However, my article is not really as much about Yelp as it is about defending online advertising, which the article in question attacks with a vengeance. In essence, the article paints a picture of online advertising where all ads should be sold for 60 cent CPMs regardless of whether they are geo and industry targeted or provide branding with prominent placement. Don’t charge too much or you might be accused of being a “rip off”!

Additionally, the article attacks the very core of online advertising by stating, “”For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.” In short, the article advocates that all advertising be priced like Google Adwords and Facebook ads or similar. As marketers know, online advertising is more than just clicks. It’s about reaching your potential customers and pay per click (PPC) advertising isn’t the only way to go about that.

>>> Do you feel that Yelp is a rip off? Do you believe that all online advertising should be cost per click (CPC)? What is your experience with online advertising, good or bad? Comment Here…

Let’s give this article a proper dissection:

1. The article states, “At a time when much online advertising is being sold for 60 cents per thousand impressions (CPMs), Yelp is charging some local advertisers $600 per 1,000 impressions. That’s not a typo. Yelp is charging small businesses 1,000-times the standard online CPM rates for local ads that appear on Yelp.”.

This simply doesn’t make sense to anyone who has experience in online advertising. Sixty cent CPM’s are NOT the standard online rates for local ads. That is a rock bottom rate that large ad sellers charge for non-targeted inventory. To get placement on a premium site that is geo targeted with a very specific industry niche, advertisers will pay substantially more, even a $600 CPM. Sometimes much less, but certainly not a measly 60 cents!

2. The article states, “Now consider the types of local Yelp ads that small businesses buy: In this scenario, the ad goes to the advertiser’s Yelp review page. That’s a page where users are free to leave any kind of review for the business, including ones that trash it. That ad runs about a $600 CPM.”

What about TripAdvisor or Urbanspoon? The concept of reviewing restaurants or other businesses does not make paying for a premium placement a bad decision. Obviously, a business should make sure they are providing a great service and excellent product before advertising. However, it is pretty naive to believe that it’s somehow stupid to pay top dollar for a highly targeted ad spot on Yelp simply out of fear that someone could “trash” your business. As businesses in the service industry know, review sites and apps like Yelp can drive significant new business for free and it seems to me that paying for that top placement might even drive more business.

3. The article states, “It’s common for more targeted inventory, such as the type that Yelp provides, to command higher CPMs. But triple-digit CPMs are extremely unusual.”

At least the article finally acknowledges that targeted ads are worth more than untargeted ads. However, the assumption that it is “extremely unusual” to charge over $100 CPM’s and therefore makes Yelp a rip off is inaccurate. Ad spots are priced based on demand for those spots by advertisers and obviously Yelp has more demand than they can deliver for many of those top spots on review pages. There is good reason for this – businesses want to be the dominant brand in their service category in their locality. To many businesses, that is worth paying a premium and they don’t consider themselves “ripped off”. If you own Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams in Chicago, you want to be the featured listing for “Nightlife in Chicago”. Rory is not making that decision because of a high or low CPM, he is spending cash with Yelp because he wants to be the dominant brand in the nightlife category. He wants everybody that uses Yelp to at least consider stopping by Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams. All advertising isn’t about the cost, sometimes it’s simply about the exposure, despite the price.

4. The article states, “At the high end, it’s a $600 CPM. At the low end, that’s a still eye-popping $367 CPM — more than 10-times the rate of a Super Bowl ad.”

Is the writer suggesting that no ad should cost more on a CPM basis than Super Bowl ads? Super Bowl ads are by their very nature only loosely targeted, skewing somewhat more male and youthful, but not much more targeted than that. After all, Super Bowl 2012 set a record as the most-watched television show in U.S. history because almost everybody from young kids to Grandma watched it. Again, targeting increases the value for advertisers and thus increases the cost. Yelp is not only targeting by business type, it is also targeting by geo location. This adds significant value over a Super Bowl ad on a CPM basis. Not to mention that with a Super Bowl ad, a business that spends $3.5 million for a 30 second spot deserves a little CPM discount.

5. The article states, “To make matters worse, Yelp requires a 12-month commitment for these rates. Even if Yelp doesn’t deliver your business a single customer, you’re on the hook for $3,600.”

Paying $3,600 to be the top position on a popular site and app like Yelp for your business category and in your locality is a deal if your business needs branding. It’s about being in the right spot at the right time in order to attract customers. As with all advertising, the hope is for all new customers to become regular customers, thus paying for the cost of your Yelp ad. If you’re a donut shop, would you want your competitor’s shop to be at the top of Yelp or would you consider paying to make sure you are? Additionally, advertisers on Yelp are reaching potential customers that have only one reason to use yelp; to purchase a product from them or their competitor. With that in mind, a $3,600 fee to reach real potential customers rather than just Facebook clickers can be a great deal.

6. The article states, “For comparison, Facebook only requires that you set your budget to $1 a day and does not have a commitment. A business could try it for a week, see if it performs and then decide.”

It is very misleading to say Facebook only requires $1 a day, since if that’s your budget you will not even get one single impression of your ad run on Facebook. To be fair, Facebook is a cheaper alternative for advertisers. However, to be fair to Yelp, it is not even remotely comparative. Facebook clicks range from around 50 cents to $3, but the targeting and volume of clicks would not match Yelp’s in my experience. Facebook allows targeting by location and interest. However, the interest is based on people’s selection in their profile or what they have “liked.” It’s not all that scientific because if I “liked” a restaurant on Facebook, it does not mean I would click a different restaurant’s ad in the future. That’s why Facebook ads are not great for micro targeting and Yelp ads most certainly are!

7. The article states, “I cannot think of any scenarios where I would advise businesses to advertise on Yelp at these rates.”

I can think of a very good reason … branding. As a business owner I want my business to be the most noticed in my category and location. I don’t want my competitors to be. I understand as a business owner that many businesses also want to be at the top of Yelp categories, so I am willing to pay a premium for my business to be there instead of theirs.

8. The article states, “For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.”

Actually, many businesses desire to effectively reach their targeted potential customers and that Facebook and Google are not always the best way to do this. Really, should all online advertising be cost per click? Advertisers, such as WebProNews or Yelp value their audiences and have limited space in which to allow businesses to also reach their valued audiences. Those targeted audiences are worth way more than 60 cents per thousand impressions or a few cents a click. For a sponsor to lock up ad space for them to reach their potential customers and potentially keep their competitors out of that space requires a “commitment” with the publisher and is worth paying a premium CPM. Just ask the advertisers on Yelp, WebProNews or even VentureBeat.

The article mentioned Super Bowl advertising earlier… exactly how many people clicked those CPM ads?

>> Discuss the article with Rich Ord and other commentors in the comments section….

“The challenge for anybody running a media company these days can be described in one word, and it’s ‘revenue’,” says Curley in the above video. “Finding the new products that keep you relevant that drive new types of revenue, is absolutely the challenge.”

“Tom Curley was the perfect leader to guide AP through the roughest times the media industry has ever seen,” said William Dean Singleton, chairman of the AP Board of Directors. “He was a visionary who understood the need for AP to quickly adapt to new digital times, a transformative leader who created innovative new business opportunities for our industry and an indefatigable newsman who made sure AP remained the definitive trusted source for breaking news.”

“I told the board some time ago when I would be retiring, but it is hard to think about leaving this special organization,” said Curley. “There is this passion, this commitment to journalism in its purest form that makes it unique on the planet. Nowhere else does anyone have such a direct opportunity to commit journalism and have as much impact as they do here. I got to be a part of it, and play a role in its mission to break news first from around the world. I’ve been honored to work for AP.”

Curley is credited with “charting AP’s move into the digital space”. Interestingly, the AP’s interaction with that space has been the subject of a great deal of criticism over the years, as the AP has battled news aggregation and linking to their content.

It will be interesting to see Curley’s replacement’s approach in this area. The Huffington Post shared an email Curley sent to AP Staff. In that, he says:

The battles we have fought – for accountability by elected and appointed leaders, for the protection of content often obtained at personal price or for leading the evolution in how the public is informed – will require your vigilance long after I leave. I have enjoyed the fight, and been grateful for your inspired support. No place is better equipped to continue it than AP.

While these are turbulent times in media, AP is in a good place to make a transition. Our biggest projects, including new technology platforms and creative new products, will start rolling out over the next weeks. Nearly all major contracts are signed. We have one of the most tested and innovative management teams in media. And we are fortunate to be guided by a board composed of savvy leaders thoroughly committed to extending AP’s mission and upholding its values.

On that note about new technology platforms, the AP is heavily involved with NewsRight, content “protection” platform that 29 news organizations teamed up on. We’re still waiting to see how that plays out. It’s already drawn comparisons to Righthaven, though NewsRight rejects such comparisons.

Legendary Penn State football Coach Joe Paterno passed away today (Jan. 22) after announcing a month ago that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Paterno was 85.

The University plans to honor him for his many contributions and to remember his remarkable life and legacy. We are all deeply saddened.

Since last night, there have been many reports about former Penn State coach Joe Paterno’s health and his death. Reports of his death came premature, and were proven false last night.

In fact, we posted a story earlier this morning about how the incident highlighted some flaws in journalism.

Now, however, the Associated Press itself has tweeted that Paterno is dead. This is unconfirmed, but the AP is supposed to be made up of “the real journalists,” so take that how you will (remember, CBS News reported him dead prematurely):

I know the AP isn’t big on others linking to their stories. I hope embedding their tweets is OK. If not, they may want to take that up with Twitter, which enables such functionality.

Update: His death is also being reported by the New York Times.

More on Joe Paterno’s death here.

The Poynter Institute, whose mission it is to make sure “communities have access to excellent journalism,” has posted an interesting series of articles pointing out journalism’s failures with regards to former Penn State football head coach Joe Paterno.

Paterno is reportedly in serious condition in a hospital in State College, PA, but is still alive. However, Penn State student news site Onward State reported that Paterno died last night. Once that initial report came out, various other news organizations jumped on the story and started falsely reporting his death too.

While it’s been deleted now, CBS News tweeted that he had died, apparently based on the Onward State report, but without attribution. Poynter shows the embed.

In another of the Poynter articles, Craig Silverman points out how “journalists’ hunger for glory” can get them in trouble. “The tension between speed and accuracy is always highlighted in these cases,” he writes.

“Journalists need to do a better job calculating the risk of being first, rather than focusing on the benefit,” Silverman writes. “How many people would have recalled — or cared — that Onward State broke the news? Aside from some journalists, I’d wager very few people. This kind of breaking news report spreads quickly, and whatever credit that may have gone to Onward State in the early minutes would have disappeared once the information was confirmed and widespread.”

The speed vs. accuracy issue has become more of a challenge for reporters thanks to the realtime nature of today’s web. This seems to be brought to light when false death reports emerge, then are proven wrong. Remember when this happened with Jon Bon Jovi recently?

It does make you wonder how many other falsities are being taken as truths, with stories that don’t demand as much attention as the death of a celebrity.

Onward State’s managing editor has resigned. He posted the following apology:

Earlier this evening, Onward State reported that Joe Paterno had passed away; however, the mountain of evidence stacked opposite that report became too much to ignore. At this time, I would like to issue an official retraction of our earlier tweets.

Devon Edwards

But, as Fast Company reports, there’s always someone out to game the system, and even a giant like Amazon has trouble swatting all the bugs in the barn.

The game afoot has come to light, firstly at least, in the erotica section of Amazon. Authors were noticing that their own works that had sold well elsewhere were being surpassed by fiction titles that were of very poor quality, even containing spelling errors in the titles. This led to a further look, and upon closer examination some major fouls were uncovered.

One author was found to have 40 titles in the store, but the contents were copied and pasted from other sources, ranging from Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” to copies of user-submitted erotic fiction from online forums. Pasting from erotic websites was not unusual, it turns out. Other authors were found, upon closer examination, to have done the same thing.

And, it’s not just the steamy stuff either. Older works now in the public domain have been pasted in, retitled, and sold as original works. Books on health insurance, advice for senior citizens, and cookbooks have all been found to be plagiarized outright from other authors, many of whom are so small that they do not have the resources to fight a copyright battle in court.

That this kind of behavior is happening under Amazon’s nose might seem shocking to folks who have done business with them over the years, especially those associated with Amazon’s affiliate programs. Affiliates commonly spread stories of hair-trigger account suspensions for violating terms of service. It often seems that Amazon will shoot first – ask questions later – when it comes to affiliates.

But, suspending affiliates keeps Amazon from paying out money tallied up fraudulently. Quashing plagiaristic works on its virtual shelves may not be a priority since they have nothing to lose. If enough complaints come in on a particular title, they can remove that title, even sanction an author. But, they still have profited from the sale.

Some people point to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act now under consideration as a means to stop this activity. But, many people see that approach as going after a fly with a sledgehammer. Too much damage would be done to the surrounding structure to make it wise.

Amazon has an email address that authors can submit complaints to if they wish to report plagiarism. But, there are tools available that can recognize text lifted from other sources. Businesses that solicit original material from article authors commonly check for plagiarism using little more than the almighty Google machine. That’s how some of the complaining authors in Amazon’s erotic fiction section found out their competitors’ trespasses. If Amazon wanted to be proactive in defending its legitimate authors, it could with little inconvenience.

The problem, as it’s always been, however, is that there’s a lot of gray area between these organizations’ demands, historically, and the reality of how online news actually works. For example, remember the AP’s attempts to outlaw search engine links? Linking, which last I checked is largely how news aggregation works, is not something a lot of sites are going to be willing to pay to do. Links are kind of what make the web a web.

This collaboration is called NewsRight, and it’s being led by former ABC News President David Westin, who has assumed the CEO role.

The 29 organizations include: the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The McClatchy Company, Hearst Newspapers (see the entire list at the end of this article). Combined, the organizations account for 841 websites representing newspapers accounting for a combined circulation of over 147 million Americans, and 170 million web readers.

“More news is available more ways than ever in history. But if reliable information is to continue to flourish, the companies investing in creating content need efficient ways to license it as broadly as possible,” says Westin. “NewsRight’s mission is to make sure consumers continue to benefit from the all the original news reporting they want while ensuring those who republish content do so with integrity. ”

“Working with NewsRight benefits digital innovators because they can license news content in their applications quickly and easily; news organizations that provide the content for those applications benefit because they can more efficiently license their content to a broader range of uses; and consumers benefit because they will have assured access to a robust supply of credible news and information in new and exciting ways,” he says.

On the licensing front, in short, NewsRight aims to make it easy for third-parties to obtain legal clearance to use content from the participating publishers. By paying, obviously.

The question is, will they pay? Will things really change? I guess we’ll see. Another question is really, who all do they expect to pay? If a site is running their content in its entirety, then yes, payment makes sense. But what about a blog or other news site pulling a quote for a story? What about the same in a Google+ post?

NewsRight reportedly intends to encode its stories with data that will let the organization know where it’s being used, as well as who is reading it. It’s unclear how much of the content has to be used to trigger this.

NewsRight’s initial investors include: Advance Publications, The Associated Press, Axel Springer Group, A.H.Belo Management Services, Belo Management Services, Business Wire, Community Newspaper Holdings, El Dia, Galveston Newspapers, Gatehouse Media, The Gazette Company, Hearst Newspapers, Journal Communications, Landmark Media Enterprises, The McClatchy Company, Media General, MediaNews Group, Morris Communications, Morris Multimedia, NPG Newspapers, The New York Times Company, Ogden Newspapers, Pioneer Newspapers, Schurz Communications, The E.W. Scripps Company, Stephens Media, Swift Communications, Times Publishing Co. and The Washington Post Company.

We’ll be following this story in the future. NewsRight deems itself “the right path for news on the web.” Do you agree?

The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) announced today that 64 journalists were killed around the world with the most dangerous region being the middle east. Ten journalists were killed in Pakistan for the second year in the row making it the deadliest country for journalists.

The uprisings in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen cost the lives of 16 journalists, while Iraq remains dangerous with six journalists killed last year.

Mexico is the most dangerous country in the Western hemisphere with six deaths reported in the country due to the coverage of organized crime and corruption.

The deaths are down from previous years with the high being in 2006 where 110 journalists were killed. The full list of deaths from last year and those prior can be found on the WAN-IFRA Web site.

While journalists are killed in war zones, a lot of them are killed for merely investigated organized crime, drug trafficking, corruption and other crimes. Those who kill journalists are rarely brought to justice.

Journalists were killed in 27 countries in 2011. A lot of the countries are located in the Middle East, but a few of them are surprising such as Russia or Brazil.

The International Press Institute released their own numbers saying that the death count was at 103. They list Latin America as the most dangerous country for journalists.

The Committee to Protect Journalists released their own numbers in December pegging the death toll at 43.

Regardless of who has the right numbers, the point still stands. The Middle East and Latin America were both dangerous for journalists in 2011.

People took to Twitter to comment on the news while focusing mostly on the deaths in the Middle East.

I don’t know that a stock image bank reflects society’s opinions on bloggers and journalism, but I found the search results amusing, and thought it would be fun to share.

If you search “blog,” “blogging,” or “blogger” you get these results:

That’s it. Really. That’s literally every result that comes up.

For “journalist,” there are seven pages of photos. I’m not going to include them all, but here is a sampling:

So, what are the takeaways here?

Bloggers are basically teenage girls with computers. Journalists don’t use computers. They use typewriters, paper, or appear on TV.

I guess the line between blogger and journalist isn’t so gray after all.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has the grim task of tracking the number of journalists and other media workers that are killed each year around the world. CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon explains the importance of keeping track of this gruesome information:

CPJ’s mission – grounded in international law – is to fight for the rights of all journalists to report the news freely, without fear of reprisal. Our list of journalists killed is a key advocacy tool in this struggle. We routinely use it to confront governments with their own record of indifference or ineptitude, as we’ve done recently in Pakistan, Mexico, and Russia.

Their data for 2011 was released earlier today and while it wasn’t the deadliest year on record it certainly wasn’t a low-risk one, either. CPJ provided an interactive graphic that details the fine statistics of the 43 journalists were killed throughout the world with 19 of them murdered.

From CPJ’s analysis:

CPJ’s survey identified significant changes in the nature of journalist fatalities. Sixteen journalists died while on dangerous assignments, many of them while covering the chaotic and violent confrontations between authorities and protesters during the uprisings that swept the Arab world. The victims included Hassan al-Wadhaf, a Yemeni cameraman shot by a sniper while covering antigovernment protests in Sana’a, and Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, an Egyptian reporter gunned down while filming a protest in Cairo. “Journalists working in this environment are in no less danger than war correspondents covering an armed conflict,” said Ahmed Tarek, a reporter for the Middle East News Agency who was assaulted by police while covering protests in Alexandria, Egypt. “The greatest danger journalists are facing today in post-revolution Arab countries is the targeting of journalists by political forces hostile to anyone who exposes them.”

For the second year in a row Pakistan topped the list of most dangerous places for journalists as 7 were killed while reporting from that country. With all that has happened in the Middle East year during the Arab Spring, it probably won’t surprise anyone that 7 out of the 10 deadliest countries for a reporter to be working are located in that region. The grisly violence directed to journalists wasn’t isolated only to that region, though, as the 4th deadliest place in the world for journalism was Mexico, most likely due to the surmounting violence associated with the Zetas drug cartel.

While CPJ keeps track of the death toll of journalists in the past year, this data does not include the journalists that were beaten and severely injured while in the line of duty. Including those statistics, journalism becomes mutates into an even more dangerous profession.

1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

How do you define journalism? Let us know.

To me, the most prominent section of this definition is part 3, which essentially points to the objectivity aspect of journalism. However, when you think about this, how many mainstream journalists or media outlets does this aspect describe? And, if this is the definition, should it be enforced? Should journalists set themselves at a higher standard than they currently are?

On the other hand, is this definition even accurate today? Or, has it evolved with the advent of blogging?

These are just a few of the questions that are being raised after Crystal Cox, who calls herself an investigative blogger, was charged with defamation and ordered to pay $2.5 million after an Oregon court recently ruled that she was not protected under the state’s media shield law. As WebProNews covered here and here, Cox was sued by Obsidian Finance Group earlier this year after she accused the firm’s co-founder, Kevin Padrick, of fraud, dishonesty with shareholders, and abuse of his position as the company’s chapter 11 trustee.

Cox, who defended herself in court, said that, because her content was based on information from an inside source, she was protected through the media shield law. The court, however, said that she was not associated with an established media outlet and was therefore, not a journalist.

In the above interview, Cox told us that she does consider herself to be a journalist, saying: “I have taken depositions, I’ve interviewed people, I have over 400 sites, I’ve researched this case, I’ve watched insider meetings… I’m not just any blogger on it.”

“I don’t have one blog… this is what I do all day, everyday, [and] have for years,” she added.

Cox told us that she does not, however, consider all bloggers to be journalists. In addition, she does not think that the perception people have about journalism is correct and said that it wasn’t about getting both sides of the story.

“I think it’s about digging in documents, reading depositions, reading court cases, watching videos – really doing deep investigation,” Cox said. “Real journalists should actually investigate and be willing to read it and be passionate about the story.”

As far as her next steps are concerned, Cox told us that she is still uncertain. She has been in talks with First Amendment experts and other groups to weigh out all her options. She is trying to decide if appealing the court ruling or stepping down will do the most toward encouraging equal rights for bloggers and journalists. If she does appeal, Cox said she would not represent herself.

Ideally, she would like to see her story result in a federal shield law and “for all bloggers to have rights as journalists, if they do what journalists do.”

Is Crystal Cox a blogger or journalist? You decide.