The pressure for online news sites to increase profitability is continually rising. This is especially true of the online newspaper industry where the demand for profit is compounded by declining print revenues as readers abandon subscriptions for free online news sources.

Thus far, I have seen two general approaches to increase online revenue and both require users to pay -- either in cash out of pocket or in general frustration:

Approach 1. Charging subscription fees for some or all site content - or - implementing user registration to track visitors and increase ad revenue based on audience targeting.

There isn't really a problem with this approach if you have content for which enough people are willing to pay or give up their personal information. However, payment-worthy content in particular is a big if for most sites right now. For all those headed in this direction anyway, please do it responsibly.

Approach 2. Increased advertising in the form of pop-up/under ads, page splits to increase advertising space, bigger and bigger ads encroaching into and temporarily on top of content (a new low in the shady business of consumer intrusion) or improperly marked ad-links within content areas.

These are all bad. Very, very bad.

Is there a better solution? There must be.

I don't think there exists one catchall solution. Each site, each organization is going to have its own strengths and capabilities. However, I do think progress in the area of online revenue has been retarded by one common stumbling block:

Most, maybe all, newspapers continue to approach online advertising the same way they have always approached print advertising. Sure, the pricing structure and methods of delivery are different, but the basic approach stays the same: Advertiser pays "x" dollars for pre-approved ad design in section/channel "y" covering "z" amount of space.

Thus far, most newspaper sites have used the dynamic nature of the Web to build upon this model only through keyword ad targeting, a process which is often mechanized and brings with it the inherent possibility of inappropriate ad/content juxtaposition.

I believe news organizations need to apply the same daily-deadline-rush philosophy to deliver advertising that they use to deliver the news. And if this is carried out using the same critical news judgment applied to the news, they will be providing a tremendous service to both users and advertisers.

For instance, in mid-January pretty much every mainstream news organization in the country reported the announcement of a publication date for the new Harry Potter book and the news that pre-orders had shot the book to No. 1 on Amazon.com's best seller list within hours.

Armed with that knowledge users could then go to Amazon.com to place an order for the book, but leaving it at that ignores a huge revenue opportunity as well as an opportunity to provide a valuable service to users. So here's one idea:

Why not have a dedicated space -- only when applicable and clearly marked as ad space of course -- to sell direct-link product ads to providers? It's an opportunity to sell in a way that users might actually find helpful and non-intrusive. It delivers customers who are interested in an exact product directly to the seller. And since the space would be clearly marked as advertising, users won't feel as though they've been tricked, abused or taken advantage of. What it might look like. (Well, maybe less pink.)

This is something no other media can offer. Print, TV and radio ads rely on users to remember they want a product or service, then go to a computer or store, then search for the product. Using direct-link ads can put buyers literally one click away.

The trick is to have a system set in place where an editor has the awareness to get potential stories to advertising and for advertising to have the relationships built with local (and/or national) companies so they can go to them with the quick 1-2-3 'Here is the gist of the story. Do you have this product? Do you want to pay for the link?' in order to get the day-or-less turnaround needed to make such a system effective.

Would advertisers be interested? It's hard to say for sure. It doesn't meet their needs in terms of 'I want to advertise my new super-widget now.' It does put users inside their doors. Perhaps it would take a free trial period, an opportunity for them to feel the power of directed readership. I suspect many companies would take note of sales spikes, turn around and say 'yes, we always want it if you're offering.'

Please note: I can't emphasize enough, because this would go in the content well, it would be extremely, extremely, extremely important to exercise news and design judgment so users see it as a service and not just another ugly hunk of links invading their reading space and so a corporate desire to sell doesn't influence editorial story choices.

At any rate, it's just an idea. It's an idea that advertising departments and editors across the country would probably hate. Editors will fear losing story control to advertising and advertising will scoff at the absurd notion that their time-tested methods might need to change with the times.

But I think it is time for a change. This might not be the answer but neither is the status quo. Users are angry. Reporters are horrified that their copy suddenly looks like paid content. And some news sites would be hard-pressed to squeeze more advertising onto their pages and they still can't stay afloat.

I say a change is overdue.

March 18, 2003