API ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey

Revenue Initiatives 2009
Presented 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 submittedp g p
for 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 results
Provider 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:
ePapers
Paid access sites, live
Paid access plansPaid access, plans
Registrations
Log-insLog ins
Perceptions 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 p
16. 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 = $4.99
Median $5.99
$-
Subsciber Upcharge Online Only Price
Range of online only subscriptions varied based on a
variety of factors.
Mean, users accessing: 3875
Mean, 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 Usep
14. 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 considering
paid 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 2009
Now, 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%
Undecided
Q3 2010
Q2 2010
Q1 2010
Q4 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 likely
to 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 likely
to 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 local
decision by your enterprise team
Locally determined and implemented
2%
18%
Other
Mandated by corporate to follow a common
program 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%
No
Yes
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 = 118
49. Does your Website require user registrations? N = 84y q g
50. Is your enterprise considering some type of required registration as an alternative to paid
access to content? N = 61
53. 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%
Gender
ZIP Code
Email Address
37%
45%
60%
61%
61%
Phone Number
Physical Address (Residence)
Age
Full Name
Gender
6%
13%
14%
18%
37%
Marital Status
Education Level
Personal Interests (Hobbies)
Household Income
Phone Number
7%
5%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Shopping Habits
Marital Status
N = 84

Log-in Programs
Few 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%
No
Yes
N = 118
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
ZAG Programs for Ad Targeting
72%
28%
N
Ye
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 atp y
news and information site?
p
LOCALSITE.com is to you?
Providers Visitors
N = 118
Source: Belden Interactive 2009
Local Market Surveys (N = 4,113)
y ( , )

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)

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
N = 118
y ( , )

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
Local Market Surveys (N = 4,113)N = 118

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

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 understandy
our audience we cannot calibrate…
Opportunity
• Any possibility of converting to paid content or any other revenue
Opportunity
ROI
• 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 raiseg y
concerns, 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: 4,957,772
Average Market Pop: 3,828,973
UV reports were on average
133% of local population for
large markets.
Average UV Count: 347,446
A M k t P 375 997Average Market Pop: 375,997
UV reports were on average 92%
of local population for
mid-sized markets.
A UV C t 157 229Average UV Count: 157,229
Average Market Pop: 97,474
small markets.
Average UV Count: 58,519
Average 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
p
2003.
Mean 2.5
N = 96
N 96

Local Market Reach:
i i54 Sites Reporting
Local Market Reach
90 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)

Newspaper Website Audiences
i h lCome in Three Flavors
Fly-byy y
•1 time per month
•Sourced from Search
•Wide variation in In- vs. Out-of-
Market mix
Varies 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 Music
This 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…
ePaper
InteractivityInteractivity
Registration
• “Print” precepts still driving our thinking.
Comfort with words, not interactivity, y
Obsession with “credibility” and professional
Control of conversation– not trusting visitors
Price to end user focused on advertising
Cost to end user consistently discounted or free
No 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
Audience
Unique
Visitors
X
Visits per
month X
Pages
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, AR
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Independent ArkansasOnline.com
Lima, OH
The Lima News
Freedom
Communications
LimaNews.com
Kankakee, IL
The Daily Journal
Small Newspaper
GroupThe Daily Journal Group
Manchester, CT Independent
Erie, PA
E i Ti N
Independent GoEire.com
Erie Times-News

Experimental Matrix
ki 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 With
Day: $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
nd
visit, for sure.

Revenue Initiatives 2009Revenue Initiatives 2009
Benchmarking print revenues
Belden Interactive
53

Contribution to print revenues from national retail
By enterprise scale
Actual 2008 Projected 2009
100%
100%
92%
70%
80%
90%
100%
nse
100%
100%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
nse
Very Small
Unreported
0%
0% 0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
92%
0%
92%
8%
86%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
MeanRespon
Very Small
Unreported
0%
0% 0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%0%
91%
9%
83%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
MeanRespon
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
Mid-Range
Small
Very 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
Small
Very 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 ads
by enterprise size
1516
by enterprise size
15
10
15
12
14
16
se
6
6
6
8
10
MeanRespon
L
Mean 2008
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
4
Large
Mid-Range
Very Small
Small
Unreported
Mean 2009
1
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 40

Contribution to print revenues from local retail
By enterprise scale
50%
60%
70%
e
60%
70%
80%
e
0%
17%
50%
17%
17%0%
22%
67%
11%
67%
33%
55%
27%
67%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MeanResponse
0%
17%
50%
17%
17%0%
38%
63%
58%
42%
75%
71%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MeanResponse
0 - 19%
20 -
39% 40 -
59% 60 -
80
Large
Mid-Range
Small
Very Small
Unreported
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
0%
0%0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0 - 19%
20 -
39% 40 -
59% 60 -
80
Large
Mid-Range
Small
Very Small
Unreported
0%
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%
ponse
83%
88%
75%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ponse
Very Small
Unreported
20%
0% 0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
70%
30%
83%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MeanResp
Very Small
Unreported
17%
0% 0%
0%
13%
0%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
55% 45%
43%
57%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MeanResp
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
Mid-Range
Small
0%
0%
0%0% 0%
0%17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
Mid-Range
Small
0%
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
9
10
7
12
8
10
12
se
4
4
8
8
6
4
6
8
MeanRespon
Mid R
Mean 2008
4
0
2
Mid-Range
Large
Very Small
Unreported
Small
Mean 2009
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 36

Percentage of total print revenue from niche pubs
1818
12
11
12
12
14
16
nse
5
12
76
8
10
MeanRespon
V S ll
Mean 2008
2
5
5
4
0
2
4
Very Small
Large
Small
Unreported
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
19
18
10
15
20
MeanRespon
L
Mean 2008
0
5
Large
Mid-Range
Small
Very Small
Unreported
Mean 2009
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 44

Revenue Initiatives 2009Revenue Initiatives 2009
Benchmarking online revenues
Belden Interactive
61

Percentage of total online revenue from display ads (ROS)
60
60
51
50
53
44
40
50
60
se
33
3138
37
32
20
30
40
MeanRespon
V S ll
Mean 2008
0
10
Very Small
Small
Unreported
Large
Mid-Range
Mean 2009
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 45

Contribution to online revenues from behavioral targeting
By enterprise scale
100%
90%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
esponse
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Response
Small
Very Small
Unreported
0%
0% 0%
0%
50% 50%
0%
0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MeanR
Mid-Range
Small
Very Small
Unreported
0%
0% 0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
MeanR
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
Mid-Range
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
Mid-Range
0%
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
2
5
4
5
6
7
eanResponse
Mean 2008
0
2
0 0
2
0
1
2
3
M
Very Small Large Mid-Range Small
Unreported
Mean 2009
0
0
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 21

Percentage of total online revenue from local search
4
g
34
4
33
4
4
se
1
23
22
2
3
MeanRespon
S ll
Mean 2008
0
0
0
1
1
Small
Large
Unreported
Mid-Range
Very Small
Mean 2009
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 23

Contribution to online revenues from mobile
By enterprise scale
90%
100%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
anResponse
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%50%
60%
70%
80%
nResponse
0 19% L
Mid-Range
Small
Very Small
Unreported
0%
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
Small
Very Small
Unreported
0%
0% 0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Mean
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large0%
0%
0%
0 - 19%
20 - 39%
40 - 59%
60 - 79%
80 - 100%
Large
0%
0%
0%
0%
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 18

Percentage of total online revenue from national or regional remnant
8
8
5
6 67
66
7
8
e
2
5
3
4
5
eanResponse
Mean 2008
2
3
2
0
1
2
3
M
Unreported Very Small Large Small
Mid-Range
Mean 2009
0
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 28

Percentage of total online revenue from Search Engine Optimization
7
7
5
5
6
7
se
2
3
4
MeanRespon
V S ll
Mean 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Very Small
Mid-Range
Large
Small
Unreported
Mean 2009
0
0
0
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 19

Percentage of total online revenue from Search Engine Marketing
4
3
4
3
4
4
se
12
2
3
MeanRespon
Mid R
Mean 2008
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Mid-Range
Large
Small
Very Small
Unreported
Mean 2009
0 0
0
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 18

Percentage of total online revenue from Video Advertising
8
6
8
6
7
8
se
3
5
43
4
5
MeanRespon
Mid R
Mean 2008
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
Mid-Range
Large
Very Small
Small
Unreported
Mean 20090
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 28

Contribution to online revenues from Classifieds Actual
By enterprise scale
60%
70%
80%
e
60%
70%
80%
e
33%
67%
0%
50%
50%56%
11%
58%
33%
71%
20%
30%
40%
50%
%
MeanResponse
50%
50%
0%
57%
43%
67%
11%
64%
36%
71%
20%
30%
40%
50%
%
MeanResponse
0-19%
20-39%
40-59%
-79%
0%
arge
d-Range
Small
VerySmall
Unreported
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
11% 22%
0%
0% 8%
0%0%
29%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0-19%
20-39%
40-59%
-79%
0%
arge
d-Range
Small
VerySmall
Unreported
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
17
1618
17
20
25
se
17
15
15
15
10
15
MeanRespon
U t d
Mean 2008
0
5
Unreported
Small
Mid-Range
Large
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
3
2
3
4
MeanRespon
V S ll
Mean 2009
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
Very Small
Mid-Range
Unreported
Large
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
1
76
8
10
MeanRespon
Small
Mean 2008
0
3
1
6
4
2
0
2
4
Small
Unreported
Very Small
Mid-Range
Large
Mean 2009
Mean 2009 Mean 2008
Belden Interactive
Sample Size = 25

Average Sell-Through (% Inventory sold)
70
54
43
58
54
61 61
60
5850
60
70
se
29
35
20
30
40
MeanRespon
L
Mean 2008
0
10
20
Large
Mid-Range
Very Small
Unreported
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 Delivery
35. 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 Registrations
59. 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 ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to API ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey

Similar to API ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

API ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey