Api Revenue Initiatives 2009

Revenue Initiatives 2009Presented by ITZBelden

September 14, 2009p ,Reston,VA

Belden Interactive 1

Introduction and MethodologyIntroduction and Methodology

The study:API conducted research in partnership with Itz Publishing and Belden Interactive to understand online revenue opportunities, and where the news industry is and where it is going.

The methodology:

• 118 online interviews, based on questionnaires self-administered by industry executives at newspapers across the U.S. and Canada.

• 2 400 executives at 1 380 enterprises solicited using the API Partner email list2,400 executives at 1,380 enterprises solicited using the API Partner email list.

• Study will be ongoing over at least the next year. It’s not too late to submit your data!


Industry ParticipantsIndustry Participants

Sit f th 30Sites from more than 30 corporate groups and 20 independents participated. No corporate group submitted p g pfor more than 7 sites; most submitted for 1-4 enterprises.

Position %Position %Pres/Publisher 40%

GM 7%

VP/SVP 16%

N M di Di /M 11%(N = 118)

New Media Dir/Mgr 11%

Editor 6%

Other Dir/Mgr 20%


Today’s ProgramToday s Program

1 API industry survey results1. API industry survey resultsProvider perspectives — What “we” think.Visitor perspectives from Belden Interactive localVisitor perspectives from Belden Interactive local market research — What “they” think.

2. Audience and Opportunity2. Audience and Opportunity

3. Benchmarking data

4 Case studies4. Case studies


Provider PerspectivesProvider Perspectives

What U S newspapers are thinking and doingWhat U.S. newspapers are thinking and doing regarding revenue from paid access:

ePapersPaid access sites, livePaid access plansPaid access, plansRegistrationsLog-insLog insPerceptions of audience


Re-publishing ContentRe publishing Content

10. Does your Website publish most or all print articles to the Web in some form?

Publish Most/All Articles

20%

80%

No

Yes

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

No

N = 118

Publish Articles in Full

91%Yes

11. Does your site publish print articles in full?

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No

N = 118


Adoption of selected best practices for dend-user engagements

12. Which of the following content programs do you have on your site?

N = 118

13. E-paper issues: Do you have an e-paper reproduction (Olive or other solution) available on your Website?


solution) available on your Website?

Subscription levels required for e-paperp q p p16. If you have an additional charge for access to the e-paper, how much is it?

19 If yes what is the charge for an online only

$30 00

$35.00

19. If yes, what is the charge for an online-only subscription?

17 What print subscription level is required for free

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

N = 72

Median = $5.99 17. What print subscription level is required for free access to e-paper? [Select one.]

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

Range of online-only subscriptions varied based on a

Median = $4.99Median $5.99

$-

Subsciber Upcharge Online Only Price

Range of online only subscriptions varied based on a variety of factors.

Mean, users accessing: 3875Mean, online-only: 706

Net: 18% “Web only” [55 sites reporting]• Subscriber up-charge price reported N=25 • Online-only charge price reported N=64


Net: 18% Web only [55 sites reporting]Online only charge price reported N 64

ePaper Revenue Usep14. Is access to your e-paper paid in any way? N = 79

15. Do current print subscribers have access to the e-paper without additional charge? N =72

• Are not charging…or

• Not charging much…and

• As always, discounting convenience…


1 in 10 have paid sites; nearly all maintain some kind of free sitemaintain some kind of free site

22. Does your enterprise maintain a paid-access Website that is not an e-paper?

23. (Those with a paid site:) Do you have BOTH a paid and an open/free site (or paid/free sections) for yoursite (or paid/free sections) for your main news and information content?

N = 118


Six of 10 are consideringpaid access initiativespaid access initiatives

36. Are you considering initiating paid access of any type to your main,currently open/free news and information content?

N = 118

Timeframe

12%10%

Q4 2009Now, Q3

37. What is your expected timeframe for implementing any new paid strategies?

N = 68

49%2%

10%18%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

UndecidedQ3 2010Q2 2010Q1 2010Q4 2009


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Various approaches being consideredbeing considered

[BLUE BARS] 38. Which of the following types of paid content for your currently open/free site are you actively considering? [Select all that apply.]

(1 of 2)

[RED BARS] 39. Which of the following do you think your enterprise is most likelyto adopt? [Select all that apply.]

N = 68


Various approaches being consideredbeing considered (2 of 2)

[BLUE BARS] 38. Which of the following types of paid content for your currently open/free site are you actively considering? [Select all that apply.]p y y g [ pp y ]

[RED BARS] 39. Which of the following do you think your enterprise is most likelyto adopt? [Select all that apply.]

N = 68N = 68


New revenue and preserving print are the primary driversare the primary drivers

[BLUE BARS] 42. In considering introducing paid access to online content, which of the following are important strategic goals? [Select all that apply.]

[RED BARS] 43. Of the following goals, which do you think is or will be the most important factor in driving any final decision? [Select one only.]

N = 68


Decision Location

44. Do you expect that decisions with respect to adopting a paid solution will be…

40%

41%

Approved by corporate but following a localdecision by your enterprise team

Locally determined and implemented

2%

18%

Other

Mandated by corporate to follow a commonprogram at all your associated papers

N = 68

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%


Prospects for Micropayments ModelsMicropayments Models

40. There are many possible approaches to specific micropayments models that might be implemented for non-subscribers. How likely to succeed do you think any of these models might be?p y y y g


N = 68

Some concern about content piracy but little actioncontent piracy, but little action

46. How concerned are you about unauthorized/ uncompensated use of your content?

N = 118

47. Are you actively engaged in tracking unauthorized/ uncompensated use of your content across the Web?

Active Tracking

75%25%

NoYes

content across the Web?

N = 118


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Registration — Most allow, few require, some considering few monetizingsome considering, few monetizing

48. Does your site accept user registrations? N = 11849. Does your Website require user registrations? N = 84y q g50. Is your enterprise considering some type of required registration as an alternative to paid access to content? N = 6153. Does your site have a specific program or programs for monetizing registration information that is in active use now? N = 84/


Registration — Of 34 sites reporting, average i fis 11% of UV count

Sites reporting indicated that 62% of registered visitors logged on in the last 30logged on in the last 30 days.

N = 34


Registration Data CollectedRegistration Data Collected

55. Which of the following types of information do you include in your registration form?

61%77%

86%

GenderZIP Code

Email Address

37%45%

60%61%61%

Phone NumberPhysical Address (Residence)

AgeFull Name

Gender

6%13%14%

18%37%

Marital Status

Education LevelPersonal Interests (Hobbies)

Household Income

Phone Number

7%5%6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

OtherShopping Habits

Marital StatusN = 84


Log-in ProgramsFew sites use ZAG and just 1 in 4 who do use for ad targetingFew sites use ZAG, and just 1 in 4 who do use for ad targeting

57. Does your site use ZIP, Age, Gender (ZAG) log-ins?

ZAG Programs in Place

85%15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

NoYes

N = 118

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

ZAG Programs for Ad Targeting

72%28%

NYe

58. Does your site use ZAG information for ad targeting?

N = 18

72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

No


Providers vs. Visitors Perception:Value of site news and informationValue of site news and information

60. How would your users rate the news and information posted at your main

25. In general, how valuable do you think the news and information posted at p y

news and information site? p

LOCALSITE.com is to you?

Providers Visitors

N = 118

Source: Belden Interactive 2009Local Market Surveys (N = 4,113)


y ( , )

Providers vs. Visitors Perception: Value of print content on WebsiteValue of print content on Website

61. How valuable is it for your users to be able to access all of your print

l d

40. In general, how valuable is it to you to be able to access all of local daily

lcontent online at your main news and information site?

news print content online at LOCALNEWS.com?

Providers Visitors

N = 118 Source: Belden Interactive 2009 Local Market Surveys (N =4,113)


Providers vs. Visitors Perception: Difficulty of replacing siteDifficulty of replacing site

62. If your main site stopped posting its news and information to the Web, how easy do you think it

26. If LOCALSITE.com stopped posting its news and information to the Web, how easy do you think it would

would be for your users to find a replacement for that news and information they are currently getting from your site?

be to find a replacement for that news and information you are currently getting from LOCALSITE.com?

Providers Visitors

Source: Belden Interactive 2009 Local Market Surveys (N = 4,113)N = 118


y ( , )

Providers vs. Visitors Perception: Market Options to WebsiteMarket Options to Website

27. What other media/sources do you think you would use if news and information

63. What other media/sources do you think your users would use if news and information from your

from LocalSite.com were no longer available? [Select all that apply.]

Visitors

main news and information site were no longer available? [Select all that apply.]

Providers



Providers vs. Visitors Perception: Online options to WebsiteOnline options to Website

28. Which, if any, online sources would you be most likely to turn to if LOCALSITE.com were

64. Which, if any, online sources do YOU think YOUR USERS would be most likely to turn to if y

no longer available? [Select all that apply.]

VisitorsProviders

your main news and information site were no longer available? [Select all that apply.]



Paid Future — Silver Bullet?No consensusNo consensus

65. How likely do you think it is that newspapers will succeed in charging for content in such h h ill i ifi l ib h f f ?a way that these new revenues will significantly contribute to the future of newspapers?

39%

12%

Somewhat likely

Very likely

5%

36%

Not at all likely

Not very likely

5%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Don''t know

Complete failure nearly certain

N = 118

Belden Interactive

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

27

Challenge:A di d O t itAudience and Opportunity

If we do not accurately understand your audience we cannot calibrate…

Opportunity

• Any possibility of converting to paid content or any other revenue

OpportunityROI

• Any possibility of converting to paid content — or any other revenue opportunity — depends upon key variables:

Knowing audience size

K i di b h iKnowing audience behaviors

Knowing user price points

Articulating user benefits from their perspective


Omniture and Google Analyticsg y

• Omniture and Google analytics’ UV counts raise g yconcerns, such as…

• Unique Visitor counts equal to local population or more

• Unique Visitors counts 10x circulation

• Unique Visitors counts 2.5x visiting per month

U i Vi i i di l f k• Unique Visitors counts indicate mostly out of market

Let’s look at what the Omniture data are telling usLet s look at what the Omniture data are telling us.

NOTE: Most sites say they do not believe Omniture UV but have no other source except


y y p

Nielsen/Comscore, which have significant limits, notably the focus on top markets only.

UV counts are 10 times circulation and 1.3 times greater than local populationstimes greater than local populations

Average UV Count: 4,957,772Average Market Pop: 3,828,973

UV reports were on average 133% of local population for

large markets.

Average UV Count: 347,446A M k t P 375 997Average Market Pop: 375,997UV reports were on average 92%

of local population for mid-sized markets.

A UV C t 157 229Average UV Count: 157,229Average Market Pop: 97,474


small markets.

Average UV Count: 58,519Average Market Pop: 40,285


very small markets.


very small markets. N = 99

Reported “Unique Visitors” exceed l l l ti i ll k t ilocal populations in all market sizes

Large Market Sites: +100K Circ. (N = 20) Mid-Size Market Sites: 25K to 99K Circ. (N = 30)

Small Market Sites: +10-25K Circ. (N = 26) Very Small Market Sites: <10K Circ. (N = 23)


N = 99

Overall Traffic Patterns – Nearly every market t th tt f 10 PV 2 5V 1UVreports the same pattern of 10 PV : 2.5V : 1UV


Small Market Sites: +10-25K Circ. (N = 26) Very Small Market Sites: <10K Circ. (N = 16)


N = 84

Overall Traffic Patterns – Nearly every market t th tt f 10 PV 2 5V 1UVreports the same pattern of 10 PV : 2.5V : 1UV


S ll M k t Sit +10 25K Ci (N 26) V S ll M k t Sit <10K Ci (N 16)Small Market Sites: +10-25K Circ. (N = 26) Very Small Market Sites: <10K Circ. (N = 16)


N = 84

Visits Per Month – Excluding 3 outliers, the average site shows 2 5 visits per monthaverage site shows 2.5 visits per month

60 of 96 sites report 2.00-3.99 visits per month.

There has been no increaseThere has been no increase in the Omniture/Google analytics net monthly visits rates in reported data since

Mean 2.5

p2003.

Mean 2.5

N = 96


N 96

Local Market Reach: i i54 Sites Reporting

Local Market Reach90 0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%While the overall average is 31% reported reach, the overall range of 1% to 85%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%overall range of 1% to 85% strongly suggests a random distribution.

10 0%

20.0%

30.0%

0.0%

10.0%

N = 54


NOTE: Local market reach data are NOT typically reported from Omniture/GA data

Why?Why?• Why is this pattern always the same?y p y

–10 x circ?

–1.3 x local pop?

–2.5 x per month?

–Large implied out of market

Regardless of market, circulation size, or

seemingly anything…


Loyalist Audience FrequencyLoyalist Audience Frequency(Incidental and Core Visitors – excludes fly-bys)

Source: Belden Interactive 2009


Source: Belden Interactive 2009 Local Market Surveys (N = 4,113)

Newspaper Website Audiencesi h lCome in Three Flavors

Fly-byy y•1 time per month•Sourced from Search•Wide variation in In- vs. Out-of-Market mixVaries between 25% & 80% of total•Varies between 25% & 80% of total

people visiting in a month.

Incidental Loyalists•1 3 days per month 1 2 times•1-3 days per month, 1-2 times on days visiting. •Predominantly local.

Core LoyalistsCore Loyalists •20 days per month, 2-3 times on days visiting•Mostly to overwhelmingly local.


Local market definitions may vary.

Loyalists are the f hiBase for Everything

Loyalists drive the vast majority of pageviews at all local newspaperpageviews at all local newspaper Websites. As a group they have known characteristics:

V j i f i•Vast majority of pageviews•Vast majority of over-counting


How does this affect strategy?How does this affect strategy?

• Core audience has engagement.

• Higher engagement is higher opportunity.pp y


The Friction Challenge Saying “pay” is easy. Getting it is hard.

• Single-story fees. Likely to appeal only to fly-by visitors; large resistance can be expected.

• Single-day pass. Likely viable for all types; greatest total revenue opportunity and least resistance of

llall types.

• Subscriptions. Likely to appeal only to core l li t i t d tloyalists; some resistance; capped revenues; most familiar, and easiest to implement.


Paid Opportunity by Profilepp y y

Fly-by audience: Frequency 1 day per month,Fly by audience: Frequency 1 day per month, not returning. Typically driven by search or other reference to some specific story or content item. Best opportunity: Single-story fees?

Incidental loyalist audience: Frequency 1-3 days per month, returns on a semi-regular basis. returning. Typically driven by desire to see some specific content for news ads classifiedssome specific content for news, ads, classifieds, etc. Best opportunity: Single-story fees? Day passes?

C l li t di F 18 dCore loyalist audience: Frequency 18+ days per month, 2-3 times per weekday. Typically driven local and breaking news. Best opportunity: Day pass? Subscriptions?


Revenue Strategy by Profilegy y

Fly-by audience: Frequency 1 day per month, not returning. Leveraging the API

Incidental loyalist audience: Frequency 1-3 days per month, returns on a semi-regular basis. returning. Leveraging

Core loyalist audience: Frequency 18+ daysCore loyalist audience: Frequency 18+ days per month, 2-3 times per weekday. API


Digital Delivery: What you want, h hwhen you want, where you want

• Isaacson recommended iTunes• Isaacson recommended iTunes or similar micropayments.

• Why iTunes and other onlineWhy iTunes and other online payments work — despite very strong initial resistance.


A Consumer Perspective - MusicA Consumer Perspective MusicThis is the problem iTunes solves.

1 of 14 Songs Wanted•You love one song on this album, “Treetop Flyer.” But it is not available as a single, you must buy the whole

lb f 14 f $14 99album of 14 songs for $14.99 to get the one you want.

•93% of purchase price “wasted.”

•In iTunes you can go in and find the one song you want to add to o r pla list and b it

1 of 1 Song Wanted

add to your playlist and buy it for $0.99.

•100% of purchase price delivers what I want, when I

Belden Interactive46

want, and where I want.

A Consumer Perspective: Subscriptions?Subscriptions?

This is the problem with print.1 of 5 Sections Interest

•In subscribing to printed newspapers, people must buy all the content to get what they want — news, sports, ads, etc. No one wants all the content —perhaps only 1 of 5 sections on aperhaps only 1 of 5 sections on a regular basis.

-75% of purchase price “wasted.”

An online subscription does not solve the problem if the same “buy all to get

Problem is worse with online subscription.

some” rule applies. People typically read 4 of perhaps 40 newly available online articles on any day.

•90% of purchase price “wasted ”


•90% of purchase price wasted.

What do the data imply?What do the data imply?• Missed opportunities for…

ePaperInteractivityInteractivityRegistration

• “Print” precepts still driving our thinking.Comfort with words, not interactivity, yObsession with “credibility” and professionalControl of conversation– not trusting visitorsPrice to end user focused on advertisingCost to end user consistently discounted or freeNo focus on user benefitsNo focus on user benefits

• Potentially deep disconnect between “us” and “them” — content creators and end-users, our visitors.

• Visitors’ focus is on Internet and TV, not print.

• Little audience understanding of basic reach and behaviors.


• Faulty models likely in place for assessing opportunity and ROI.

Hands-onHands on

• How many people?• How many people?

• How much opportunity for core?

• Subscription Opportunityp pp y

• Micropay Opportunity


Worksheet

AudienceUnique Visitors

XVisits per

month XPages

per visit=

Page-views

Revenue Opportunity

Omniture x x =

Site Estimate

Flavors:

Fly-by x 1.0 x =

id lIncidental x x =

Core x x =

Total


Case StudiesCase Studies

Enterprise Ownership Site Linkp p

Pittsburgh PA Post-Gazette

Independent PGPlus

Newport RI IndependentNewport RI Independent

Little Rock, ARArkansas Democrat-Gazette

Independent ArkansasOnline.com

Lima, OHThe Lima News

Freedom Communications

LimaNews.com

Kankakee, ILThe Daily Journal

Small Newspaper GroupThe Daily Journal Group

Manchester, CT Independent

Erie, PAE i Ti N

Independent GoEire.com


Erie Times-News

Experimental Matrixki f l !Looking for Volunteers!

Pay Model Test 1 Test 2 Pricing NotesPay Model Test 1 Test 2 Pricing Notes

Subscription Model

Allow Current Subs Free

All Pay $6 to $10/month We may consider that this has been done.

L i t hi h

Day Pass 24 Hrs.Allow Current Subs Free

All Pay $1.00 to $1.50

Lower resistance, higher revenue. Allows to get some revs from Fly-bys & incidentals, though not much. Revs per visitor likely to be 2x subs model per + more participation.

All C t All P WithDay: $1.00 to

May want to introduce some flavor of FinTimes model on

Day Pass/Single Article

Allow Current Subs FreeWith Single Article

All Pay With Single Article

y $$1.50 Single Article: $.50 to $.75

flavor of FinTimes model on this, but not much, as there is no real solution for the cookie problem. Prompt at 2

ndvisit, for sure.


Revenue Initiatives 2009Revenue Initiatives 2009Benchmarking print revenues


Contribution to print revenues from national retailBy enterprise scale

Actual 2008 Projected 2009

100%100%

92%

70%

80%

90%

100%

nse

100%100%

100%70%

80%

90%

100%

nse

Very SmallUnreported

0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%

92%

0%

92%

8%

86%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Mea

n R

espo

n


0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%

91%

9%

83%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Mea

n R

espo

n

0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range

SmallVery Small0%0%

0% 0% 8%8%

0% 0% 0%0% 14%

0%0%

0%

10%

Large Mid Range Small Very Small Unreported

0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range

SmallVery Small0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%

9%

0% 0% 0%0%

17%

0%0%

0%

10%

Large Mid-Range Small Very Small UnreportedLarge Mid-Range Small Very Small Unreported g g y p

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 42

Percentage of total print revenue from national adsby enterprise size

1516

by enterprise size

15

10

15

12

14

16

se

6

66

8

10

Mea

n R

espo

n

LMean 2008

22

22

1

0

2

4

LargeMid-Range

Very SmallSmall

Unreported

Mean 20091

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 40

Contribution to print revenues from local retail By enterprise scale


50%

60%

70%

e60%

70%

80%

e

0%17%

50%

17%17%0%

22%

67%

11%

67%

33%

55%

27%

67%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Mea

n R

espo

nse

0%17%

50%

17%17%0%

38%

63%58%

42%

75%

71%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Mea

n R

espo

nse

0 - 19%20 -39% 40 -

59% 60 -80

LargeMid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported11%

0%0%

0%0%

18%

0%0%0%

33%

0%0%

0%

10%

0 - 19%20 -39% 40 -

59% 60 -80

LargeMid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported0%

0%0%

0%0%

17%8%

0%0%

14%14%

0%0%

0%

10%

79% 80 -100%

Large Mid-Range Small Very Small Unreported

79% 80 -100%


Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 44

Contribution to print revenues from local Inserts

By enterprise scale

90% 90%


80%89%83%

60%

70%

80%

90%

pons

e 83%88%

75%

60%

70%

80%

90%

pons

e


20%

0% 0% 0%11%

0% 0% 0%

17%

0% 0%

70%

30%

83%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Mea

n R

esp


17%

0% 0% 0%13%

0% 0% 0%

75%

25%

0%

55% 45%

43%57%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Mea

n R

esp

0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range

Small0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%17%

0%0%

0%

0%

10%

0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range

Small0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%

0%0%

0%

0%

10%


S l Si 42


Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 42

Percentage of total print revenue from national inserts

12

910

7

12

8

10

12

se

44

88

64

6

8

Mea

n R

espo

n

Mid RMean 2008

4

0

2

Mid-RangeLarge


Small

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 36

Percentage of total print revenue from niche pubs

1818

12

1112

12

14

16

nse

5

12

76

8

10

Mea

n R

espo

n

V S llMean 2008

25

54

0

2

4

Very SmallLarge

SmallUnreported

Mid-Range

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 40

Percentage of total print revenue from classifieds

27 3030

24

22

19

27 27

2320

25

30

se

1918

10

15

20

Mea

n R

espo

n

LMean 2008

0

5

LargeMid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 44

Revenue Initiatives 2009Revenue Initiatives 2009Benchmarking online revenues


Percentage of total online revenue from display ads (ROS)

6060

5150

53

4440

50

60

se

333138

37

3220

30

40

Mea

n R

espo

n

V S llMean 2008

0

10

Very SmallSmall

UnreportedLarge

Mid-Range

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 45

Contribution to online revenues from behavioral targetingBy enterprise scale


100%90%

100%

100%

50%

100%

100%100%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

espo

nse

100%100%

100%

100%100%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Res

pons

e

SmallVery Small

Unreported0% 0% 0% 0%

50% 50%

0% 0% 0%0%0% 0% 0%

0%0% 0% 0%

100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Mea

n R

Mid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Mea

n R

0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range0%0%

0%0%

0%

0%


0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large

Mid-Range0%

0%0%

0%

0%


Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 21

Percentage of total online revenue from behavioral targeting

10 10

8

7

8

9

10

e

4

254

5

6

7

ean

Res

pons

e

Mean 2008

0

2

0 02

0

1

2

3M

Very Small Large Mid-Range Small Unreported

Mean 200900

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 21

Percentage of total online revenue from local search

4

g

344

33

4

4

se

1

23

22

2

3

Mea

n R

espo

n

S llMean 2008

00

0

1

1

SmallLarge

UnreportedMid-Range

Very Small

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 23

Contribution to online revenues from mobileBy enterprise scale


90%

100%

90%

100%

100%100%

100%

100%100%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

an R

espo

nse 100%

100%100%

100%100%50%

60%

70%

80%

n R

espo

nse

0 19% L

Mid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Mea

Mid-Range

SmallVery Small

Unreported0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0% 0%0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Mea

n0 - 19% 20 - 39%

40 - 59%60 - 79%

80 - 100%

Large0%0%

0%


0 - 19% 20 - 39%40 - 59%

60 - 79%80 - 100%

Large0%

0%0%

0%


Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 18

Percentage of total online revenue from national or regional remnant

88

56 67

66

7

8

e

2

5

3

4

5

ean

Res

pons

e

Mean 2008

2

3

2

0

1

2

3

M

Unreported Very Small Large Small Mid-Range

Mean 20090

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 28

Percentage of total online revenue from Search Engine Optimization

77

5

5

6

7

se

2

3

4

Mea

n R

espo

n

V S llMean 2008

0 0 00 0

0

0

1

2

Very SmallMid-Range

LargeSmall

Unreported

Mean 20090

00

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 19

Percentage of total online revenue from Search Engine Marketing

4

34

3

4

4

se

12

2

3

Mea

n R

espo

n

Mid RMean 2008

0 0 0

1

0

1

1

Mid-RangeLarge

SmallVery Small

Unreported

Mean 20090 0

0

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 18

Percentage of total online revenue from Video Advertising

8

68

6

7

8

se

3

5

43

4

5

Mea

n R

espo

n

Mid RMean 2008

1

00

10

1

2

Mid-RangeLarge

Very SmallSmall

Unreported

Mean 20090

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 28

Contribution to online revenues from Classifieds ActualBy enterprise scale


60%

70%

80%

e 60%

70%

80%

e

33%

67%

0%

50% 50%56%

11%

58%

33%

71%

20%

30%

40%

50%

%

Mea

n R

espo

nse

50% 50%

0%

57%

43%

67%

11%

64%

36%71%

20%

30%

40%

50%

%

Mea

n R

espo

nse

0 - 1

9%

20 -

39%

40 -

59%

- 79%

0% arge

d-R

ange Sm

all

Very

Sm

all

Unr

epor

ted

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

11%11% 22%

0%0% 8%

0%0%

29%

0%0%

0%

10%

0 - 1

9%

20 -

39%

40 -

59%

- 79%

0% arge

d-R

ange Sm

all

Very

Sm

all

Unr

epor

ted

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

11%11%

11%

0%0%

0%0%

14%14%

0%0%

0%

10%

4

60 -

80 -

100 La

Mid


4

60 -

80 -

100 La

Mid


Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 37

Percentage of total online revenue from classifieds

2225 22 22 22

171618 17

20

25

se 17

1515

1510

15

Mea

n R

espo

n

U t dMean 2008

0

5

UnreportedSmall

Mid-RangeLarge

Very Small

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 38

Percentage of total online revenue from Sponsorships

7

4

7

5

6

7

se

3

32

3

4

Mea

n R

espo

n

V S llMean 2009

0

1

0

2

110

1

2

Very SmallMid-Range

UnreportedLarge

Small

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2009

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 22

Percentage of total online revenue from business directories

18

10

17

12

14

16

18

nse

176

8

10

Mea

n R

espo

n

SmallMean 2008

0

3

1

6

4

20

2

4

SmallUnreported

Very SmallMid-Range

Large

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 25

Average Sell-Through (% Inventory sold)

7054

43

58

5461 6160

5850

60

70

se

29

3520

30

40

Mea

n R

espo

n

LMean 2008

0

10

20

LargeMid-Range


Small

Mean 2009

Mean 2009 Mean 2008

Belden Interactive

Sample Size = 44

Case StudiesCase Studies

• PG Plus

• Newport RI

• Arkansas• Arkansas

• Lima OH

• Kankakee

• Manchester, CT

• GoErie


AppendicesAppendices


Content InitiativesContent Initiatives

Social networks links/presence 86%

E-commerce storefronts 80%

Email subscriptions/alerts 70%N = 118

Niche sites (moms, gardens, etc.) 70%

Premium-content site/section 8%

• Facebook (79%) and Twitter (80%) most-often cited social networks.

• Photos (75%) and paid archives (48%) most common ecommerce elements.

• 1 of 83 with email subscriptions with payment.

• 59 of 83 (71%) sold advertising into email subscription/alert programs.


( ) g p / p g

Digital DeliveryDigital Delivery35. Do you provide access to stories or information such as sports scores, headlines, stock quotes, etc., by any of these digital delivery platforms? [S l ll h l ][Select all that apply.]

N = 118


Current RegistrationsCurrent Registrations59. Have you registered to receive emails, alerts or permission-based advertising at any of the following media or businesses? [Select all that apply.]

Sample Base: All Respondents N = 795


Api Revenue Initiatives 2009

News & Politics

Transcript of Api Revenue Initiatives 2009