To expand your presence online will require time, money and proof that revenue will be forthcoming. After all, why would you spend time and money to expand your web presence if there is no revenue to come from the venture. So, how do you predict the revenue to come online? It is more than a mathematical equation. There are three critical components to the calculation; circulation, potential advertiser pool and internal sales staff commitment.
Circulation is not only a measurement of your magazines reach, but a great way to gauge potential Web users to your existing or new Web site. A Web site without a magazine is just a Web site. A magazine without a Web site is just a magazine. Together, you have a very powerful force that is hard to stop. Industry experts agree that the best way to promote your Web site is through your magazine. The ability to push users from the fiber environment to the cyber world is mission critical and it is not hard to accomplish. Whether you choose to run contests or you choose to enhance your fiber articles with digital side bars, you must make a commitment to grow your cyber/fiber relationship. Your reader base as calculated through your circulation gives you a very accurate view of potential Web users that may come to your web site. In most cases, 45% of your Web users will be subscribers. This means that if your circulation is 10,000 you can comfortable count on being able to bring over 5,000 users to your Web site. Since our experience tells us that most users will view 4.7 web pages per visit, this means you can comfortably count on 23,500 potential page views per month. This is an important figure to your revenue planning. In addition, if you are not getting this traffic and currently have a Web site you may be doing something wrong.
Identifying your potential advertiser pool is also critical to your online revenue exercise. You can identify those that may run on your Web site by looking at advertisers that are running on the Web sites of your competitors. Another great way to find out if advertisers will embrace your online plan is to simply ask them. Tell each of your sales reps to ask their top 10 clients how much they plan to spend online in the next ad season and then follow that question up by asking how much they will spend with you online if your Web site is up to par with the competition. A big mistake I see often is that a magazine publisher assumes that there is a potential advertiser pool when there is not one. Another great strategy is to share your online business plan with your advertisers. Get them excited about what you are doing online and what you will be doing online to benefit them. All successful strategic Web site plans have the advertisers in the plan from the first word that is written.
People are most passionate about projects when they are asked to participate in the plan. This is a management technique that I have been preaching for many years. It very much applies to the online revenue exercise because when sales people are told what they have to sell rather than being asked to develop the sales opportunity they are less effective due to their nature of rebellion against being told what to do. Type A sales people are very easy to predict. Their attitudes, natural tendencies and performance are easy to manage if you recognize the obvious. If your sales team does not embrace your Web site plan, why would you expect them to be effective in selling the Web site? You can not sit back and say that they have too sell because it is their job. Sure, they will sell because they are good soldiers, but they will never soar because they do not believe in the plan. Many times management will create the wrong selling situation and then become frustrated when sales goals are not met. Most often these situations can be avoided by putting a representative on the strategic planning team for the new Web site. While I am not advocating a democracy, I am advocating that you get your sales team involved in the project from day one. They are in the field each day and only they know what advertisers are asking about. If your sales team is not 90% on board, you can have the best Web site in the industry, but your revenue potential will suffer.
Now that you have these three pieces of data, you can begin to develop your revenue potential. Based on the circulation example above you will have 5,000 potential web users per month. They will then look on average at 4.7 pages per visit. That means you should or will have the potential to serve nearly 25,000 page views each month. Take the number of ads you have on each page times your potential page views to determine how much ad inventory you have to sell. If 25% of your 70 advertisers are ready to get online that is 17 potential advertisers. You have determined that 50% of your sales staff is excited about selling the Web. That means you have 8 potential sales. In most cases it has been my experience that you can charge 25% of your full page rate as a price base online.
The math and philosophy to make this scenario complete is a bit more complex and requires some further questions and answers. However, if you have no idea where to start this overview should give you a place to begin your journey toward online revenue potential.
Need some help with your online strategy? Want to make money from your Web site? Contact Ryan Dohrn and the Brain Swell Media team today. ryan@brainswellmedia.com or 803-634-3886.
http://www.RyanDohrn.com or http://www.BrainSwellMedia.com
About this blogger: Ryan Dohrn ( http://www.ryandohrn.com ) is President and founder of Brain Swell Media, an internet consulting firm that helps business owners and publishers make money online. http://www.BrainSwellMedia.com or FreeAdvice@brainswellmedia.com
Showing posts with label niche magaiznes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label niche magaiznes. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Can Publishers be sued for user comments placed on their site?
This is a common question I get while speaking and consulting. Can Publishers be sued for user comments place on their site via forums and bulletin boards. The answer is Yes. Seek advice from a legal professional! My experience tells me this... you can be sued for anything. Period. Will you loose or win in court is the better question. The answer received a bit more clarity when the Middle District Court of Florida ruled this week that the federal Communications Decency Act protects site operators from liability for user comments. "The court finds that the mere fact that Xcentric provides categories from which a poster must make a selection in order to submit a report on the ... website is not sufficient to treat defendants as information content providers," wrote Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers division.”
Legal wins by publishers continue across the nation as site publishers embrace user generated content to drive traffic and give users a reason to return to their sites on a daily basis.
There is a quiet dance that must occur on magazine web sites between user generated content and publisher generated content. I talked about this a bit in a previous post about user generated video. Read that post here. http://ryandohrn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=26
User generated content is critical to your sites success online, but “the mix” of this content and the content generated by your editorial team is the real point to focus upon. In some cases a sub site makes the most sense with some information that pulls back and forth between the sites. If your magazine deals with very exclusive and very expensive editorial content then user generated content will often take a back seat, but should not be forgotten. But, this is a bit of a different debate than if you should place user generated content online at all for fear of being sued. Consult a lawyer for legal advice, if you are asking for my opinion, from a internet perspective, user generated content is critical to your success online as it will drive traffic, increase revenue and give your site an overall fraternal feel that makes users feel comfortable on your site. When users feel comfortable on your site, they feel at ease with your magazine. This in turn, will drive them to subscribe to continue that “all in the family” feeling. Also, when users feel a part of your family, they are more open to receiving e-mail blasts and offers from you that also drive revenue.
Wendy Davis from Media Post posted the following online at Media Post that should set most publishers minds at ease to the end that in most cases the publishers win.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=76849&Nid=39529&p=469455
THE PUBLISHER OF ONLINE COMPLAINT site Ripoff Report has won a lawsuit filed by a Colorado company that took issue with users' posts about it tagged with labels like "con artists," "corrupt companies" and "false TV advertisements."
In the case, a federal district court in Florida late last week dismissed a defamation and trademark infringement complaint brought by Whitney Information Network, a company billing itself as offering education in real estate investing, against Xcentric Ventures, the Arizona company that runs RipOffReport.com and BadBusinessBureau.com.
The court ruled that the federal Communications Decency Act protects site operators from liability for user comments--even when the company behind the sites has created tags for commenters to use to classify their posts. "The court finds that the mere fact that Xcentric provides categories from which a poster must make a selection in order to submit a report on the ... website is not sufficient to treat defendants as information content providers," wrote Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers division.”
Whitney Information Network's in-house lawyer declined to comment on the matter, or state whether the company planned to appeal.
Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law and a well-known advocate for online publishers, said the case seemed "entirely consistent with existing precedent," even though the result--that tags created by publishers are treated as if they were user-created--might seem counterintuitive.
He said the court's rationale stems from the concept that "the Web site wrote those terms, but really they're given effect only when the users choose them."
The case raises the same legal issue as another pending lawsuit against roommate-matching site Roommates.com. In that case, a fair housing group in California sued Roommates.com for civil rights violations on the theory that the site enabled discrimination by giving users questionnaires with choices like "I will not live with children," as well as options to indicate whether they're willing to live with straight roommates only, gay roommates only, and the like.
The 9th Circuit appellate court initially ruled last May that Roommates.com was not immune from liability under federal law on the theory that the site had collaborated with users to create the content. "By categorizing, channeling and limiting the distribution of users' profiles, Roommate provides an additional layer of information that it is 'responsible' at least 'in part' for creating or developing," a three-judge panel of the court wrote.
But the 9th Circuit later vacated that ruling and ordered re-argument, which it heard late last year. A host of other Web companies--including Amazon, Google and eBay--unsuccessfully attempted to file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Roommates.com, but the court rejected it in December, apparently because accepting it would have created a conflict of interest for one or more judges deciding the case.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=76849&Nid=39529&p=469455
The views of Ryan Dohrn are 100% personal in nature and do not represent the views of his employer, any other person, company or entity in any way. Any similarly is coincidental in nature. Please listen to Ryan’s audio version of this blog online at http://www.ryandohrn.com/
By Ryan R. Dohrn ©2007
Legal wins by publishers continue across the nation as site publishers embrace user generated content to drive traffic and give users a reason to return to their sites on a daily basis.
There is a quiet dance that must occur on magazine web sites between user generated content and publisher generated content. I talked about this a bit in a previous post about user generated video. Read that post here. http://ryandohrn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=26
User generated content is critical to your sites success online, but “the mix” of this content and the content generated by your editorial team is the real point to focus upon. In some cases a sub site makes the most sense with some information that pulls back and forth between the sites. If your magazine deals with very exclusive and very expensive editorial content then user generated content will often take a back seat, but should not be forgotten. But, this is a bit of a different debate than if you should place user generated content online at all for fear of being sued. Consult a lawyer for legal advice, if you are asking for my opinion, from a internet perspective, user generated content is critical to your success online as it will drive traffic, increase revenue and give your site an overall fraternal feel that makes users feel comfortable on your site. When users feel comfortable on your site, they feel at ease with your magazine. This in turn, will drive them to subscribe to continue that “all in the family” feeling. Also, when users feel a part of your family, they are more open to receiving e-mail blasts and offers from you that also drive revenue.
Wendy Davis from Media Post posted the following online at Media Post that should set most publishers minds at ease to the end that in most cases the publishers win.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=76849&Nid=39529&p=469455
THE PUBLISHER OF ONLINE COMPLAINT site Ripoff Report has won a lawsuit filed by a Colorado company that took issue with users' posts about it tagged with labels like "con artists," "corrupt companies" and "false TV advertisements."
In the case, a federal district court in Florida late last week dismissed a defamation and trademark infringement complaint brought by Whitney Information Network, a company billing itself as offering education in real estate investing, against Xcentric Ventures, the Arizona company that runs RipOffReport.com and BadBusinessBureau.com.
The court ruled that the federal Communications Decency Act protects site operators from liability for user comments--even when the company behind the sites has created tags for commenters to use to classify their posts. "The court finds that the mere fact that Xcentric provides categories from which a poster must make a selection in order to submit a report on the ... website is not sufficient to treat defendants as information content providers," wrote Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers division.”
Whitney Information Network's in-house lawyer declined to comment on the matter, or state whether the company planned to appeal.
Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law and a well-known advocate for online publishers, said the case seemed "entirely consistent with existing precedent," even though the result--that tags created by publishers are treated as if they were user-created--might seem counterintuitive.
He said the court's rationale stems from the concept that "the Web site wrote those terms, but really they're given effect only when the users choose them."
The case raises the same legal issue as another pending lawsuit against roommate-matching site Roommates.com. In that case, a fair housing group in California sued Roommates.com for civil rights violations on the theory that the site enabled discrimination by giving users questionnaires with choices like "I will not live with children," as well as options to indicate whether they're willing to live with straight roommates only, gay roommates only, and the like.
The 9th Circuit appellate court initially ruled last May that Roommates.com was not immune from liability under federal law on the theory that the site had collaborated with users to create the content. "By categorizing, channeling and limiting the distribution of users' profiles, Roommate provides an additional layer of information that it is 'responsible' at least 'in part' for creating or developing," a three-judge panel of the court wrote.
But the 9th Circuit later vacated that ruling and ordered re-argument, which it heard late last year. A host of other Web companies--including Amazon, Google and eBay--unsuccessfully attempted to file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Roommates.com, but the court rejected it in December, apparently because accepting it would have created a conflict of interest for one or more judges deciding the case.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=76849&Nid=39529&p=469455
The views of Ryan Dohrn are 100% personal in nature and do not represent the views of his employer, any other person, company or entity in any way. Any similarly is coincidental in nature. Please listen to Ryan’s audio version of this blog online at http://www.ryandohrn.com/
By Ryan R. Dohrn ©2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)