Overall advertising expenditures were down 12.3% in 2009, when compared to 2008 levels, according to a new report recently release by Kantar media.

And while 12.3% seems like a big drop, the report shows advertising has gone up toward the end of 2009.

Chart created by Amir Kurtovic. Information source: Kantar Media

“The advertising recession began to ease in the final two months of 2009; and preliminary figures from the first quarter of 2010, when compared against the abyss of a year ago, indicate many sectors are experiencing growth,” said Jon Swallen, SVP of research at Kantar Media.

“Given the restraint in consumer spending, it appears marketers have more confidence right now than their customers. As we get deeper into 2010, the pace of consumer activity will be a key determinant of the strength and durability of the advertising recovery.”

Source: Kantar Media

1. Figures are based on the Kantar Media Stradegy™ multimedia ad expenditure database across all measured media, including: Network TV (6 networks); Spot TV (123 DMAs); Cable TV (71 networks); Syndication TV; Hispanic Network TV (4 networks); Consumer Magazines (231 publications);,Sunday Magazines (7 publications); Local Magazines (19 publications); Hispanic Magazines (14 publications); Business-to-Business Magazines (260 publications); Local Newspapers (147 publications); National Newspapers (3 publications); Hispanic Newspapers (47 publications); Network Radio (5 networks); Spot Radio; Local Radio (32 markets); Internet; and Outdoor. Figures do not include public service announcement (PSA) data.

2. Cable TV figures do not include Hispanic cable networks.

3. Spot TV figures do not include Hispanic stations.

4. Spanish Language TV includes 4 Hispanic broadcast networks, 4 Hispanic cable network and 70 local Hispanic TV stations.

5. Magazine media includes Publishers Information Bureau (PIB) data and reflect print editions of publications.

6. Newspaper media figures reflect print editions of publications.

7. Local Radio includes expenditures for 32 markets in the U.S.

8. FSI data represents distribution costs only.

As you can see in the photo below, there is a box that states, in bold, “Your Response Is Required By Law.” For some reason, I feel like I did something wrong. Also, what if I fill it out the wrong way? Am I going to jail just for posting this photo online?

Ok, I don’t want to blow this out of proportion, but I think you get my point. If you want everybody to fill out the Census, maybe you shouldn’t make it look scary. Even if you want to keep that “you’re going to jail” text on there, a little smiley face or emoticon would help.

Epic fail!

That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn’t know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35.

Michael Amon, a social services reporter, asked for clarification.

“I heard you say 35 people,” he said, from Newsday‘s auditorium in Melville. “Is that number correct?”

Mr. Jimenez nodded.

Source: The New York Observer

And if that is not enough bad news to give most journalist a headache, the paper had to dole out $4 million to redesign the website and set up the paywalls in the first place. By my calculations, as long as the 35 members live another 476 years and don’t cancel their subscription, Newsday will recoup that investment

Scalded Dog Web Hosting, a company owned by the Globe-Democrat's new owner Dan Rositano, is blacklisted on Google for being potentially damaging.

The announcement that the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, a newspaper that folded in the ’80s, would be revived in an online-only format was greeted with a bit of enthusiasm by people like myself (future unemployed journalists). A new outlet and possible place to freelance, I thought. Plus, the guy in charge, Dan Rositano, is the owner of an IT firm and former IT director for a TV channel.

Maybe an IT guy that understands technology better than some journalists is the right guy to start an online-only news organization?

After looking into Rositano’s business ventures, however, I am not convinced of that anymore.

Scalded Dog Web Hosting, one of Rositano’s businesses, has managed to get blacklisted by Google.

SDOGINTERACTIVE.COM, the domain in question, was registered June 13, 2007 through GoDaddy.com. According to the Missouri Secretary of State website, Scalded Dog Interactive, LLC was created January 15, 2008. It was registered by Rositano under the same address listed on the application for the St. Louis Globe Democrat, LLC.

A call to Rositano was not immediately returned, so I don’t have his side of the story. But, the fact that a Web Hosting company is blacklisted on the Web doesn’t leave a good first impression about the future of the new Globe-Democrat.

According to Google, the warning means that the website in question may try to install malicious software:

We want our users to feel safe when they search the web, and we’re continuously working to identify dangerous sites and increase protection for our users. This warning message appears with search results we’ve identified as sites that may install malicious software on your computer

The website is also blocked by Mozilla:

But another thing the bill does is define who is covered by it. According to S. 448, a journalist is somebody who is engaged in:

the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

In other words, a journalist is somebody who does journalism. The interesting thing about this definition is that it does not mention working for a “media” organization anywhere. That means bloggers, student journalists and freelancers are also covered.

The SPJ announced its support of the current version of this bill yesterday in a press release.

Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists welcome the compromise the Obama administration, senators and news organizations reached on a federal shield law that would protect journalists, their sources and the public’s right to know. Although SPJ does not believe S. 448 is a perfect bill, the Society’s leaders carefully examined the proposed legislation, and on behalf of its more than 8,000 members, have decided to support the protections granted to journalists.

SPJ now urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass S. 448 quickly so that the full Senate can consider the piece of legislation that is vitally important to a free and independent press.

A good article about this event can be found at the St. Louis Beacon website.

Video of Bill Hennessy and Ken Gladney’s attorney speaking at St. Louis Tea Party Protest against SEIU

St. Louis Tea Part protesters in front of SEIU office argue with counter-protesters

St. Louis Tea Party protestors outside SEIU office

Kenneth Gladney, the man allegedly assaulted by SEIU members, showed up to the protest in a wheelchair. Several protestors claimed that Gladney was targeted because he was black. Bill Hennessy also claimed that the attack was in response to an order from the White House.

Supporters of the St. Louis Tea Party gathered in front of the SEIU office in St. Louis to protest the alleged assult of Kenneth Gladney by SEIU members.

Bill Hennessy, the leader of the St. Louis Tea Party, speaks to the media before the protest.

Counter protesters showed up on the other side of the street. They were quickly surrounded by Tea Party members and a heated debate ensued.

The New York Times Company stock price has taken a beating over the last year, dropping nearly 70%. And besides borrowing $250 million from a Mexican billionaire and trying to sell the Boston Globe, the Times’ debt rating was downgraded to B1, which puts it solidly in junk-bond status and makes it more expensive to borrow money for the cash-strapped newspaper.

As somebody who has advocated charging for online content in the past (here and here), I welcome this development. Of course, we have to wait for the announcement to see if the New York Times will actually make good on something that has been rumored about for the last few months.

While one newspaper’s decision to start charging for online content will not change the current crisis the industry as a whole is in, it could be a step in the right direction. I do think, however, that if the Times makes the transition to a subscription model with  success, other newspapers will quickly follow suit.

Charging for online content is a tricky proposition, and any newspaper that tries it will initially lose a lot of their online traffic. But I think it is time to start looking at the long-term situation instead of the next fiscal year.

The news is free. Newspapers don’t pay anybody to do anything. Things just happen, and reporters write about them. Nobody can claim ownership of a story. So, there is not much value in covering the news, because anybody can do that. The value comes from the quality of the coverage. In a free marketplace the newspaper with the highest quality reporting bringing the most value for its readers will be successful. If people don’t want to pay for that value they will have to settle for lower quality reporting.

Michael Savage (AP Photo/John Storey)

By now you have probably heard that Michael Savage was one of the people banned from the UK for fostering extremism or hatred. He was put on a list along the likes of an anti-gay preacher, the founder of a white supremacist website, a Hamas leader, and Russian gangsters.

What I found interesting was Savage’s response to this whole situation. I first heard about it on an NPR’s Talk of the Nation as I was driving back from school. Savage was on the phone with Neal Conan, the host of the show, and started his defense with jokes about British dental care and cuisine (I later heard the same jokes on his own radio show and saw them quoted in a San Francisco Chronicle article. Good job of sticking with the talking points, Savage.)

But after a short attack on Neal Conan, Savage went on to say how being banned from the UK for expressing his opinions is a threat to free speech. Another lame joke about the country of the Magna Carta becoming the country of the mini-carta later, Savage was stressing that even liberals should be upset about this. Because after all, if the UK banned a freedom loving patriot like Savage, who would be next? He argued that he was just using his constitutional right of free speech, and that his views in no way present a threat or encourage people to commit violence. I don’t know if I believe that, tough. Listening to his show make me want to cause violence to myself.

The interesting part came when Neal Conan took the first phone call. The caller made a comment that if Savage talked about Christians or Jews in the same way he did about Muslims, he would have been off the air a long time ago. Savage lost his cool immidiately and started berating the caller. Savage accussed him of being “a nobody sitting in his pajamas in a mental institution somewhere in Iowa.” After fighting with the caller for a little bit longer, once again using his gift of clairvoyance by telling the caller what he was wearing and where he was at, he told Neal Conan that he was a busy man and had better things to do than to argue with his callers. Conan, the consummate professional, told him that maybe he should go do those other things and hung up on him.

As you can see by his response to a single phone call, Savage may love the idea of “freedom of speech”, but if you disagree with him you should not expect him to respect your freedom of speech. So while he is talking about considering a lawsuit because he was banned from the UK, he was the one  who proposed the idea of banning immigration to the US to all Muslims and banning the construction of mosques.

I have no comment on Savage’s political views or his beliefs. He has every right to express his opinion and I would be the first to defend his right to free speech. I do, however, have a problem with clear and blatant hypocrisy. The Bill of Rights grants the freedom of speech, but also the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion among other rights. You do not get to pick and choose which of the rights you support and which you don’t. If you want to run your mouth about your freedom of speech being threatened, you should not advocate the persecution of people based on their religion. Either you believe in the constitution and the Bill of Rights or you don’t. Savage clearly does not.