A survey by research company Ipsos found that consumers are generally more tolerant of video ads that run in professionally produced content than they are of ads in “homemade” videos, according to a story in The New York Times today. An Ipsos director opined that homegrown video will attract more advertising down the line. But I think there’s something to this statistic, and that the general public is not withdrawing wholesale from expecting a kind of transaction to take place in their consumption of high-quality content.

But what about advertisers? How discerning are they about the quality of the content they sponsor? Very, I think, even now. I recently had a conversation with a web company that is looking to start packaging online articles on its social network as a way to attract more advertising. But the company did not see the value of adding an editorial layer to direct, commission, or produce additional content, believing it could simply package and showcase content already being contributed by its community members.

There are stars in the blog world, no doubt, and the history of the Web is littered with stories of small-time bloggers or video artists who hit a cultural nerve, and then the jackpot (such as the mommy bloggers highlighted in another Times story last week). The problem for journalists, video producers, and publishers too, is that much of the value they add to the product is intangible, and so-called amateurs can make the most of the ambiguity.

Advertising Age had an interesting piece this week by Simon Dumenco on how the blog universe relies heavily on images commissioned by traditional media. Basically, many blogs count on getting away with not being challenged over the rights, some even citing wobbly “fair use” as an excuse. “This is because bloggers have come to believe,” Dumenco wrote, “and copyright holders have mostly not disabused them of this notion — that “quoting” pictures to comment on them amounts to “fair use” under copyright law.”

As more MSM outlets cut costs, in the form of original photography, blogs will have to turn more to alternative sources for images. But it seems unlikely that we will see even the most “big media” blogs start to commission original photography en masse. For one thing it simply isn’t worth it, because digital cannot yet match the reproductive quality of print.

Traditional media, regardless of its limitations, still sits at the top of the content supply chain, simply by virtue of the resources it marshals to produce publications or broadcast programming. Having teams of photographers, copy editors, fact checkers, and art directors may increasingly be seen as a luxury that few can afford, particularly if the greatest beneficiaries of the investment are bloggers.

Links to content are a big part of the traffic engine, but that only fulfills only one narrow part of the publishing objective. Without tangible returns on the investment that only “big media” is so far prepared to make, it is likely that marketers - now content providers in their own right - will increasingly fill in the gaps.

I have been a terrible blogger, as the redoubtable Wes Pedersen would be the first to tell you. The basic reason for this is I have always done my writing in the mornings. But my lifestyle (enter baby) no longer cooperates the way it used to, so I  must refocus my energies to other times of day. Let this be the first entry of the new era…

David Carr’s column in Monday’s New York Times struck a nerve, celebrating a whole new approach to reporting that is finding its way into newsrooms everywhere, citing a colleague’s recent story: “On Saturday, Mr. Stelter’s wonderful article in The New York Times on how people were working around the blackout on the Olympic ceremony began as a post on Twitter seeking consumer experiences, then jumped onto his blog, TV Decoder, caught the attention of editors who wanted it expanded for the newspaper and ended up on Page One, jammed with insight and with plenty of examples from real human experience.”

PRWeek’s own excellent reporting team is using Twitter, and blogs, contact management systems and social media, and myriad other methods to explore topics with the public relations community and beyond. No doubt these tools have enabled already great journalists to find even better ways to work. Thus did word processing replace the typewriter, only a true Luddite could object to the progress that continues to be made.

But reporters risk becoming their efforts becoming commoditized even further than they already have been if they avow that these tools are changing the fundamentals of journalism. In fact, part of the challenge for journalism ongoing will be to tune out the clamor and find the hidden stories, the unwilling sources, the unpopular topics - the “boring but important” stories, to use The Week’s wonderful section name - that no one but the most dedicated reporter will commit to seeking out.

“Most news organizations in the U.S. and around the world are in retreat,” wrote Robert Thomson, managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, in a memo to staff. “But Dow Jones is expanding its reporting resources, rapidly developing its digital content and providing journalism of the highest integrity to an ever larger audience in The Wall Street Journal. ”

Thomson’s memo set forth his new editorial team structure, designed to create greater “co-operation” between print, online, and newswires. Gawker.com reports that Laurie Hays, deputy managing editor, is leaving.

The real story beneath the memos will be revealed as the Journal’s evolution from specialist to generalist continues. There is something about this structure that reminds one more of a broadcast outlet than a traditional print company.  The so-called “news hub” is designed for speed, not for comfort. As more of the Journal’s old guard departs, we will see how well it can sustain quality and balance as well.

The New York Times’ story about the Tribune Company’s impending cuts included insight into the value placed on editorial contribution, and how the company measures - in column inches, seemingly - success. “[Tribune Company COO Randy] Mr. Michaels revealed that the company had analyzed the volume of material produced by each reporter, and the per capita production at each paper; it concluded that many people were not pulling their weight and would hardly be missed.”

It reminded me of the principles of Taylorism, which (according to Wikipedia) is also known as “scientific management”, whereby a standard method for performing work tasks is implemented, based on analysis of individuals performing tasks, designed to increase productivity and consistency. The cost, according to detractors, is initiative, morale, and fundamental humanity.

Productivity is not a term often used in conjunction with the newsroom. Had Woodward and Bernstein been judged in terms of work volume, I have a feeling that they would have abandoned the low-yield Watergate investigation in favor of far more lucrative topic.

Of course, it is the job of the journalist to supply stories and feed the beast. But any sense that a reporter’s precise contribution can be judged by the number of words he or she squeezes into a story is ludicrous. Unlike manufacturing, you can’t assume that by applying a certain level of energy to one story will achieve the same result, and deliver the most, or best, content.  

As a fan of pith, of fewer words-better chosen, I can’t help but worry that comments like this will send mediocre reporters out to pad their copy beyond the limits of editorial need. Meanwhile, the real problem - that of dwindling ad revenue even as content strategy is more targeted and reactive than ever - remains unsolved.

Robert Thomson has been named managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Too bad. I was looking forward to seeing how his publishing role developed as self-proclaimed “head of content”, particularly as the Journal swings fully into its new direction. Moreover, it is a signal now that a new, more uncertain day is dawning at the title.

This is not because Thomson lacks integrity, talent, or credibility, or because the standards per se will take a precipitous drop. The Journal retains a powerful brand and impeccable editorial reputation. No doubt the company will continue to hire from the top ranks of reporters and editors. But its move towards the mainstream is a mistake, and Thomson’s coronation is confirmation that this trajectory will accelerate.

As PRWeek learned long ago, it is better to be a leading specialist than a competitive generalist. We learned by trying to direct every interesting mainstream story through the prism of PR, to come out with our own take on the news that people could read anywhere. The problem was, our take was quite often not different enough to make it truly a PRWeek story. Now our standards are much more strict for how we define a PRWeek element, however much attention the topic gets in the pages of USA Today and on GMA.

The Journal has an even bigger problem. The public has simply too many resources for mainstream news today to make meaningful distinctions between them. And the standards by which the general public judge their media outlets now is abysmally low, as evidenced by the dumbing down of network news, and the proliferation of celebu-journalism. Thus The Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the election, for example, will not automatically create converts to the brand, who are already more than happy to read about the election in everything from the Washington Post online to the Daily Show on television. The distinction of Wall Street Journal reporting will not be immediately obvious outside its business bailiwick.

The Wall Street Journal has long held firm to its tradition of stolid, in-depth business coverage at the expense of more mainstream appeal. Thus it created an elite and enviable community, which will no doubt feel somewhat betrayed by its paper’s shift to the same grid as the few other national papers. Will its circulation numbers rise as a result? Probably. But what will be the value of those readers, and where will its community go if it feels the Journal does not deliver what they want any more?

Sorry, but I don’t think so New York Times. Rather, media has turned the primary race INTO entertainment. American Idol move over, Tim Russert is the new Simon Cowell. The ABC team was excoriated for going lowbrow in the debate, but the fact is that coverage by and large has pandered to personality and drama. Ask voters to define the differences in the health care plans of Obama and Clinton, and most would be stumped. But their bowling scores? Oh, sure.

But is that fair? Personal tidbits are always more interesting to readers. Any columns I write that have a personal anecdote always get a bigger response than those without - the personal is an irresistible hook, and often provides invaluable insight into character, which does count in a political runoff.

But once a media outlet moves down a particular path it will find it very difficult to reassert a more sober, policy wonkish tone. With an Obama/McCain battle looming (sorry, Hillary), how much further will media go in order to keep their audiences entertained, rather than simply informed? 

The New Yorker’s “Stories from the Near Future” conference begins this week and I’m sure it will be worth every penny of the $2,000 people are paying to attend. How can I be so sure? Because it is just SO New Yorker it can’t possibly fail, even if nobody shows up.

It is no secret that publishers are turning to events to replace revenues that are disappearing from traditional advertising. Their success or failure in doing so has a great deal to do with how strongly represented the brand is in the event concept. Because anyone can invite a speaker to pontificate. Publishers have to really know their titles, their audience, and the difference between what needs to be on the page and on the stage to turn events into the brand multiplier that they can be. The PRWeek Awards is a good example of that, and Haymarket is incredibly good at distilling the values of the publication into an awards celebration.

Running an event is not easy, however. First of all, it’s bloody hard work. Second, it’s expensive. Third, it’s fun when it works and sheer hell when it doesn’t. And what makes it work is as much alchemy as planning. PRWeek has had hits and misses, and you can’t always point to the winning or losing elements of either.

It is tough to turn journalists - even with their heightened focus on branding themselves - into presenters, and yet for publishing events it is essential that you do so. The media brand does not just host the event, it embodies the event, and editorial leadership must be prominently on display, often playing the role of moderators for panels or Q&A sessions. This can be an uncomfortable role for some editors, who are accustomed to having a certain kind of relationship with their contacts and suddenly have to switch gears to play Merv Griffin with them in front of hundreds of people. However “hard hitting” you plan to be, you won’t get great participants if they know you might ask them in public if they are lying or whatever.

I love the arrogance of The New Yorker conference, which has given some of its best slots to its contributors, unapologetically making them the attraction. Of course, it’s easy when you have names like Malcolm Gladwell (however played he may be) on your contributors list.

Marcus Brauchli may be the most uncomfortable man in journalism right now. David Carr at the Times wrote in today’s column about the leaving party of the Wall Street Journal’s formal general counsel. Both he and Brauchli have signed NDA’s as part of their separation agreements, and the consensus in the room, according to the piece, was that Brauchli in particular signed his integrity away for a price.

In other words, Brauchli should now be the whistleblower for journalistic integrity at the WSJ, particularly given his departure. “Whatever objections Mr. Brauchli made during his tenure, in the end he decided to open Mr. Murdoch’s wallet and close his mouth,” wrote Carr. Ouch.
I simply can’t believe that is an accurate assessment of Brauchli’s motivations. He is still a youngish journalist, who will rely on his credibility for his next move. He would have very little to gain by keeping quiet for the money alone. The acute disappointment at seeing his dream job fall apart (the job he may well have expected to spend the rest of his active career doing) makes him vulnerable to an emotional response that might not serve him, or his Journal colleagues, very well in the long run.

Yesterday I wrote briefly about The Wall Street Journal’s changes, and about the old-school feel of the Murdoch leadership. But I admit I kind of censored myself. I wanted to say that this must be a very frustrating time for Marcus Brauchli, who took on arguably the greatest job in business journalism, only to be overshadowed by constant speculation about the influence of Murdoch. Now Brauchli has resigned, so it’s too late to look prescient, unfortunately.

I held back because it was so very difficult to get a handle on what Brauchli might have been thinking, and I can’t shake the reporter’s instinct that you have to stand it up. But he has been muted throughout this transition, which might have signalled something was afoot, or could have meant acquiescence. This wasn’t the job he signed up for, and just as the announcement of his succession was almost immediately swallowed by rumors of the acquisition, so his tenure would always have been overshadowed by the Murdoch story. Amid the intense media interest in Murdoch, it would have been nearly impossible to construct his own route for the paper, even if he was given the scope to do so.

Editors take a lot of crap, and the only real upside is that you are master and commander of the content - at least in an ideal world. Even if Brauchli had agreed with the changes imposed, he would still be running someone else’s show. And for an editor of that calibre, that’s just intolerable.