TheDeal Validates Our Prediction About Online Subscriptions

Last month, we issued our annual list of predictions, and posted more details on Feb. 2, Prediction #3: 2010 will be the year of online subscriptions. The New York Times has already validated our prediction in an article last month. Now, TheDeal has validated the prediction, too.

In an article, "Creeping Towards Ubiquity: the Pay-for-Play Traditional Media is Striking Back, Winning Some Small Victories Over Digital Free-Content Rivals," Richard Morgan, who covers the media for TheDeal, wrote:

"Will 2010 be the year that traditional media companies disabuse consumers that information wants to be free? Maybe not, but it's off to a good start."

Morgan quoted Rupert Murdoch, who said, "The Philistine phase of the digital age is almost over. If we do not take advantage of the current movement toward paid-for content...content kleptomaniacs will triumph."

And then concludes: "Murdoch's assessment may not have convinced everyone, but there's no denying his message in gaining steam."

Wall St. Journal to Launch NY-Metro Edtion

The Wall St. Journal has announced another front in its battle against the New York Times: a local section for New York, to be launched in April. The new section has been an open secret for months now, but the WSJ announced it officially this week, here.

The new section will appear six days a week, include 16 pages of content and ads, and cover state and local politics, business, culture, sports and real estate. About 35 reporters and editors will be assigned the new section, which will be available with subscriptions to the greater NYC area and available online.

No word yet on the reporters now assigned to the section.

Another Prediction Appears to be Correct: Viacom Drops Daily Show & Colbert Report...

We predicted that 2010 would be the year of online subscriptions, and today's news from the Wall St. Journal report, "Hulu Loses Stewart, Colbert," appears to support that.

According to the Journal, the reason Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, which produces The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, is pulling those programs from Hulu.com is that it was not seeing enough revenue from Hulu.com.

Hulu.com, which is advertising supported, shares a percentage of the advertising dollars with content producers. For Viacom, even those two very popular shows were pulling in pennies on the dollar from Hulu.com. So the company decided to pull the shows.

Hulu.com will survive without those two shows while people can continue to watch them on their computers by going to Comedycentral.com, where Viacom can keep all the advertising revenue without having to split it with Hulu.com.

But it's another push for Hulu.com to move forward with an online subscription offering. Which is the conclusion the WSJ had. Given that Hulu.com is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is a big proponent of online subscription fees, we bet that before Sept., Hulu.com will unveil an online subscription model.

Is ABC Killing the Brand Known as "Network News"? -- Part Two

The cuts at the network news divisions is going to have an impact on the brand, as I mentioned in yesterday's article. What I didn't mention then is the impact digital journalism may have on PR functions.

With fewer resources, journalists will need to rely more on PR functions (departments, agencies) to get information, B-roll, etc.

There will be two challenges

• Reaching these already too-busy reporters.
• Getting them to trust that the content you're providing is of a high quality and factual.

It will be more important than ever to create compelling and accurate content across different media. That's one area for growth for PR firms.

Dilbert's take on PowerPoint

It's like those people who say, "The plan is self-explanatory, but I'd like to walk you through it anyway."

Is ABC Killing the Brand Known as "Network News"?

According to the New York Times, "ABC News to Cut Hundreds of Staff Members," ABC will cut about 25% of its news staff or roughly 300 to 400 jobs.

The Times' Brian Stetler reported, "The cuts at ABC, a unit of the Walt Disney Company, are among the steepest ever conducted by a network news division, and are likely to be seen as a further erosion of the company’s news-gathering arm."

That's part of why I think ABC is killing the brand experience of Network News. I've seen Network News teams in operation. It's amazing what they can do, the resources they have access to, and the results they produce.

ABC is now saying it needs to rethink how it produces news. According to the Times, "The network will rely more heavily on 'digital journalists' who produce, record and edit much of their material."

That means fewer resources, more stressed reporters -- who are no longer just reporters because they will also be filming and editing their segments, too. News1 in New York has been doing that for years, and they do a good job -- but you can tell the difference between it and network segments.

Well, you used to be able to. Now, perhaps not. Now, citizen journalists may be able to produce segments that look as professional as the professionals.

Which may not be a bad thing.

Unless you're a network.

Interestingly, while ABC is rethinking how it produces its newscasts, the new executive in charge isn't planning many changes to the actual broadcasts themselves. That may be another problem.

For more, check out "At ABC News, A New Org Chart" and the actual memo available at Mediaite "ABC News Expected To Offer 'Hundreds' Of Buyouts Tomorrow."

Is the Use of a Pseudonym Reason to Fire a Blogger?

The Wall St. Journal's Nick Wingfield wrote about Randall Kennedy, an InfoWorld blogger who used a pseudonym when interviewing sources for his blog. It's an interesting article, "The Second Life of a Tech Blogger."

Famous writers throughout history have used pseudonyms, including Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman and Samuel L. Clemens, to name a few. There's a grand tradition. Stephen King has published books using a pseudonym.

Of course, some of those named above are known for their fiction, not their reporting. But Franklin and Whiman wrote articles and reviews -- including some reviews of their own work -- using pseudonyms.

Today, they would be publicly fired for that.

Even the FTC expects bloggers to disclose tangible relationships with companies they blog about.

So, my question: should a blogger be fired for using a false name in researching and reporting opinion? Let me know what you think. (Of course, let me know if you don't want me to use your real name.)