It was the best of Times...
Over at my work blog, I have a piece up on the latest way the LA Times (I think foolishly) trades audience credibility and goodwill for some ready cash. And give a useful counterexample.
So let's be clear - all media companies are struggling as both the basic models they operate under (online and offline) are challenged, and as the economy means they no longer have the cushion of good times.-
Let's look at two responses to the problem.
The LA Times ran an ad that wrapped the front page for the film Alice In Wonderland; that was controversial, but what made it deeply controversial is that the ad was designed with copy and font to look like the Times' front page...with an ad layered on top of it.
The response will always be more positive if you start off at a high level of reader credibility and trust - and Ars Technica did/ does. Its devotees are passionate.
The LA Times? I doubt it very much.
And one of the problems that the LA Times' position creates is that it constrains your available actions. Not just how people react to what you do, but what you can ask for.
Which may mean that the LA Times could actually be right, when it says that it has few other options. They might have driven themselves far enough down the trust/permission curve that their ability to ask for more is too limited, and selling out like this is about all they can do to make a revenue difference in the near term.
I'm not saying definitively that this is so. But it could be. That pesky "goodwill" line in accounting statements can hide a lot of sins, but its underlying premise is real.
Are there other options? As any sports fan knows, medium to long-term team/ brand rebuilding plans are the other obvious option. The bad news? They require a good plan, and consistent execution. They pretty much guarantee a lack of needle-moving benefits in the near term, and may even create a step back first. And then they sometimes work, and sometimes don't.
Many managers prefer to harvest in a decline, rather than make big bets or changes. On a personal level, it's less risky and less difficult.
What changes that preferred mode are one or more of Leadership; Forcing through crisis (though by then, it can be too late); or Replacement by better competitors (viva capitalism!).
On a technical note, a partial alternative to total ad blocking is running "NoScript"http://noscript.net/ with Firefox and other Mozilla-based browsers. It shuts down JavaScript on unapproved / untrusted pages. That has the security benefit of preventing cross-site scripting attacks, but it also seems to get rid of many of the most annoying ads as well. If the ads are instrumented, it should leave the per-view or per-click banners and their revenue more or less intact, while shutting down the more obnoxious blinking, expanding, bouncing, talking, etc. Flash trash.