Key highlights in this report include:

• For publishers, the first step to monetizing something is to be able to measure it. The analytics tools now available make it possible to track the spread of content on social platforms closely.

• Until now there has not been a marketplace where those potential buyers and sellers of content could meet. Nor were there adequate tools to enable verifiable transactions between them. Tools like Cascade and Ricochet are helping put the foundations of such a market in place.

• Both publishers and licensees will need to seize the sort of ad hoc syndication opportunities that arise online and on social media networks. One of the major tasks facing publishers over the next three to five years will be to structure their repositories of content so they can be searched, sorted, customized, repackaged, and accessed in real time via standardized APIs.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• NewNet Q3: Facebook remakes headlines in social media

And yet, for all that text, there was very little heft. It detailed problems and offered a few solutions — but at no point did the inquiry really attempt to tackle the deep questions.

Sure, the report recommends replacing the UK’s current system of self-regulation for print media with a new, officially-sanctioned body that’s intended to guarantee freedom of the press while also holding outlets accountable for decisions. Beyond that, however, it feels like there was little to no understanding displayed of how the publishing world is changing — and how that is disrupting the news business it was supposed to investigate.

And this position isn’t just ignorance, either.

It seems to be deliberate.

Robert Andrews had a great blow-by-blow on how inquiry chair Lord Justice Leveson had specifically avoided many of the most important questions that news organizations are trying to address right now.

The world of online publishing, surely the future of almost all the organizations he was looking at, was dismissed with a careless wave. Questions that need answering were ignored: Where do the lines blur between news and not-news? What is the role of social networking? How is information being liberated from its traditional forms? What constitutes an act of journalism? These are topics that pre-occupy many forward thinkers in the media and yet none of these seem to have been dealt with because of the misguided opinion that “most blogs are rarely read as news or factual, but as opinion and must be considered as such”.

In fact, we all know information flows in ways that go way beyond the capability of traditional news-gathering organizations. Newspapers are weak, dying or dead — and those that are not are turning into something very different.

They have been broken by changes in supply and demand, turned upside down by the free availability of information, and knocked sideways by the internet’s ability to crush borders and barriers. And yet here, a huge public inquiry focused on wrongdoing ended up focused one tiny sliver of a much broader industry.

Leveson should have thought hard about the way that change has happened, because it is important to help the press be better in the future. Instead, he abdicated responsibility and focused on problems that already have solutions.

After all, there are many other ways to right the wrongs of phone hacking and invasions of privacy — and I’m not even talking about leaving it to the market to decide. The market’s role as a righter of wrongs is largely mythical: after all, if the market was able to reflect the moral outrage of phone hacking l, it took Rupert Murdoch just a few months between Rupert Murdoch’s decision to kill The News of the World and the launch of a Sunday edition of The Sun, which has already become Britain’s most popular weekend outlet. The market is not a perfect machine: it can be perverted.

No, I mean that there is plenty of legal recourse available. Breaking into people’s voicemail is criminal activity: it can be punished as such (and it is). Wrongly inferring that public figures are pedophiles is something the courts can deal with (and they are).

Instead we got a report that apparently made no effort to understand the deep corruption at the heart of many media organizations, or the pressures on them that encourage unethical behavior. We got a report that seems to believe that trying to control “the press” is the same as trying to control information. We got a depressing, obscurantist read focused on the worst excesses of a dying industry — not something that tried to understand the interplay between different forms of communication.

Agreeing to the new regulatory proposals is the equivalent of a deathbed confession over a crime committed long, long ago. It’s a way to expunge a feeling of guilt by someone who is on the edge of oblivions: it doesn’t make up for the original infraction and it doesn’t make tomorrow any better.

We all crave a better understanding of how those issues play out, because those are the guidelines that help regulate the future. But in the end, the world doesn’t need Leveson, because the world has already moved on.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• Examining the rise of crowd labor platforms in 2012

For the past couple of years, Siyavula, a Cape Town, South Africa-based company, has been organizing content hackathons, collaboratively creating math and science textbooks in about three weekends. Earlier this year, open content textbook publisher Flat World Knowledge hosted a hackathon to crowdsource a computer science textbook.  Last month, a group of Finnish math teachers spent the weekend creating a high school math book.  And last weekend, Boundless, a Boston-based startup offering a free, open alternative to textbooks, organized a weekend-long hackathon to produce an intro-level college physics textbook.

Content hackathons are a way to bring educators and subject-matter experts together to curate and organize the content into a structure that helps students learn as effectively as possible, said Boundless co-founder and CEO Ariel Diaz.

“Our focus is not just to have the information but to have it in a format that’s helpful for users,” he said.

Physics academics and Ph.D. students collaboratively create an introductory-level physics textbook at a content hackathon organized by Boston-based Boundless.

Over the course of the weekend, he said, nearly two dozen physics academics and Ph.D. students from Harvard, MIT and other local universities and colleges lent their expertise to the project. Boundless created a list of about 500 learning objectives they believe a physics 101 textbook should cover and pointed the participants to online open educational resources. The content “hackers” broke off individually and in teams to author the content appropriate for each objective and later peer-reviewed each others’ work. The group didn’t finish the textbook over the weekend, but Diaz said they plan to ready the textbook for the new school semester in January and intend to host more subject-specific and general content hackathons in the future.

For Boundless and other open-content publishing platforms, the hackathons are way to accelerate the creation of content. And, they provide students and teachers with free (or low-cost) instructional material that reflects a potentially broader range of voices from top subject-matter experts. For now, the draw for volunteers is to be a part of a new open education movement, Diaz said, but going forward, they could be given advisory roles and other kinds of credits for their participation.

Momentum behind open educational content in general is increasing. In September, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that funds free, digital open textbooks created by California’s universities for college students and establishes an online library to host the books.  Last month, British Columbia announced its support of a similar initiative.

But the rise of free alternatives to traditional textbooks isn’t without hurdles. Earlier this year, three major publishers sued Boundless, claiming that its textbook alternatives violated their intellectual property rights.  And last week, Flat World Knowledge, announced the end of free access to its open textbooks. Since launching in 2007, the venture-backed company has offered free Web-based versions of its content while charging for print and digital (PDF) versions. But, saying that its freemium model threatened its long-term growth, the company abandoned the free plan (though it does sell books at a cheaper-than-traditional $19.99).

Still, setbacks notwithstanding, open content — just like the larger open education movement advocated by online course startups Coursera, Udacity, Khan Academy and others – is increasingly going to be part of our future. It’s early days for the companies and communities organizing around it, and business models and best practices for bringing curated content and textbook alternatives to students still need to be figured out. But interest in more content collaboration, through offline hackathons, online forums and other platforms, is clearly growing.

Image by Spectral-Design via Shutterstock.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Author to Audience: Disintermediation in Publishing

Founded by former DailyCandy CEO Pete Sheinbaum in 2009, the company has raised $4.7 million from the Foundry Group and Sutter Hill Ventures. For the past few years, it’s mostly stayed under the radar while developing its product and reaching out to publishers.  But, in announcing the company and its new link management product Wednesday, Sheinbaum said LinkSmart has already been working with some of the biggest media companies for the past 18 months. (The company declined to name publishers at this point, however, citing their clients’ requests to keep the relationship private for strategic reasons.)

At DailyCandy, Sheinbaum said, he learned how valuable in-text links could be for driving traffic to certain sections of a website and keeping users engaged. But, for the most part, publishers’ only option has been to hand-code the links, which makes updating and changing the links in real-time a laborious, unscalable effort.

Pete Sheinbaum, founder and CEO of LinkSmart

“Nobody else was taking a publisher-centric view of the world, which is that I have traffic, but sometimes at the wrong place at the wrong time,” he said. “What we’re trying to do is give publishers an analytics tool to understand what’s going on in the text and provide not just data but insights into how to optimize their traffic based on whatever business goals they have. [We also make it possible] for them to dynamically update links in the cloud.”

For a monthly fee, LinkSmart provides publishers with a dedicated dashboard that helps them figure out the keywords and keyword phrases in their articles that drive the most traffic, as well as easily update the links depending on where the publisher wants to send readers. For example, if a site finds that a special section on the Olympics is under-delivering for an advertiser, the publisher can identify the most relevant keywords across their millions of pages of unique content and add links to drive traffic in that direction. LinkSmart’s Total Link Management platform can be used to shape traffic within a given site, between sister sites in a large media company or between partner sites, the company said.

Traditionally, publishers have “shoehorned more squares and rectangles” on to Web pages to influence how readers interact with their content, Sheinbaum said, but in-text links give them more granular ways of directing traffic.  According to the company, in early tests with pilot partners, LinkSmart software performed 15 to 20 times better than common traffic optimization techniques.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics

Sure, I followed developments from the sidelines, religiously reading paidContent, GigaOM and following Jason Hirschhorn’s curated feed, Media ReDEFined. But there have been many Rip van Winkle moments when I can hardly recognize the landscape. Agency trading desks, RTB, DSPs, SSPs, last-click attribution, third-party data, DMPs, retargeting … there is a pea soup of acronyms and lingo to learn, not to mention entire new categories of technologies and players in the new value chain of online advertising, and then there’s mobile, video and social, too! (This video from the Internet Advertising Bureau, U.K. gives a good summary of what happened, as does this one from MediaMath and Improve Digital.)

The ability to precisely target users and immediately measure response rates has resulted in the programmatic buying and selling of online display inventory, not unlike that of financial commodities. This commoditization of online advertising would seem to be a sea change in the way things were.

And yet, and yet. Despite all the changes, a lot has stayed the same:

• The industry is still debating the value and effectiveness of banner ads. This was a debate in 2004, and it continues today. Banner ads are reviled in many quarters, but they’ve shown remarkable resilience.
• Nielsen and comScore are still the two main measurement agencies providing the currency on which display is bought and sold. Publishers continue to be dissatisfied with both, but new players, such as Quantcast, haven’t made much of a dent. This isn’t a big surprise. The market for third-party media measurement tends towards a duopoly or winner-take-all (Nielsen, Arbitron, ABCe).
• There are still discrepancies between agency and publisher ad servers. There are less discrepancies today than in 2004, but they’re still there. Low discrepancy is actually used as a selling point by ad servers now.
• Mobile is still the next big thing. To be fair, mobile went from nominal to $1.6 billion in 2011. But it can grow much, much bigger if a company can figure out the best way to monetize mobile attention. Banner ads on mobile sites aren’t it.
• The industry is still concentrated. The top 50 online ad sellers accounted for 94 percent of total revenues in 2004 compared to 90 percent last year. Many of the players are different this time around, but it continues to be about scale.
• Publishers and agencies are still doing dodgy things, whether it’s running fake pre-rolls or stealing publishers’ user data. The surprise here is that there hasn’t been more of an outcry against these practices.

I recently dug up Geoff Ramsey’s November 2004 eMarketer report, “The State of the Online Advertising Industry.” At that time, eMarketer was forecasting the U.S. online market to be $9.4 billion that year, up from $7.3 billion the previous year, and predicting torrid growth in the years ahead, reaching $17.5 billion in 2008. The factors driving such growth? The report listed the following reasons:

1. The consumer is in control

2. The Internet delivers on the corporate mandate for marketers to be more accountable

3. The economy continues to plug along with reasonable growth

4. Broadband is changing the consumer Internet landscape

5. The crack in the foundation of the $60 billion television industry is widening

6. Search continues to evolve and draw more dollars

7. With increasing numbers of Americans shopping and buying online, marketers have greater opportunities to reach consumers who are interested in a given category

Sound familiar? Those factors wouldn’t look out of place in any year in the past decade. I’ll highlight the most promising trends of the moment in a future post. For now, it’s no surprise that, notwithstanding the new tools and technologies at our disposal, publishers are still trying to maximize the value of their audiences while advertisers and agencies are trying to reach the right people with the right message in the most cost-effective way. The formats, tools and technologies may be different, as might the players involved, but clearly there are truisms that continue to hold, and we would be well-advised to remember them.

Oh, and the actual value of the U.S. online ad market in 2008? $23.4 billion, with last year clocking in at $31.7 billion. That’s torrid growth for sure. Actually, online advertising as a category is starting to become meaningless. It’s like measuring a paper-based advertising category made up of yellow pages, newspapers, magazines and other pulp-driven formats. But somehow, I suspect we’ll still be measuring the growth of online ads in 2020.

Rags Gupta is managing director at RollUp Media, a publishing startup based in London. He is also on the board of Videoplaza. Previously, Gupta was part of the founding executive team at Brightcove. He started his career in digital media at Live365.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Abode of Chaos.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• NewNet Q3: Facebook remakes headlines in social media
• The state of cross-platform media measurement

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company reported that it already reaches 1 billion unique users a month through its more than 500 clients, but said that, supported by its new funding, it hopes to double its user base.

“We want to be the social technology for the rest of the Web,” said Patrick Salyer, CEO of Gigya.

About 20 percent of Gigya’s business is international, Salyer said, but added that it plans to expand its global footprint. The company recently opened an office in London and has strategic partnerships in Japan, but it’s now looking at Latin America and Australia, he said.

Gigya, which launched in 2006, offers technology that allows users to log in with credentials from social networks, as well as share content, comment, or join social games on publishers’ sites. The tools not only increase traffic and time spent on site, Gigya maintains, they provide insights for the businesses and manage social identity data. As it grows, it will have to continue to show publishers that its tools are more effective than those from other social sharing startups, such as AddThis and ShareThis, as well as companies exclusively focused on commenting and gamification.

In the last year, the company said its sales more than tripled and it now works with more than 40 percent of the comScore top 100 U.S. web properties.

In a statement, Andrew Siegel, Advance Publications’ senior vice president of strategy and corporate development, said they made the investment in Gigya after a positive experience with the company as its client.

“Social infrastructure has become a requirement for online businesses, and Gigya’s approach of offering everything a site needs to be social has been validated by its continued customer growth,” he said. Last week, Advance Publications announced a $10 million investment in Unified, a startup that offers a social operating platform to the enterprise.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Listening platforms: finding the value in social media data
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back

Backed by $6 million from Kleiner, Perkins Caufield & Byers, FindTheBest is a comparison engine for everything from gadgets to sports equipment to financial advisors and colleges. Powered by a combination of proprietary technology and human curation, it sources data from a wide range of public databases, primary sources (such as manufacturer websites) and individual expert users.  But instead of just aggregating data for users, the site organizes and structures the data, which is vetted by a team of researchers, so that users can use it to make buying decisions.

For example, you can search for cars by make, model and year, but also fuel type, horsepower and seat capacity. If you’re comparing colleges, you can filter by degree type, location and religion, but a sliding scale (like the one you might have used on Kayak to specify departure times) also lets you look for schools with an average SAT or ACT score within a certain range.

It launched in 2010 as a standalone website for consumers, but now it’s syndicating its content on publisher sites as customized, vertical-specific comparison widgets and subdomain websites. In the first quarter of the year, it closed 30 deals with publisher sites, including VentureBeat and TechCrunch. Last week, its first partnership with Bonnier’s SKI magazine went live, and other Bonnier titles, including Cycle World, are expected to follow. Those publisher deals have helped FindTheBest increase traffic (to its site and subdomains on publisher sites) from 2.2 unique visitors in August to 8 million unique visitors this month, the company said. According to comScore (which only tracks traffic directly to FindTheBest.com), the company has grown from about 400,000 monthly unique visitors last April to 1.66 million monthly uniques this April.

As publishers look for new ways to monetize content and keep readers on their sites, FindTheBest says it offers content that will excite advertisers, engage readers, and potentially provide SEO juice (the comparison pages are optimized for search engines). Publishers pay nothing upfront but FindTheBest and publishers split advertising revenue (from display advertising, sponsorships, ecommerce affiliate partnerships and lead generation from its subdomains and widgets) 50-50.

On partner publisher sites, the FindTheBest comparison pages are linked off the home page as “product guides.” The thinking is that if people are reading content about specific topics, such as electronics, skiing or cycling, they’re getting close to a buying mindset.

What about the line between content and commerce? “There’s always got to be a separation between church and state,” said O’Connor. He said FindTheBest does that by taking consumers to a separate webpage or distinct widget, which provides a break between the reader experience and a potential transaction — rather than hosting direct links from story pages to shopping sites, as some publishers do.

Conversations about blending content and commerce are nothing new, he points out. But the realities of monetizing content in the new media landscape are causing online publishers to mix the advertising and editorial sides of the business more aggressively. Earlier this month, for example, Gawker said that it planned to make content-driven commerce, from affiliate marketing to in-page transactions, a main growth area for its company. A leaked memo from the company included the “historical tidbit” that the original business model for Gizmdo was affiliate fees from the purchase of gadgets through Amazon. In December, the memo continued, the company made $70,000 from Amazom, “without really trying.” But with the company’s scale, it plans to ramp up e-commerce revenue. Thrillist is another new media company that has drawn headlines for its content-driven commerce approach.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Takeaways from connected consumer’s second quarter
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Google doesn’t like walled gardens — except its own

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What’s so bad about being a dumb pipe?
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Why HBO’s TV Everywhere Economics Don’t Make Sense

The torrent consists of documents from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the copyright to which has long since expired. However, the only way to access these documents until now has been via JSTOR, as Maxwell explains in a long and eloquent text on the Pirate Bay, with individual articles costing as much as $19. “Purchasing access to this collection one article at a time would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he writes.

Maxwell goes on to explain that he gained access to the documents years ago in what he says was a legal manner, but he was afraid to publish them because of potential legal repercussions from the publishers of scientific journals. He says the indictment of Swartz, who allegedly tried to download thousands of files from JSTOR through the library at MIT, made him change his mind:

Academic publishing is an odd system — the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers.

And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy. In the past, the high access fees supported the costly mechanical reproduction of niche paper journals, but online distribution has mostly made this function obsolete.

As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models. The “publish or perish” pressure in academia gives the authors an impossibly weak negotiating position, and the existing system has enormous inertia.”

Maxwell goes on to explain that he initially planned to upload the documents to Wikipedia. But then he looked into the legality of the situation and realized that he could get sued by publishers who’d claim that merely scanning the documents or adding a watermark gave them new copyright protections. “They might even pursue strawman criminal charges claiming that whoever obtained the files must have violated some kind of anti-hacking laws,” he explains — which is exactly what seems to have happened to Swartz.

The case against Swartz also convinced Maxwell to release the documents under his real name, as he didn’t want to have people suspect that Swartz was behind the leak. Summing up his motivation, he writes:

If I can remove even one dollar of ill-gained income from a poisonous industry which acts to suppress scientific and historic understanding, then whatever personal cost I suffer will be justified . . . it will be one less dollar spent in the war against knowledge. One less dollar spent lobbying for laws that make downloading too many scientific papers a crime.

Image courtesy of Flickr user ben.gallagher

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity
• Flash analysis: future opportunities for Pinterest

Everywhere around us we see evidence of chaos and upheaval in the media industry — newspapers laying off staff and even closing, advertising revenues continuing to decline and so on. What can be done about this state of affairs? Media analyst and journalism professor Clay Shirky says not only is there nothing that can be done about it but also that it may actually be a good thing, because it will help spur innovation. Let’s hope he is right, because there is plenty of chaos to go around.

In his post (on a blog that is almost defiantly old-school, with a default WordPress theme from about 2003), Shirky says that his thinking on the topic has been accelerated by wondering what he is going to tell his undergraduate journalism students about the industry they are planning to join when he starts teaching at New York University in the fall. The realization he has come to, he says, is that “the news” — broadly speaking — needs to be subsidized, cheap and free.

But how can it be all these things at once? And by subsidized, does Shirky mean government subsidies, as some have recommended? As it turns out, he doesn’t. In many cases, he says, those subsidies may come from other lines of business (conferences, etc.), from donations — as with ProPublica and some other models such as the Guardian, which is supported by a trust fund — and from simple cost-cutting.

And what about the free part? Although Shirky doesn’t specifically deal with the idea of paywalls (an issue he has been skeptical about for some time), he makes the point that the news “needs to be free so that it will spread” — in other words, so that people will share it and distribute it in a variety of ways for nothing. And what about those media entities that decide to produce only what people will pay for directly, like Rupert Murdoch has done with the Times of London?

[C]reating a high-quality product for a group of loyal and passionate readers willing to pay for it certainly sounds like an interesting business to get into. It just doesn’t sound like the newspaper business.

As Shirky points out, the cost-cutting that makes the news cheap doesn’t just have to come from layoffs (of the kind that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger referred to in his recent announcement of a “digital first” approach for the paper). Costs can also be reduced by using a variety of crowdsourcing tools and services to let readers and other interested individuals share the burden of producing the news, whether it’s through blogs or photo galleries or “citizen journalism” tools such as Tackable (interestingly, Shirky never once mentions AOL’s Patch and its hyper-local efforts).

The bottom line, Shirky seems to be saying, is that this environment of chaos isn’t just obvious or understandable but actually necessary, so that the industry can evolve — whether it wants to or not. In that sense, Shirky’s post strikes a similar note as one he wrote back in 2009 called “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” in which he argued that everyone looking for a solution to the media industry’s problems is searching in vain, because there isn’t one. In other words, not only is there no single solution but most of the likely solutions are simply unknown.

That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn’t apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen.

The problem, as many including Shirky have described it, is that readers have never paid for the news content in newspapers — at best, they have “helped pay for the things that paid for the news.” And now advertisers are going elsewhere, including targeted websites and social networks, because they can reach the people they want directly and more cheaply. The access that newspapers used to control to those desirable readers is gone. And digital advertising may ultimately never fill the gap between the price that advertisers will pay for a print reader and what they will pay for an online one.

The ‘analog dollars to digital dimes’ problem doesn’t actually seem to be a problem. It seems to be a feature of reality. Digital revenue per head is not replacing lost print revenue and, barring some astonishment in the advertising market, it never will.

In general, Shirky’s point seems to be that innovation and experimentation need to happen before anything becomes clear, and he is undoubtedly right on that score. Unfortunately, as I wrote recently, that kind of startup-style impulse is sorely lacking in most mainstream media entities, who are content to incrementally dip their toes into new media tools and projects without really trying too hard. Why do something radical when you can just put out an app and throw up a paywall?

It takes some guts for a media analyst and pundit to admit that he doesn’t have all the answers or solutions for the industry, but Shirky has always been better at that than some others of his ilk. And he does at least provide some hints about what he thinks will help while we figure out the answers — things like cost-cutting and crowdsourcing, for example, and just all-around experimentation. What is really required, of course, is a rethinking of what being a news organization means in an age when real-time publishing is available to anyone. But unfortunately, there is still far too little of that happening.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Mark Strozier

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise
• What the New York Times Can Learn From Rupert Murdoch’s Paywall
• How Media Companies Can Compete Online