I think it’s an incentive problem. The price of ads to local advertisers just can’t support a cost of sales. The more a salesperson sells, the more the paper loses. If the cost isn’t covered, you just can’t make it up in volume.

It’s one of the tricks of Google – no cost of sales, no salesperson.

Why’s this good? Many sales folks just don’t get interactive, in my opinion. This is one case where using a good tool may just be better than interacting with a human.

I think there are two ways to dream big. Looking down from 30,000 feet and trying to look sideways from the ground. I agree that Google ads make lots of sense from 30,000. But, the problem is that the actual revenue to papers is only a nice to have. IMHO, web ads are a loser. Pursuing them as a main strategy is not going to work on the ground.

Google has a marginal delivery cost of close to zero after having invested gezilions in social capital, software systems and the best, most reliable server farms on the planet.

On the ground, the money comes from local advertisers who do successful “multi channel” marketing that starts with Print.

But, rather than overfill this comment box..here’s a link to a post that tries to describe how it could play out..
http://sellingprint.blogspot.com/2009/01/iphones-good-news-for-newspapers.html

Do we really think, though, that any local paper would turn away paying ads?

There’s no question that the Google model works, but it’s on a huge scale, with thousands and thousands of ads. The typical local ad load weekly is probably in the hundreds at best, right?

Still, if we’re going to dream, we need to dream big.

Yes, I think that’s definitely one way to deliver the information.

Another way could be location-specific ads. If you’ve just pulled into the parking lot of the supermarket, say, you get pinged on your iPhone with the steak sale. Only if you ask for it, of course.

Or Maybe it’s social-shopping, with a mix of paid data from advertisers and running commentary from people in the local area who note deals and/or problems.

Once you start thinking of ads being free from their traditional form, lots of ideas bubble up.

The only limiting factors are ideas, good developers and — and this is critical — a means to assemble critical mass of users. This might very well mean building in someone elses sandbox (*cough* Facebook *cough*) rather than trying to launch yet another “social network” that is neither.

The upside would be there would be a number of use cases of success that could be shown to other local businesses. Also it aligns the incentives of the ad person with the client. They both win, if they both win. Very nice.

Back at you:
Does it make sense to edit the ads as well as what fills the news hole. The fact is that good ads are what people are looking for. If ads were edited, that would be a valuable service for a customer (reader.) it’s Search for me and give it to me on Paper.

Google has pretty tight standards for ad sense. Why not pretty tight standards for Print ads, informed by the best professional marketing advice? The SMB’s learn something they need. As long as the marketing campaign is successful they will keep investing in it.

Any thoughts?

Could the ad aggregation scenario you propose work this way: Newspapers develop a database of participating businesses that readers can choose from so that when they visit their local news site, they will see advertisements that interest them. Advertising businesses would also participate in a Twitter-feed program so that they send out announcements of special sales to those same readers/customers. Does this sound doable?

While no single Steve Jobs may come along with an iTunes style solution to the current crisis in local media, it will take a lot of Steve Jobs, thinking the way you outline, and pulling their fingernails out of their desks long enough to realize that the old model–simply waiting for the car dealer to start buying spots again and all will be okay–isn’t going to happen.

Great work…thanks for the post.

Mark

Yeah, I did make that sound awfully simple and easy, didn’t I. It’s actually a complex mess that marries editorial and advertising in a solution that some would see as an unholy alliance but what I think just might be one of the local holy grails.

I’ve discussed it more at length here:

http://timwindsor.com/2008/11/29/shopping-for-readers-a-proposal-for-local-news/

I would only change “brand” to sales Person.

The other missing piece is to sell stuff in addition to whatever revenue you can make selling a “complete marketing service” that is easy to buy and affordable to local business.

Apple makes a little money from iTunes. They make a lot of money by selling stuff. They are in the selling stuff business, not in the selling music business.

To sell marketing programs, why not network commercial print sales forces with ad sales forces with design. marketing talent. One simple buy, for web, print and collateral. Everybody gets a piece of the value created. With an afilliate model for cross selling.