Mashable gives the lowdown on how this is shaping up and while pictures are worth a thousand words it may be best to look at this rate scale before we move on

The Associated Press is doing their best Twisted Sister impersonation by screaming “We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore” but at what cost? The Mashable article points to the already bizarre requests they have for their employees regarding social media so this apple doesn’t seem to be falling too far from the tree, so to speak.

What is interesting is this idea the AP has that more harm than good comes from the wider distribution of their material. I don’t get that personally. I suspect that if they effectively close off the wider distribution and awareness that the Internet’s channels offer, they will be cutting off their news noses to spite their face. Yes, they are a tremendous content creator and have been for a long time. Those times, however, have changed significantly and they haven’t.

What if people who only read a newspaper or access a newspaper online saw the AP’s work? With the numbers dropping like a rock in that area and the threat of them plummeting further once most go to their own paid content model the AP may be planning its own extinction. At least they may get a few bucks for their less widely read material. Would congratulations be in order for causing their material read by less people and some new player come in and become the AP of the modern era?

Ben Parr says it well when it comes to where this thing may be headed:

We don’t know the answer to this conundrum. But we do know that the AP’s current plan is riddled with holes. Laws protecting fair use come into play and are essential to freedom of the press. The AP really needs to define their policy on fair use vs. reprinting. It also seems obvious that no small-scale publisher is going to pay $12.50 to quote a line from an article, when quoting and linking on the web are common practice.

So if you are the AP do you throw a publisher’s equivalent of a hissy fit to get more from less? Wouldn’t it be better to further explore how to cooperatively work with other content distributors and publishers to maximize the reach and impact of their material rather than limit it?

Comments

Last month, speculation started that Microsoft was looking to cut its staff early in the New Year, with unconfirmed reports suggesting several thousands of employees would start 2009 looking for new jobs.

If the rumor mill is to be believed, the cuts will be in the vicinity of 15,000 employees – approx 17% of all Microsoft staff, and d-day was marked as the 15th Jan 2009.

With only a week or so until the anticipated day of dismissals, there has still been no official confirmation from Microsoft executives. "Regarding any potential layoffs, Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation," said a company spokesperson via email to InternetNews.com

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, is expected to announce the start of the Windows 7 public beta next week, and quarterly earnings calls are due on Jan 22, so perhaps the timing is right for the company to announce such cost cutting measures.

If the staff cuts eventuate, it’ll be the first time Microsoft has made such significant layoffs in its history – something the company has prided itself on.

While layoffs of this magnitude are never pleasant, it is a significant statement about Microsoft’s position. Not so much that the company is in any financial risk, but more so that it’s prepared to take a hit to its pride and trim the fat to stay competitive.

For the sake of 15,000 employees, here’s hoping the cost cutting (should it happen) isn’t quite that severe. We’ll be watching closely as d-day draws closer.

Comments

AllFacebook reports that both the CPM and the minimum spend for some Facebook have dropped 50% since October of last year:

At the time Facebook homepage advertisements attracted a $10 CPM and required a $50,000 minimum investment. Since then it appears that Facebook’s ad rates have dropped significantly and the minimum ad spend has also dropped to $10,000.

Now, how could 32% growth in the US cause this? Of course, it’s entirely possible that it didn’t. But let’s take a look at the numbers to understand just how good—or bad—that growth rate is.

How can more than doubling your worldwide user base be a bad thing? Well, when you don’t have a solid plan to monetize some or even most of those users, when advertisers simply aren’t spending as much to reach those audiences—when the growth of your most potentially profitable audiences is outpaced by the growth of the audiences that are marginally or just plain not profitable.

The US is not the most profitable audience in terms of online advertiser spend per Internet user, as TechCrunch calculated earlier this year, but it’s among the top 5. So, because of sheer size and advertising spend per user, the US audience is an important monetary base for Facebook.

And yes, year over year, the US Facebook audience (in monthly unique visitors) increased by 10 million, from 31M to 41M, or 32%. The worldwide audience, on the other hand, more than doubled from 74M to 161M, or 118%.

This means that over that year, the proportion of Facebook users in the US went from 41.9% to 25.5%—a drop of 16.4 percentage points, or a drop of 39% percent in one of their most profitable markets.

So 32% growth isn’t always something to envy.

What can Facebook do to reverse this trend? I think the best route would be to work to increase their user bases and advertising revenue in other profitable markets at a rate proportionate with worldwide growth. The UK, Denmark and Australia actually have a higher average online advertising spend per Internet user, so increasing their user bases could help to offset costs by less profitable user bases. US growth and advertising, of course, would be good, too, as well as worldwide advertising.

What route do you think Facebook should take?

Comments