward news publications in some cases. Who knows what’s possible? Some of us would just like to see Google News get actual news right in terms of when it was published.

    In addition to The Washington Post, Bezos will get the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing. He will not, however, get Slate, TheRoot.com or Foreign Policy, which will all remain part of The Washington Post Company.

    The WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets like the headquarters in Washington D.C. will also remain with the company.

    The Washington Post Company will be changing its name in light of the deal, but what that name will be has yet to be determined. The deal is expected to close later this year.

    What do you think about Bezos buying The Washington Post? Do you think it will remain completely separate from Amazon? Do you think the move is good for the newspaper? For the industry in general? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image: James Duncan Davidson (Flickr)

  • TV Is About to Lose Its Crown to Digital Media for the First Time Ever

    For the first time ever, television is about to be less popular than digital media among U.S. adults.

    At least that’s the word from eMarketer, who say that in 2013, Americans will spend an average of 5 hours and 9 minutes per day looking at media on digital devices. We’re talking Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and browsing the web. That’s up from 4 hours and 31 minutes in 2012.

    TV watching will fall from 4 hours and 38 minutes in 2012 to 4 hours and 31 minutes in 2013. That means that they predict American adults will spend 38 more minutes per day with digital media as they do watching TV.

    According to eMarketer, the big increase comes from mobile:

    “The most significant growth area is on mobile. Adults will spend an average of 2 hours and 21 minutes per day on nonvoice mobile activities, including mobile internet usage on phones and tablets – longer than they will spend online on desktop and laptop computers, and nearly an hour more than they spent on mobile last year.”

    It’s important to note that eMarketer’s data includes “multitasking” – for instance checking out Facebook while watching TV.

    Another interesting find is the rise in tablet use over the past few years. Back in 2010, Americans only spent 1 minutes per day on average browsing the internet with a tablet. In 2013, they predict that number will rise to 1 hour and 3 minutes – only 4 minutes shy of how much time people will spend on smartphones.

    TV still wins out in one metric, however – news consumption. A recent Gallup poll indicated that 55& of American adults say that TV is their primary source for news. 21% of adults say that about the internet.

  • Twitter’s Mobile Apps Now Warn You of ‘Sensitive Media’ inside Tweets

    Twitter, unlike Facebook, doesn’t censor much of its “sensitive” content. It’s not hard to find gratuitous nudity, violent images, and even outright pornographic content on the network. “We do not mediate content, whether that content is an image or text,” says Twitter. And the only exception to that rule comes when said content is illegal.

    But that doesn’t mean that Twitter doesn’t want to protect some users from this “sensitive” content.

    To that end, Twitter has begun to display a warning message on tweets containing possibly sensitive media – this includes nudity, violence, medical procedures, and anything else that could be deemed “adult-oriented.” The message is displayed where the image should be when users open up a tweet in the company’s mobile apps, and it warns that “the following media may contain sensitive material.”

    Users then have to click through to see the media.

    There are basically two ways that your media could be marked as sensitive. First, you can do it yourself. In your settings, you can mark your own media as possibly containing sensitive content. If you do this, that new message will be shown to users whenever you tweet out something containing media. The other way that your content could be marked as sensitive is if other Twitter users flag it as such.

    All Things D confirmed with Twitter than the new sensitive materials stopgap came to both Twitter for iOS and Android in updates earlier this month.

    On the other side of things, you can tool your settings to allow sensitive content to show up without this warning message. But the default is to show the warning.

  • LinkedIn Lets You Add Photos, Videos to Profiles to Better Showcase Your Talents

    LinkedIn Lets You Add Photos, Videos to Profiles to Better Showcase Your Talents

    LinkedIn is giving users a new way to showcase their work by allowing them to add photos, videos, and presentations to their profiles.

    Let’s say you’re a photographer, and in your LinkedIn “experience” section you want to add some samples of your work – now you can do that. Let’s say you worked incredibly hard on a big presentation and wish to showcase that to everyone who views your profile – now you can do that.

    “For the first time, you will now have the ability to showcase your unique professional story using rich, visual content on your LinkedIn profile. This means you can illustrate your greatest achievements in the form of stunning images, compelling videos, innovative presentations and more. From the analyst who makes annual predictions on tech trends to the 3D animator who is looking to fund a new short film, the opportunities are limitless for how professionals can now use the LinkedIn profile to help showcase these unique stories in a visual way,” says LinkedIn’s Udi Milo.

    In short, LinkedIn is letting users create a more visual resume.

    To get started, just edit your profile and look for areas to add visual content in your “summary,” “experience,” and “education” sections. LinkedIn says that they rollout of this new feature begins today with English-speaking users.

  • USA Today Founder Al Neuharth Dies

    USA Today Founder Al Neuharth Dies

    Al Neuharth, founder of USA Today and former chairman of Gannett died on Friday, reportedly after falling. He died in his home in Cocoa Beach, Florida at the age of 89.

    USA Today has compiled a round-up of reactions to his death. Among these are comments from Gannett CEO Gracia Martore, Tom Brokaw and Larry King.

    Martore said, “This is a great loss for all of us. Al was many things — a journalist, a leader, a serial entrepreneur, and a pioneer in advancing opportunities for women and minorities. But above all, he was an innovator with a unique sense of the public taste. The single greatest marker of those qualities is USA TODAY — built, as he said, to be a reader’s newspaper. That principle continues to guide our journalism today. I will miss his counsel, and I will miss the man. But as with all great people, what Al built will live on.”

    “To the end of his life, he was a contrarian in how he tweaked the journalistic establishment, dressed in his flamboyant wardrobe,” said Brokaw. “Al often said (his early failure with a South Dakota sports newspaper) was a humbling and instructive experience, which he didn’t forget as he moved up the executive chain at Gannett and became a newspaper baron. It was a wonderful American life, from a poor family on the Great Plains to the infantry in World War II to the heights of American journalism.”

    Read the article for the rest.

    Neuharth was from South Dakota, where he co-founded a local sports newspaper early in his career. The paper went bankrupt within a year, but after that, he went on to the Miami Herald, climbed the ranks, and eventually went to the Detroit Free Press before later buying Gannett. He founded USA Today in 1982.

    Image: USA Today

  • The Washington Post Plans to Go Behind a Paywall This Summer

    Today, The Washington Post announced that they will be the latest publication to put some content behind a paywall.

    The move will take place some time this summer, and the Post is still in the process of determining exactly how much to charge readers. The paywall will pop up after readers access more than 20 articles a month.

    According to a post in (yes) The Washington Post, there are a few groups who will be exempt from having to pay to view articles. This includes home-delivery subscribers as well as student, teachers, government employees, and military personnel who access the Post’s website while at school/work.

    The Post’s homepage, as well as all section front pages and all classified ads will not be hidden behind the paywall.

    “News consumers are savvy; they understand the high cost of a top-quality news gathering operation and the importance of maintaining the kind of in-depth reporting for which The Post is known,” Katharine Weymouth, publisher of The Post, said in a statement. “Our digital package is a valuable one, and we are going to ask our readers to pay for it and help support our news gathering as they have done for many years with the print edition.”

    According to The Washington Post, the company will also release and new iPad app alongside the paywall, which they hope will attract more subscribers.

    The Washington Post joins a handful of major media outlets to go the paywall route, including the The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. Although WaPo doesn’t have the national distribution of the NYT or the WSJ, 90% of their online audience comes from outside the Washington area.

  • Ann Romney Blames Media For Election Loss

    Ann Romney Blames Media For Election Loss

    Though blaming the media and labeling it “liberal” is a common refrain for conservatives in the U.S., hearing the accusation come from a woman who could have been First Lady shows just how divisive political media in the country has become.

    During a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace this weekend, Ann Romney, wife of former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, stated that she is “happy to blame the media” for not portraying her husband accurately.

    “Anytime you’re running for office you always think that you’re being portrayed unfairly,” said Ann Romney. “We, of course on our side believe that there is more bias in favor of the other side. I think…that’s a pretty universally felt opinion.”

    It’s an odd accusation, given that much of the media reported on the 2012 presidential election, right up until the end, as if it were a close race. Many Republicans who believed Romney had a shot at the White House were blindsided by President Obama’s solid victory on election night. In hindsight, the most accurate predictions of the election, such as Nate Silver‘s 538 blog, showed that Romney never had much of a chance.

    Ann Romney also accused both the media and her husband’s campaign for concealing her husband’s true personality.

    “He really is a selfless person that really truly cared about the American people,” said Ann Romney. “He truly cares about making a difference and about helping others. And for him to be portrayed in a very negative light…was very hard,”

    (Image via Mitt Romney’s Facebook Page)

  • AOL Appoints Susan Lyne CEO Of Brand Group, Minson Steps Down As COO

    AOL just announced that it has appointed Susan Lyne CEO of its brand group, and she will run the AOL operating unit that houses the company’s portfolio of brands.

    There were already rumors being reported that she would be taking over all AOL content other than Huffington Post, though the company didn’t specifically mention this in its announcement. TechCrunch shares a company memo, however, which indicates that Arianna Huffington will still report to Tim Armstrong.

    “In her roles as CEO then Chairman of Gilt, and previously as President and CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Susan has a proven track record of brand building and aggressive growth,” said AOL CEO Tim Armstrong. “I know she’ll bring that same drive and growth-oriented mentality to our Brand Group. AOL ended 2012 growing revenue for the first time in eight years, and we expect Susan to help build on this momentum and take our brands to the next level.”

    “In my three years as an AOL board member, I have partnered with Tim Armstrong and my fellow directors to help drive the company’s transformation, and have seen AOL make great strides as it continues to innovate, grow and evolve,” said Lyne. “I’m looking forward to contributing to the company’s continued evolution in my new role, and will focus on creating additional value with all of AOL’s premium brands. Our efforts center on making all of our brands true destinations for audiences worldwide, and to provide marketers with innovative opportunities to connect with these audiences.”

    Lyne will remain Vice Chairman of Gilt, a role she recently transitioned to from Chairman.

    She has also served as President of ABC Entertainment, overseeing the development of shows like Desperate Housewives, Lost, and Grey’s Anatomy. Not bad experience to have as AOL continues to make a big video push.

    AOL’s Chief Operating Officer, Arthur “Artie” Minson, who previously oversaw all three of AOL’s business unites: the Membership Group, AOL Networks, and the Brand Group, is stepping down. He will remain with the company for a transition period.

  • GetGlue Content Comes to Expanded Tweets

    GetGlue Content Comes to Expanded Tweets

    Social TV and movie-watching app GetGlue has joined the growing lists of apps and sites that have enabled Twitter Cards, meaning that GetGlue content will show up in Twitter’s Expanded Tweets.

    “Now, when you share and see GetGlue links in Tweets, you can get an enhanced visual experience. When users click ‘expand’ on a Tweet with a link to GetGlue, the shared content, such as a show description or movie information, is seen directly within the Tweet,” says GetGlue in a blog post.

    The Expanded Tweets not only feature a short description of the media in question, but also contain a thumbnail as well as a link to GetGlue’s Twitter account.

    Clicking on the Expanded Tweets takes you to the show or movie’s official GetGlue page, where you can browse the current conversation.

    GetGlue joins apps like Foursquare and sites like CNN and The New York Times in enabling Expanded Tweets content. Back in December, Instagram famously disabled its Twitter Cards integration, forcing users to click links and visit the Instagram site to view photos cross-posted to Twitter. Just a few days after that, Pinterest added support for Twitter Cards.

  • Demand Media To Split Into Two Public Companies, Earnings Released

    Demand Media announced today that its board of directors has authorized a plan for the company to explore separating into two separate public companies – one for its media business and one for its domain business.

    CEO Richard Rosenblatt said, “Both businesses have grown to become leaders in their respective markets, and we now want to provide additional operational and strategic flexibility to drive sustainable growth. We believe a separation will position each business to better pursue its specific strategic priorities and vision, as well as improve transparency for investors and enable the capital markets to better assess each company’s value, performance and potential.”

    “We intend to appropriately capitalize both companies to pursue their distinct growth opportunities, such as the upcoming launch of new generic Top Level Domains that is a transformative event for our domain services business, as well as further diversifying our content offerings in our media business,” he added.

    Demand Media expects a potential transaction to come within the next nine to twelve months. In the meantime, the company will work with outside advisers to develop plans for the the board’s further consideration and approval.

    The company also just released its Q4 and Fiscal 2012 financial results.

    On the earnings call, Rosenblatt said the company intends to increase its investment in its people, its content production, and its gTLD initiative. On the content side of things, it will evolve its content production arm (Demand Studios), and expects to double its investment in content this year, further develop its algorithm, add additional quality improvements (like those that helped it achieve recovery from the Panda update), and expand production capabilities.

    The company will also increase distribution by expanding its partner network, which doubled revenues in 2012. Rosenblatt says he expects its revenues to double again this year.

    They’re also planning on launching eHow in two more countries this year (after launching in Germany in Q4).

    Rosenblatt says they’ll diversify into new content models, and will expand beyond their core ad-driven model with new paid opportunities including subscription video and elearning content.

    On the gTLD front, he noted that Amazon and Google were the biggest players, and that their participation will lead to a bigger market for everyone.

    Demand Media ranked as a top 20 US web property throughout last year, and was ranked at number 13 in January, according to comScore. The company reached over 125 million unique visitors worldwide in January, and eHow (which was once famously hit by Google’s Panda update) was ranked number 12 in the U.S. with 62 million unique visitors in January.

    “We finished the year on a high note, posting record fourth quarter results and completing our fifth consecutive year of record revenue and Adjusted EBITDA,” said Rosenblatt. “We improved content quality and diversified our distribution channels by successfully revamping our content platform in 2012, and are now prepared to significantly increase our content investments in 2013. In addition, we became a leader in the generic Top Level Domain opportunity, due to substantial investments we made in 2012. We plan to increase this investment ahead of the expected launch later this year.”

    “As a result of these two different growth opportunities, we also announced today that our Board of Directors has authorized a plan to explore the separation of our business into two independent publicly-traded companies via a tax-free spin-off,” he added. “If approved, the separation will facilitate better operational and strategic flexibility, enabling each business to focus on its distinct priorities and growth opportunities.”

    Here’s the earnings release in its entirety:

    SANTA MONICA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb. 19, 2013– Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD), a leading digital media and domain services company, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

    “We finished the year on a high note, posting record fourth quarter results and completing our fifth consecutive year of record revenue and Adjusted EBITDA,” saidRichard Rosenblatt, Chairman and CEO of Demand Media. “We improved content quality and diversified our distribution channels by successfully revamping our content platform in 2012, and are now prepared to significantly increase our content investments in 2013. In addition, we became a leader in the generic Top Level Domain opportunity, due to substantial investments we made in 2012. We plan to increase this investment ahead of the expected launch later this year.”

    Rosenblatt added: “As a result of these two different growth opportunities, we also announced today that our Board of Directors has authorized a plan to explore the separation of our business into two independent publicly-traded companies via a tax-free spin-off. If approved, the separation will facilitate better operational and strategic flexibility, enabling each business to focus on its distinct priorities and growth opportunities.”

    Financial Summary
    In millions, except per share amounts
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 Change 2011 2012 Change
    Total Revenue $ 84.4 $ 103.1 22% $ 324.9 $ 380.6 17%
    Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC(1) $ 49.9 $ 62.3 25% $ 193.0 $ 227.0 18%
    Registrar Revenue 31.4 34.5 10% 119.4 134.2 12%
    Total Revenue ex-TAC(1) $ 81.3 $ 96.8 19% $ 312.4 $ 361.1 16%
    Income (loss) from Operations $ (4.8 ) $ 6.1 NA $ (13.1 ) $ 8.7 NA
    Adjusted EBITDA(1) $ 23.7 $ 29.4 24% $ 86.0 $ 103.4 20%
    Net income (loss) $ (6.4 ) $ 4.7 NA $ (18.5 ) $ 6.2 NA
    Adjusted net income(1) $ 6.8 $ 10.8 60% $ 21.9 $ 34.3 57%
    EPS – diluted $ (0.08 ) $ 0.05 NA $ (0.27 ) $ 0.07 NA
    Adjusted EPS(1) $ 0.08 $ 0.12 50% $ 0.25 $ 0.39 56%
    Cash Flow from Operations $ 27.2 $ 26.0 (4)% $ 85.3 $ 91.0 7%
    Free Cash Flow(1)(2) $ 18.3 $ 17.1 (7)% $ 19.5 $ 62.3 219%
     
    (1) These non-GAAP financial measures are described below and reconciled to their comparable GAAP measures in the accompanying tables. Effective Q1 2012, the Company began reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA.
    Reconciliations for both measures are available on the investor relations section of the Company’s website.
    (2) In 2012, the Company invested $18.2 million in generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) applications, which did not impact its recurring Free Cash Flow metric.

    Q4 2012 Financial Summary:

    • Content & Media revenue ex-TAC grew 25% year-over-year, driven by 24% page view growth on the Company’s owned & operated properties as well as 37% growth in network RPMs ex-TAC, reflecting higher revenue from network content partners.
    • Registrar revenue grew 10% year-over-year, driven by an increase in the number of domains on our platform, due primarily to growth from new partners.
    • Adjusted EBITDA increased 24% year-over-year, resulting in 110 basis points of margin expansion to 30.3% of Revenue ex-TAC. This improvement was driven by the growth in higher margin Content & Media revenue and operating leverage.

    “In 2012 we generated over $60 million of free cash flow, which more than funded our acquisition of Name.com and the repurchase of nearly $9 million of our common stock,” said Demand Media’s CFO Mel Tang. “We plan to continue reinvesting our strong cash flows into long-term growth opportunities, such as our gTLD initiative as well as growing and diversifying our content offerings.”

    Business Highlights:

    • Demand Media ranked as a top 20 US web property throughout 2012, and ranked #13 in January 2013.(1)
    • Demand Media reached more than 125 million unique visitors worldwide in January 2013.(1)
    • eHow.com ranked as the #12 website in the US, with 62.0 million unique users inJanuary 2013.(1)
    • LIVESTRONG.COM/eHow Health ranked as the #3 Health property in the US inJanuary 2013.(1)
    • Cracked ranked as the #1 Humor property in the US in January 2013.(1)
    • On December 31, 2012, Demand Media acquired retail registrar Name.com, expanding its registrar platform as it prepares for the historic release of new gTLDs.
    • During the fourth quarter of 2012, Demand Media repurchased approximately 572,000 shares of common stock for $4.9 million under its Board-authorized $50.0 million share repurchase program. To date, the Company has repurchased approximately 4.0 million shares of common stock for $30.8 million.
    • On February 19, 2013, the Company announced that its Board of Directors has authorized a plan to explore the separation of its business into two distinct publicly traded companies.

    (1) Source: comScore.

    Operating Metrics:
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    % %
    2011 2012 Change 2011 2012 Change
    Content & Media Metrics:
    Owned and operated
    Page views(1) (in millions) 2,696 3,354 24 % 10,378 13,192 27 %
    RPM(2) $ 14.53 $ 14.55 — $ 15.14 $ 13.53 (11 )%
    Network of customer websites
    Page views(1)(in millions) 4,935 4,530 (8 )% 17,436 18,989 9 %
    RPM(2) $ 2.81 $ 4.38 56 % $ 2.77 $ 3.58 29 %
    RPM ex-TAC(3) $ 2.18 $ 2.98 37 % $ 2.06 $ 2.55 24 %
    Registrar Metrics:
    End of Period # of Domains(4) (in millions) 12.7 13.7 8 % 12.7 13.7 8 %
    Average Revenue per Domain(5) $ 10.08 $ 10.09 — $ 10.08 $ 10.19 1 %
    ____________________
    (1) Page views represent the total number of web pages viewed across (a) our owned and operated websites and/or (b) our network of customer websites, to the extent that the viewed customer web pages host the Company’s monetization, social media and/or content services.
    (2) RPM is defined as Content & Media revenue per one thousand page views.
    (3) RPM ex-TAC is defined as Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC per one thousand page views.
    (4) Domain is defined as an individual domain name paid for by a third-party customer where the domain name is managed through our Registrar service offering.
    (5) Average revenue per domain is calculated by dividing Registrar revenue for a period by the average number of domains registered in that period. Average revenue per domain for partial year periods is annualized.
    Beginning July 1, 2011, the number of net new domains has been adjusted to include only new registered domains added to our platform for which the Company has recognized revenue. Excluding the impact of this change, average revenue per domain during the three months and year ended December 31, 2012 would have increased 1% and decreased 4%, respectively, compared to the corresponding prior-year periods.

    Q4 2012 Operating Metrics:

    • Owned & Operated page views increased 24% year-over-year, driven primarily by strong traffic growth on eHow.com and LIVESTRONG.COM. Owned & Operated RPMs were relatively flat year-over-year.
    • Network page views decreased 8% year-over-year to 4.5 billion, due primarily to lower traffic from our social media partners. Network RPM ex-TAC increased 37% year-over-year, reflecting higher revenue from our growing network of content partners, primarily YouTube.
    • End of period domains increased 8% year-over-year to 13.7 million, driven primarily by the addition of higher volume customers and continued growth from existing resellers, with average revenue per domain flat year-over-year.

    Business Outlook

    The following forward-looking information includes certain projections made by management as of the date of this press release. The Company does not intend to revise or update this information, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future. Due to a variety of factors, actual results may differ significantly from those projected. The factors that may affect results include, without limitation, the factors referenced later in this announcement under the caption “Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” These and other factors are discussed in more detail in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Excluding $5 to $10 million of estimated expenses in 2013 associated with the formation of the Company’s gTLD initiative, the Company’s guidance for the first quarter endingMarch 31, 2013 and fiscal year ending December 31, 2013 is as follows:

    First Quarter 2013

    • Revenue in the range of $100.0 – $102.0 million
    • Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $94.0 – $96.0 million
    • Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $23.5 – $25.5 million
    • Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.07 – $0.08 per share
    • Weighted average diluted shares 89.0 – 90.0 million

    Full Year 2013

    • Revenue in the range of $435.0 – $443.0 million
    • Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $410.0 – $418.0 million
    • Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $110.0 – $115.0 million
    • Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.39 – $0.43 per share
    • Weighted average diluted shares 89.0 – 91.0 million

    Conference Call and Webcast Information

    Demand Media will host a corresponding conference call and live webcast at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time today. To access the conference call, dial 877.565.1268 (for domestic participants) or 937.999.3108 (for international participants). The conference ID is 90583374. To participate on the live call, analysts should dial-in at least 10 minutes prior to the commencement of the call. A live webcast also will be available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s corporate website at http://ir.demandmedia.com and via replay beginning approximately two hours after the completion of the call.

    About Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    To supplement our consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), we use certain non-GAAP financial measures described below. The presentation of this additional financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. For more information on these non-GAAP financial measures, please see the tables captioned “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations” included at the end of this release.

    Effective Q1 2012, the Company began reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA. While the dollar value of each measure is the same, a comparison of the historical reconciliation of both measures is provided in our supplemental financial schedules posted on the investor relations section of our corporate website athttp://ir.demandmedia.com. The non-GAAP financial measures presented in this release are the primary measures used by the Company’s management and board of directors to understand and evaluate its financial performance and operating trends, including period to period comparisons, to prepare and approve its annual budget and to develop short and long term operational plans. Additionally, Adjusted EBITDA is the primary measure used by the compensation committee of the Company’s board of directors to establish the funding targets for and fund its annual bonus pool for the Company’s employees and executives. We believe our presented non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors both because (1) they allow for greater transparency with respect to key metrics used by management in its financial and operational decision-making and (2) management frequently uses them in its discussions with investors, commercial bankers, securities analysts and other users of its financial statements.

    Revenue ex-TAC is defined by the Company as GAAP revenue less traffic acquisition costs (TAC). TAC comprises the portion of Content & Media GAAP revenue shared with the Company’s network customers. Management believes that Revenue ex-TAC is a meaningful measure of operating performance because it is frequently used for internal managerial purposes and helps facilitate a more complete period-to-period understanding of factors and trends affecting the Company’s underlying revenue performance of its Content & Media service offering.

    Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (Adjusted EBITDA) is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before income tax expense, other income (expense), interest expense (income), depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, as well as the financial impact of acquisition and realignment costs, the formation expenses directly related to its gTLD initiative, expenditures related to the separation of Demand Media into two distinct publicly traded companies, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

    Management believes that these non-GAAP financial measures reflect the Company’s business in a manner that allows for meaningful period to period comparisons and analysis of trends. In particular, the exclusion of certain expenses in calculating Adjusted EBITDA can provide a useful measure for period to period comparisons of the Company’s underlying recurring revenue and operating costs, which is focused more closely on the current costs necessary to utilize previously acquired long-lived assets. In addition, management believes that it can be useful to exclude certain non-cash charges because the amount of such expenses is the result of long-term investment decisions in previous periods rather than day-to-day operating decisions. For example, due to the long-lived nature of a majority of its media content, the revenue generated by the Company’s media content assets in a given period bears little relationship to the amount of its investment in media content in that same period. Accordingly, management believes that content acquisition costs represent a discretionary long-term capital investment decision undertaken at a point in time. This investment decision is clearly distinguishable from other ongoing business activities, and its discretionary nature and long-term impact differentiate it from specific period transactions, decisions regarding day-to-day operations, and activities that would have an immediate impact on operating or financial performance if materially changed, deferred or terminated.

    Adjusted Earnings Per Share is defined by the Company as Adjusted Net Income divided by the weighted average number of shares outstanding. Adjusted Net Income is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before the effect of stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, accelerated amortization of intangible assets removed from service, acquisition and realignment costs, the formation expenses directly related to its gTLD initiative, expenditures related to the separation of Demand Media into two distinct publicly traded companies, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions, and is calculated using the application of a normalized effective tax rate. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

    Management believes that Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share provide investors with additional useful information to measure the Company’s underlying financial performance, particularly from period to period, because these measures are exclusive of certain non-cash expenses not directly related to the operation of its ongoing business (such as amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, as well as certain other non-cash expenses such as purchase accounting adjustments and stock-based compensation) and include a normalized effective tax rate based on the Company’s statutory tax rate.

    Discretionary Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as net cash provided by operating activities excluding cash outflows from acquisition and realignment activities, the formation expenses directly related to its gTLD initiative, and expenditures related to the separation of Demand Media into two distinct publicly traded companies, less capital expenditures to acquire property and equipment. Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as Discretionary Free Cash Flow less investments in intangible assets and is not impacted by gTLD application payments, which were $18.2 million in 2012. Management believes that Discretionary Free Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow provide investors with additional useful information to measure operating liquidity because they reflect the Company’s underlying cash flows from recurring operating activities after investing in capital assets and intangible assets. These measures are used by management, and may also be useful for investors, to assess the Company’s ability to generate cash flow for a variety of strategic opportunities, including reinvestment in the business, pursuing new business opportunities, potential acquisitions, payment of dividends and share repurchases.

    The use of these non-GAAP financial measures has certain limitations because they do not reflect all items of income and expense, or cash flows that affect the Company’s operations. An additional limitation of these non-GAAP financial measures is that they do not have standardized meanings, and therefore other companies may use the same or similarly named measures but exclude different items or use different computations. Management compensates for these limitations by reconciling these non-GAAP financial measures to their most comparable GAAP financial measures within its financial press releases. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for, financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. Further, these non-GAAP financial measures may differ from the non-GAAP financial information used by other companies, including peer companies, and therefore comparability may be limited. We encourage investors and others to review our financial information in its entirety and not rely on a single financial measure. The accompanying tables have more details on the GAAP financial measures and the related reconciliations.

    About Demand Media

    Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD) is a leading digital media and domain services company that informs and entertains one of the internet’s largest audiences, helps advertisers find innovative ways to engage with their customers and enables publishers, individuals and businesses to expand their online presence. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Demand Media has offices in North America, South America and Europe. For more information about Demand Media, please visit www.demandmedia.com.

    Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties regarding the Company’s future financial performance, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, financial condition, operating performance and results of operations, including certain assumptions related thereto. Statements containing words such as guidance, may, believe, anticipate, expect, intend, plan, project, projections, business outlook, and estimate or similar expressions constitute forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted, and reported results should not be considered an indication of future performance. Potential risks and uncertainties include, among others: our ability to complete a separation of our business as announced herein and unanticipated developments that may delay or negatively impact such a transaction; the possibility that we may decide not to proceed with the separation of our business as announced herein if we determine that alternative opportunities are more favorable to our stockholders; the possibility that we decide to separate our business in a manner different from that disclosed herein; the impact and possible disruption to our operations from pursuing such a separation transaction announced herein; our ability to retain key personnel; the high costs we will likely incur in connection with such a transaction, which we would not be able to recoup if such a transaction is not consummated; the expectation that the transaction announced herein will be tax-free; revenue and growth expectations for the two independent companies following the separation of our business; the ability of each business to operate as an independent entity upon completion of such a transaction; changes in the methodologies of internet search engines, including ongoing algorithmic changes made by Google as well as possible future changes, and the impact such changes may have on page view growth and driving search related traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; changes in our content creation and distribution platform, including the possible repurposing of content to alternate distribution channels, reduced investments in intangible assets or the sale or removal of content; our ability to successfully launch, produce and monetize new content formats; the inherent challenges of estimating the overall impact on page views and search driven traffic to our owned and operated websites based on the data available to us as internet search engines continue to make adjustments to their search algorithms; our ability to compete with new or existing competitors; our ability to maintain or increase our advertising revenue; our ability to continue to drive and grow traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to effectively monetize our portfolio of content; our dependence on material agreements with a specific business partner for a significant portion of our revenue; future internal rates of return on content investment and our decision to invest in different types of content in the future, including premium video and other formats of text content; our ability to attract and retain freelance creative professionals; changes in our level of investment in media content intangibles; the effects of changes or shifts in internet marketing expenditures, including from text to video content as well as from desktop to mobile content; the effects of shifting consumption of media content from desktop to mobile; the effects of seasonality on traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to continue to add partners to our registrar platform on competitive terms; our ability to successfully pursue and implement our gTLD initiative; changes in stock-based compensation; changes in amortization or depreciation expense due to a variety of factors; potential write downs, reserves against or impairment of assets including receivables, goodwill, intangibles (including media content) or other assets; changes in tax laws, our business or other factors that would impact anticipated tax benefits or expenses; our ability to successfully identify, consummate and integrate acquisitions; our ability to retain key customers and key personnel; risks associated with litigation; the impact of governmental regulation; and the effects of discontinuing or discontinued business operations. From time to time, we may consider acquisitions or divestitures that, if consummated, could be material. Any forward-looking statements regarding financial metrics are based upon the assumption that no such acquisition or divestiture is consummated during the relevant periods. If an acquisition or divestiture were consummated, actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements. More information about potential risk factors that could affect our operating and financial results are contained in our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endingDecember 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(http://www.sec.gov) on February 24, 2012, and as such risk factors may be updated in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, information under the captions Risk Factors and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

    Furthermore, as discussed above, the Company does not intend to revise or update the information set forth in this press release, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future.

    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Revenue $ 84,415 $ 103,142 $ 324,866 $ 380,578
    Operating expenses
    Service costs (exclusive of amortization of intangible assets shown separately below) (1) (2) 40,198 48,865 155,830 181,018
    Sales and marketing (1) (2) 9,325 12,823 37,394 46,501
    Product development (1) (2) 9,462 9,719 38,146 40,708
    General and administrative (1) (2) 13,803 16,171 59,451 63,025
    Amortization of intangible assets 16,393 9,460 47,174 40,676
    Total operating expenses 89,181 97,038 337,995 371,928
    Income (loss) from operations (4,766 ) 6,104 (13,129 ) 8,650
    Other income (expense)
    Interest income 4 8 56 42
    Interest expense (151 ) (157 ) (861 ) (622 )
    Other income (expense), net (75 ) (34 ) (413 ) (111 )
    Total other expense (222 ) (183 ) (1,218 ) (691 )
    Income (loss) before income taxes (4,988 ) 5,921 (14,347 ) 7,959
    Income tax expense (1,438 ) (1,172 ) (4,177 ) (1,783 )
    Net (loss) income $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (18,524 ) $ 6,176
     
    (1) Stock-based compensation expense included in the line items above:
    Service costs $ 711 $ 679 $ 2,052 $ 2,820
    Sales and marketing 1,416 1,597 4,857 6,118
    Product development 1,364 1,283 5,013 6,452
    General and administrative 3,263 3,823 16,934 15,978
    Total stock-based compensation expense $ 6,754 $ 7,382 $ 28,856 $ 31,368
    (2) Depreciation included in the line items above:
    Service costs $ 3,770 $ 3,663 $ 16,075 $ 14,452
    Sales and marketing 127 108 423 453
    Product development 308 238 1,466 1,025
    General and administrative 861 1,025 2,994 3,728
    Total depreciation $ 5,066 $ 5,034 $ 20,958 $ 19,658
    Income (loss) per common share:
    Net income (loss) $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (18,524 ) $ 6,176
    Cumulative preferred stock dividends (3) — — (2,477 ) —
    Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (21,001 ) $ 6,176
    Net income (loss) per share – basic (0.08 ) 0.06 (0.27 ) 0.07
    Net income (loss) per share – diluted (0.08 ) 0.05 (0.27 ) 0.07
    Weighted average number of shares – basic 83,592 86,140 78,646 84,553
    Weighted average number of shares – diluted 83,592 88,444 78,646 87,237
    ____________________
    (3) As a result of the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, all shares of the Company’s preferred stock were converted to common stock.
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (In thousands)
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012
    Current assets
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 86,035 $ 102,933
    Accounts receivable, net 32,665 45,517
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets 8,656 6,041
    Deferred registration costs 50,636 57,718
    Total current assets 177,992 212,209
    Property and equipment, net 32,626 35,467
    Intangible assets, net 111,304 91,061
    Goodwill 256,060 267,034
    Deferred registration costs 9,555 11,320
    Other long-term assets 2,566 20,906
    Total assets $ 590,103 $ 637,997
    Liabilities, Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
    Current liabilities
    Accounts payable $ 10,046 $ 10,471
    Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 33,932 40,489
    Deferred tax liabilities 18,288 18,892
    Deferred revenue 71,109 75,142
    Total current liabilities 133,375 144,994
    Deferred revenue 14,802 15,965
    Other liabilities 1,660 4,847
    Total liabilities 149,837 165,806
    Stockholders’ equity (deficit)
    Common stock and additional paid-in capital 528,042 562,703
    Treasury stock (17,064 ) (25,932 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive income 59 15
    Accumulated deficit (70,771 ) (64,595 )
    Total stockholders’ equity (deficit) 440,266 472,191
    Total liabilities, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit) $ 590,103 $ 637,997
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
    (In thousands)
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Cash flows from operating activities:
    Net income (loss) $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (18,524 ) $ 6,176
    Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
    Depreciation and amortization 21,459 14,494 68,132 60,334
    Stock-based compensation 6,741 7,382 28,730 31,368
    Other 1,128 1,134 3,491 1,717
    Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of acquisitions 4,322 (1,722 ) 3,520 (8,612 )
    Net cash provided by operating activities 27,224 26,037 85,349 90,983
    Cash flows from investing activities:
    Purchases of property and equipment (4,222 ) (5,283 ) (18,246 ) (17,708 )
    Purchases of intangibles (5,294 ) (4,647 ) (49,283 ) (13,237 )
    Payments for gTLD applications — — — (18,202 )
    Cash paid for acquisitions (38 ) (16,200 ) (31,010 ) (17,480 )
    Other — — — (855 )
    Net cash used in investing activities (9,554 ) (26,130 ) (98,539 ) (67,482 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:
    Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net (145 ) — 78,480 —
    Repurchases of common stock (13,336 ) (4,913 ) (17,064 ) (8,869 )
    Proceeds from exercises of stock options and contributions to ESPP 3,242 1,451 7,599 12,467
    Net taxes paid on RSUs vesting and options exercised (364 ) (6,151 ) (725 ) (9,496 )
    Other (168 ) (258 ) (1,354 ) (668 )
    Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (10,771 ) (9,871 ) 66,936 (6,566 )
    Effect of foreign currency on cash and cash equivalents (18 ) (19 ) (49 ) (37 )
    Change in cash and cash equivalents 6,881 (9,983 ) 53,697 16,898
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period 79,154 112,916 32,338 86,035
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 86,035 $ 102,933 $ 86,035 $ 102,933
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Revenue ex-TAC:
    Content & Media revenue $ 53,032 $ 68,633 $ 205,450 $ 246,399
    Less: traffic acquisition costs (TAC) (3,111 ) (6,332 ) (12,495 ) (19,441 )
    Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC 49,921 62,301 192,955 226,958
    Registrar revenue 31,383 34,509 119,416 134,179
    Total Revenue ex-TAC $ 81,304 $ 96,810 $ 312,371 $ 361,137
    Adjusted EBITDA(1):
    Net income (loss) $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (18,524 ) $ 6,176
    Income tax expense 1,438 1,172 4,177 1,783
    Interest and other expense, net 222 183 1,218 691
    Depreciation and amortization(2) 21,459 14,494 68,132 60,334
    Stock-based compensation 6,754 7,382 28,856 31,368
    Acquisition and realignment costs(3) 271 314 2,099 446
    gTLD expense(4) — 1,061 — 2,650
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 23,718 $ 29,355 $ 85,958 $ 103,448
    Discretionary and Total Free Cash Flow:
    Net cash provided by operating activities $ 27,224 $ 26,037 $ 85,349 $ 90,983
    Purchases of property and equipment (4,222 ) (5,283 ) (18,246 ) (17,708 )
    Acquisition and realignment cash flows 602 25 1,670 25
    gTLD expense cash flows(4) — 974 — 2,198
    Discretionary Free Cash Flow 23,604 21,753 68,773 75,498
    Purchases of intangible assets (5,294 ) (4,647 ) (49,283 ) (13,237 )
    Free Cash Flow(4)(5) $ 18,310 $ 17,106 $ 19,490 $ 62,261
    Adjusted Net Income:
    GAAP net income (loss) $ (6,426 ) $ 4,749 $ (18,524 ) $ 6,176
    (a) Stock-based compensation 6,754 7,382 28,856 31,368
    (b) Amortization of intangible assets – M&A 2,974 2,572 12,773 10,904
    (c) Content intangible assets removed from service(2) 5,898 237 5,898 2,055
    (d) Acquisition and realignment costs(3) 271 314 2,099 446
    (e) gTLD expense(4) — 1,061 — 2,650
    (f) Income tax effect of items (a) – (e) & application of 38% statutory tax rate to pre-tax income (2,707 ) (5,473 ) (9,229 ) (19,262 )
    Adjusted Net Income $ 6,764 $ 10,842 $ 21,873 $ 34,337
    Non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted $ 0.08 $ 0.12 $ 0.25 $ 0.39
    Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted(6) 86,758 88,444 88,541 87,237
    ___________________
    (1) Effective Q1 2012, the Company began reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA. While the dollar value of each measure does not differ, a comparison of the historical reconciliation of both measures is provided in our supplemental financial schedules available on the investor relations section of our corporate website.
    (2) In conjunction with its previously announced plans to improve its content creation and distribution platform, the Company elected to remove certain content assets from service, resulting in accelerated amortization expense of $5.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, and $1.8 million and $0.2 million in the first and fourth quarter of 2012, respectively.
    (3) Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these costs to be indicative of the Company’s core operating results.
    (4) Comprises formation expenses directly related to the Company’s gTLD initiative that did not generate associated revenue in 2012.
    (5) In 2012, the Company invested $18.2 million in gTLD applications, which did not impact its recurring Free Cash Flow metric.
    (6) Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted include the weighted average common stock for the periods presented and all dilutive common stock equivalents at each period. Amounts have been adjusted in 2011 to reflect the revised capital structure following the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, whereby the Company issued 5,175 shares of common stock and converted certain warrants and all of its previously outstanding convertible preferred stock into 62,155 shares of common stock as if those transactions were consummated on January 1, 2011.
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Unaudited GAAP Revenue, by Revenue Source
    (In thousands)
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Content & Media:
    Owned and operated websites $ 39,172 $ 48,796 $ 157,089 $ 178,511
    Network of customer websites 13,860 19,837 48,361 67,888
    Total Revenue – Content & Media 53,032 68,633 205,450 246,399
    Registrar 31,383 34,509 119,416 134,179
    Total Revenue $ 84,415 $ 103,142 $ 324,866 $ 380,578
    Three months ended Year ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Content & Media:
    Owned and operated websites 46 % 47 % 48 % 47 %
    Network of customer websites 16 % 19 % 15 % 18 %
    Total Revenue – Content & Media 63 % 67 % 63 % 65 %
    Registrar 37 % 33 % 37 % 35 %
    Total Revenue 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

     

    Source: Demand Media, Inc.

  • Should Sites Be Forced To Pay For Linking? Harvey Weinstein Thinks So.

    Harvey Weinstein, an Oscar winning producer and prolific proponent of Obama, told Deadline that he is going to push for legislation that would force websites to pay for linking to news articles. This legislation would require news websites and blogs to pay a monitoring organization a fee for every link to an article written by a journalist.

    Should news sites, bloggers and other sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google pay for the privilege of including snippets and links to news stories? Also, should YouTube or sites that include embedded videos of movie/TV clips pay every time somebody views them?

    Give us your thoughts on this important topic that goes to the heart of the internet in the comments below.

    Weinstein said, “Journalists don’t benefit when their stories are taken, and given a link. It would be like me launching a newspaper–call it Link—where I can have the greatest journalists in the world working for me without paying them. It’s inconceivable. If BMI and ASCAP can monitor the music business, we need a BMI and an ASCAP to monitor these businesses. This will be the one legislation for our industry that I’ll press.”

    This would be part of a broader law that where a monitoring organization would also monitor the web for video clips and require websites like YouTube to pay this organization a fee for each view of a clip of a movie or television show.

    As the publisher of WebProNews and a long–time advocate of the right to link, in my opinion Weinstein’s idea would destroy the internet as we know it today. The internet is based on the idea of linking, that’s why it was originally referred to as the World Wide Web! If you make publications, blogs, Google, Twitter and Facebook pay for linking to a news story, how many of them would still do it. The answer is none.

    Weinstein may think he’s only talking about making news linking giants like Google News pay, but laws against free linking could not just apply to them. His proposed legislation would also have to apply to Reddit, Stumbleupon, Facebook, Twitter and news publishers and bloggers who routinely republish snippets of news articles with links to the original. Many of these sites also inbed video clips as well.

    Weinstein challenges the assertion by publishers that linking and taking small snippets of articles is not stealing content but is actually promoting the content. Weinstein equates linking and publishing as one and the same. Weinstein also told Deadline, “When it comes to journalists and journalism, I’m with you. It is important they get paid for good work, and wrong that others just take it, with a link.”.

    Since most articles have numerous social buttons encouraging “sharing” their articles via social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, you would think it would be obvious to Weinstein that publishers and journalists want their stories to be linked to. The definition of going viral is mass sharing on social media sites which pushes huge numbers of people to a journalist article if he is so lucky. Linking drives traffic to an article which theoretically can then be monitized by the publisher. If the publisher doesn’t want the traffic he can put up a firewall login and charge visitors to read the sites content.

    If a news site like Deadline doesn’t want its articles linked to then it shouldn’t publish them on a linking platform called the Web. Weinstein may be surprised to learn that Deadline and most news sites are quite happy that their articles get free traffic driven by links!

    Just like the music industry, which has in the past sued the parents of kids who downloaded music without paying for it, Weinstein proposes that those linking to content should also have to pay up. He wants to do it a bit more tactifully than the RIAA, but still wants to collect nonetheless. His idea I presume is to first change the definition of fair use which is permitted per U.S. and many international copyright laws, where a website can take snippets of content and reuse it to a certain extent.

    Theoretically, considering Weinstein’s personal connection with Obama, he could persuade the President to tighten this definition via some minor changes in regulations and rules and bypass Congress. The definition of fair use as written in U.S. copyright laws is vague and could easily be redefined via regulation. This is a scary proposition considering that linking and discussing news articles is integral to free speech.

    Once fair use is redefined to allow copyright holders the ability to charge websites a retroactive fee for each time a visitor viewed a news summary and link, that’s when a new organization similar to BMI would emerge to ensure that journalists are paid for their work. BMI has people going into businesses, such as bars and restaurants, all around the country looking to see if music is being played without their license. When it catches a business playing unauthorized music it forces them to pay based on a variety of factors such as number of seats in a restaurant and number of songs played.

    If a bar doesn’t join BMI and agree to pay a monthly fee up front, then often BMI will sue for huge amounts. For instance, one restaurant in North Carolina was order by a court to pay the BMI $30,450 for playing just four unauthorized songs.

    This is what Weinstein wants for publishers and writers of news content! If you are a blogger that makes a small amount of money from ads and you include a snippet from a news article in your story you could be sued if you didn’t already agree to a monthly payment.

    For Facebook, Google and Twitter the ramifications of this kind of heavy handed legislation could be huge. They are the YouTube of written content since so many of us share snippets and links via them. If sites like these need to license links with a BMI type organization, it’s likely that they would just eliminate news links and snippets altogether which would change the web forever… don’t you think?

  • Would You Ever Pay To Link?

    Money for links. What a concept. We’re not talking about paying someone to have them link to you. We all know Google’s stance on that. If you pay for a link that passes PageRank, and Google discovers it, you’ll find yourself with some SEO problems, to say the least. The fact that people do engage in this practice, however, illustrates that links can be valuable. People want others to link to their content, because that means potential eyeballs on their sites. How backwards is it then, that there are actually organizations who think their content is so special that they have the nerve to charge others for the privilege of linking to it.

    There is some great content out there, but is there any that is so good that you would pay just to link to it? Keep in mind, we’re not talking about republishing that content and linking to the original source. We’re not talking about writing a blog post, maybe pulling a quote or two, and linking to the original source. We’re not even talking about pulling snippets and linking to content in Google fashion (which has certainly been a controversial topic in the publishing world for years). No, we’re just talking about a simple link.

    Would you ever pay to link to any piece of content? If so, in what kind of scenario would payment for links be justified? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    There was a bit of an uproar last week (understandably), when a story made the rounds, claiming that the National Newspapers of Ireland, a group representing 16 national daily, Sunday and weekly newspapers and 25 local and regional newspapers, is enforcing a policy requiring any site linking to one of its member publicationsto pay at least 300 Euros (and more than that for multiple links).

    Lawyer Simon McGarr posted an article about attempts from the organization to get money from one of his clients, a domestic violence charity, for linking to newspaper content. McGarr wrote:

    This year the Irish newspaper industry asserted, first tentatively and then without any equivocation, that links -just bare links like this one- belonged to them. They said that they had the right to be paid to be linked to. They said they had the right to set the rates for those links, as they had set rates in the past for other forms of licensing of their intellectual property. And then they started a campaign to lobby for unauthorised linking to be outlawed.

    These assertions were not merely academic positions. The Newspaper Industry (all these newspapers) had its agent write out demanding money. They wrote to Women’s Aid, (amongst others) who became our clients when they received letters, emails and phone calls asserting that they needed to buy a licence because they had linked to articles in newspapers carrying positive stories about their fundraising efforts. These are the prices for linking they were supplied with:

    1 – 5 €300.00
    6 – 10 €500.00
    11 – 15 €700.00
    16 – 25 €950.00
    26 – 50 €1,350.00
    50 + Negotiable

    McGarr’s story was picked up by Slashdot, and was referenced by media industry analysts like Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, and Matthew Ingram, who wrote a good piece about the situation.

    McGarr called the whole thing: “2012: The year Irish newspapers tried to destroy the web.” He has since followed it up with some Twitter reaction, and an update about the policy from Newspaper Licensing Ireland (a group set up by the Newspapers of Ireland), who issued a statement on Friday.

    He quotes the group as saying, “For personal use: NLI never requires or requests a licence for personal use of newspaper content.For commercial use: NLI does not require a licence from any organisation which only displays or transmits links to newspaper content. A licence is required when there is other reproduction of the newspaper content, such as display of PDFs or text extracts.”

    So, apparently still no quoting, commonly considered to be fair use (within reason).

    “Of more general social value, the damaging assertion that permission was required (and could be refused) to link to another website has been abandoned,” wrote McGarr. “For the sake of the country’s free exchange of views, this is a significant development.”

    The group put out a much longer press release on the matter. Here’s what that says under “Our Position on Linking”:

    Some of the discussion over the last few days has been around whether a hyperlink from one website to another, in itself and without any more, constitutes copyright infringement. That exact issue was in fact one raised a number of months ago in the Consultation Paper issued by the Copyright Review Committee appointed by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to review existing copyright legislation. In the Consultation Paper, the Committee expressly requested that submissions would be made by any interested parties on the issue and as to whether our existing copyright law should be changed so as to specifically include a positive statement to the effect that linking in itself, without more, does not constitute an infringement of copyright legislation. This request for submissions was made by the Committee in the context where the Committee itself states in its Consultation Paper that there are “divided” views from Courts as to whether the display of links in itself is an infringement of copyright. The Consultation Paper was made publicly available and anyone was free to make a submission on it.

    NNI made a submission to the effect that our view of existing legislation is that the display and transmission of links does constitute an infringement of copyright and our existing copyright law should not be amended in the manner discussed in the Consultation Paper. We understand that some people do not agree with that interpretation of the law. Equally, there are others who do agree with it. As already indicated, the Committee itself acknowledged that there are divided views on this. We await, in due course, the final report from the Copyright Review Committee and await sight of whatever they might say or recommend on the point.

    It is important, in fairness to us and our members, to specifically note here that the submission made on behalf of NNI to the Copyright Review Committee also expressly recognised that there is a distinction between the sending and receipt of links for personal use on the one hand and the sending and receipt of links for commercial purposes on the other (despite the fact that the same legal principles apply to both). NNI specifically stated that its members accept that linking for personal use is part of how individuals communicate on-line and that our members have no issue with that. Emphasis ours.

    As Ingram points out, the statement from the group “confirms that it is lobbying to have Irish copyright laws define links as copyright infringement.”

    As far as the distinction between personal and commercial use, where exactly is that distinction in today’s online world of social media, blogging, citizen journalism, and content creation and curation?

    The whole thing is kind of ironic, because even many of the major media corporations of the world, would like to see more linking to their own properties. Look at this case from last year where a guy had to go to court for linking to copyright infringing content.

    The argument about links has been going on for many years now. In the end, there is always the question, do links not drive traffic to the content in question? There are many publications on the web who would love to be linked to more (You can count us among them. By all means, link.). Why is the newspaper industry so resistant to the way of the web, even as the industry embraces it as a platform? Is it just that their content is so good that online-only publications could never match the quality? I’ve seen plenty of original reporting and breaking news coming from online-only outlets. I can’t think of too many who would try to charge for a link, or even a link and a snippet or quote or “text extract” within the bounds of ethical fair use.

    What content is so good that people should pay for the right to link to it? Tell us what you think.

  • You Better Get Permission to Use Twitter Photos, Rules Judge

    The idea that content made public on social media is fair game for anyone and everyone to use has received a major strike, as a U.S. District Judge has ruled that two news outlets were in the wrong when they republished a Twitter user’s photos without his permission.

    The case involves a photographer named Daniel Morel, who accused both the Agence France-Presse and The Washington Post of improperly selling his photos of the aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which he published on Twitter.

    Morel tweeted out the photos, which were disseminated by the AFP (they distributed “several” images to Getty Images). The Washington Post later published four of the images on its website, as they are a Getty Images client.

    Although the AFP argued that the photos became fair game once they were publicly posted to Twitter, the Judge in the case disagreed. He claimed that Twitter’s Terms of Service did not give them the right to license or publish Morel’s photos without his permission.

    Twitter’s Terms of Service, like most social networks’, explicitly express that users own their content – bottom line. “What’s yours is yours – you own your Content (and your photos are part of that Content),” says Twitter.

    But Twitter, like most other social networks, also contains this clause giving themselves rights to distribute and publish said content:

    You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

    Twitter also gives its “ecosystem partners” rights to the content as well:

    You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.

    But that pertains to developers who use Twitter’s API, not news outlets looking to run photos in a for-profit setting or companies looking to license said photos. The Judge was clear on that. He acknowledged that Twitter allows for retweeting (obviously), but not for commercial use of user content without their permission.

    Twitter was never named a party in the case, as their terms clearly protect them from liability in cases like this.

    The Judge didn’t completely agree with Morel, however. Although Morel requested damages based on each Getty subscriber who used his photos, the Judge ruled that only AFP and Getty can be tapped for damages for each improperly distributed image.

    [via Reuters]