The OWN network, which replaced the Discovery Health Channel, debuted on Jan. 1, 2011. There were high hopes for the network, which had a bevy of celebrity-hosted programming and, most importantly, Oprah’s name attached to it.

Even after a sluggish start that saw the CEO step down after only five months on-air, there was hope that Rosie O’Donnell’s daily talk show would be a saving grace. Unfortunately, despite a 6-year talk show history and popular stint on “The View,” “The Rosie Show“, which premiered less than four months ago, only averages about 200,000 viewers.

In fact, around the time that “The Rosie Show” premiered, the OWN network was in much worse shape than the channel it replaced! Total day viewers in the coveted 18-49 adult demographic were down 25 percent compared to the old Discovery Health Channel.

To answer OWN ratings troubles, they brought out the big gun in 2012 and put Oprah back on the air. Oprah’s Sunday evening program, “Oprah’s New Chapter,” debuted Jan. 1 with a two-hour interview with Steven Tyler. Ratings for the premiere were strong for the channel, but it was the second episode, a highly promoted interview with mega church pastor Joel Osteen, that finally brought the network some eyeballs.

To provide some context, while Oprah’s interview with Osteen set an OWN record with 1.6 million viewers, more than 3.3 million viewers tuned into “Kourtney and Kim Take NY” the same night. They say Sunday is a competitive time slot, but who would have thought that the Kardashians would kill Oprah in the ratings!

Despite the loss to the Kardashians, it seems executives were happy with the results, as they expanded “Oprah’s Next Chapter” to two nights a week through February.

But it’s not just TV ratings that are hurting. According to the latest figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, sales of O magazine were down 32 percent from the same period a year ago.

What do you think? Is OWN just a new network that needs time to grow, or has Oprah lost some of her allure?

But that doesn’t make it OK. Like many journalists, I often got lazy with words. I took the easy way out. I didn’t think. I hedged.

Here are some obnoxious examples of journalese … all from the Star Tribune. I don’t mean to single out the Strib. It’s just local and handy. I could’ve picked on any of my former employers — Minnesota Public Radio, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the New York Daily News or the Dallas Morning News — or just about any other media outlet. They’re all butchers.

As a gag, I sometimes use throwaway journalism jargon with my kids. To illustrate how absurd these words sound in real life, I’m listing actual examples from the Star Tribune, followed by how Journo Dad might sound around the house.

Largely
Strib: “Construction activity last year was slightly better in 2011 than 2010, largely because of an increase in apartment construction.”

Journo Dad: “I’m largely done with fixing dinner.”

Critics contend
Strib: “Critics contend that young, developing businesses and smaller websites could be saddled with expensive litigation costs.”

Journo Dad: “Critics contend that you kids don’t hop into the tub when you’re supposed to.”

Altercation
Strib: “Police arrested a 22-year-old St. Paul man Sunday in connection with the death of another man, apparently after an altercation.”

Journo Dad: “I don’t want you kids getting into an altercation over who goes first.”

My daughter Alex learning bad writing habits.

Fingered
Strib: “His former campaign manager David FitzSimmons, whom Brodkorb also fingered with blame, said Brodkorb can have his own opinion but that he has no position in the party now.”

Journo Dad: “So, you’ve been fingered with eating a cookie before dinner.”

Blaze
Strib: “The blaze is believed to have started in the living room of one of the lower-level apartments.”

Journo Dad: “Heckuva a blaze I built there, eh?”

White stuff
Strib: “For the rest of us, it’s only a matter of time until the white stuff flies.”

Journo Dad: “Let’s go out and play in the white stuff”

Probe
Strib: “A high-ranking Minneapolis police officer who was caught up in an internal corruption probe has filed a lawsuit against the department.”

Journo Dad: “Time to launch a probe into that missing Halloween candy.”

Express concerns
Strib: “Jensen was one of about 50 Stillwater neighborhood residents who packed City Hall Monday night to express concerns about the proposed expansion.”

Journo Dad: “I’m expressing concerns that it’s past your bedtime.”

***************************

It doesn’t have to be this way. With a bit of thought — a few seconds, say — writers can avoid most of these words and phrases. As an adjunct instructor at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication, I compiled a list of pet-peeve words for an introductory reporting class.

Here’s the list, followed by easy and understandable alternatives.

fled on foot = ran away
high rate of speed = speeding
physical altercation = fight
verbal altercation = argument
reduce expenditures = cut costs
terminate employment = fire
reduction in service = layoff
blunt force trauma = injury
discharged the weapon = shot
transport the victim = take him/her
lower extremities = legs
officers observed = police saw
at this point in time = now
express concerns = complain
incendiary device = bomb
obtain information = ask or interview
deceased = dead
sexual relations = sex
roadway = road
fail to negotiate a curve = missed a curve
determine a course of action = consider options
vehicle = car or truck
citizen = person
individual = man or woman
commence = begin
emergency personnel = police, firefighters
utilize = use
complainant = victim
fatally injured = killed
motorist = driver
juvenile male/female = teen boy or girl
respond to the scene = arrive
precipitation = rain, snow
purchase = buy
intoxicated = drunk
controlled substances = drugs
appendages = arms, legs
contusion = bruise
head trauma = head injury
laceration = cut
provide leadership = lead
obstruct = block, get in the way
came to the conclusion that = decided, figured out
arrived at a decision = decided
reside = live

**************

Follow Bob Ingrassia on Twitter.

Follow Fast Horse on Twitter.

This slide is going to change in favor of new media once Facebook's IPO is completed. Source: Business Insider

The divergence of traditional and social media has never been more starkly illustrated than it was last week.

Two old-line newspaper companies – Gannett (the largest) and the New York Times (the most prestigious) – reported their quarterly financial results.

Meanwhile, Facebook — which didn’t even exist a decade ago – filed the legal paperwork for an initial public offering of stock in the spring.

Result: New beat old. Convincingly.

The Times reported that its print advertising was down about 8 percent from the previous year. The company’s market capitalization – the amount all its assets would bring if sold – is about $1.1 billion.

Gannett’s print advertising was down about 5 percent from the previous year. Gannett’s market cap now stands at about $3.5 billion.

Facebook revealed plans to sell about $5 billion worth of stock, but analysts said that when all is said and done, the value of Facebook will probably wind up being set by the market at somewhere between $75 billion and $100 billion.

(By the way – the McClatchy Co., former owner of the Star Tribune, is now valued at about $200 million. That’s the entire company — 30 daily newspapers and 44 non-dailies. Just five years ago, the Star Tribune alone brought $530 million when McClatchy sold it to an investor group.)

You might look on Facebook as a source of information and connection to your friends. And it is. But that’s not the business Facebook is in.

Facebook, like Google, is in the business of selling data to advertisers. And you’re a bit in their data stream. Every time you “like” a restaurant, or post a picture of your visit to a national park, or mention your grandchildren in Sioux Falls, Facebook adds those data points to its computer banks. Result: you’re probably going to see a tailored ad at some point from a kiddie restaurant near Badlands National Park.

Newspapers were never really in the news business – they were in the advertising business. The news was something they used to gather an audience that they could sell to advertisers.

Now there are faster, more precise, less expensive ways of gathering that audience.

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.

In the same week that a leading journalism school predicted the death of most print newspapers within five years, the sale of a blog pointed the way to the likely future of popular media.

ReadWriteWeb, a blog focused on technology issues, was sold for $5 million to a company called SAY Media. A $5 million deal doesn’t sound like much, but this one is significant – because ReadWriteWeb is another piece in a network that SAY Media has been assembling for several years now.

SAY Media owns several dozen niche blogs and websites. Among them are very popular titles like Remodelista, Serious Eats, Dogster, Catster and Fashionista. These sites all mix “real” content, written by web journalists, with sponsored content produced by advertisers that pay to have it run on the site.

There’s nothing shady about it; the sponsored content is clearly labeled as such. But it’s mixed in with the rest of the articles on the site, so it becomes just another choice for the reader.

The theory is that if an item is interesting and on topic for the blog, then the readers won’t care whether it was written by an independent journalist or by a marketing person. If you’re moved to click on “8 Things Your Dog Shouldn’t Eat,” you probably don’t care that the author might be an ex-journalist now working for Purina’s PR firm.

We’ve placed sponsored content on several blogs for our clients. I’ve written some of the items. And they’ve been very successful at drawing traffic for our clients, providing a good return on investment.

In the era now passing, advertisers paid big bucks to promote their products in print and broadcast ads. The newspapers and TV stations, in turn, used those advertising dollars to hire professional journalists to create the content that filled the news pages and airwaves.

In the coming years, you’ll see much more of the hybrid model, with sponsored content mixed in with the independently produced items. Here’s how SAY Media promotes their sites to advertisers: “Our custom marketing programs provide simple and accountable ways for brands to engage passionate audiences at scale.”

Translation: “We’ve created a website that fans of cats – or dogs, or fashion, or computers, or interior design – will enjoy visiting. For a price, we’ll put your content in front of that audience.”

Journalism purists will be aghast. But as long as sponsored content is identified – and, more importantly, as long as it’s something people are actually interested in – I don’t see anything wrong with it.

What’s more, this change is already rapidly taking place. And it’s going to continue, no matter what you or I think of it.

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.

The Missoulian

In what I can only describe as a community-minded act of charity, multi-billionaire Warren Buffett recently announced that he would pay $150 million to buy his hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald.

Buffett, who had a paper route as a boy, once was an enthusiastic investor in newspapers. He’s owned the Buffalo (N.Y.) News since 1977 and owns a significant stake in the Washington Post Co.

But in recent years, the Oracle of Omaha has been issuing doom-laden pronouncements on the future of the newspaper business. He’s said that newspapers “have the possibility of unending losses.” Of the Buffalo paper, he said, “On an economic basis, you should sell this business.”

So I have to conclude that Buffett’s purchase of the Omaha paper is the generous act of an aging rich man who wants to leave his hometown with a stable, well-financed, locally run news organization.

Good for him, and great for Omaha. If only every city had a Warren Buffett to insure the future of its leading journalism organization.

That got me wondering: Who could be the Twin Cities’ Warren Buffett?

We have two daily newspapers that have struggled along with the rest of the industry over the last five years. But we don’t have anyone as wealthy as Buffett, ranked No. 2 on the Forbes 400 list of America’s wealthiest citizens with a fortune of $39 billion.

Still, we do have six members of the 400, billionaires all. What are the odds that any of them would decide to take a late-life flyer in the news business?

Glen Taylor: Nope. He fulfilled his obligation to buy a struggling community institution when he took over the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Whitney MacMillan: The Cargill heir stays completely out of the spotlight – Forbes didn’t even have a photo of him to run with his listing. Hard to imagine him taking on such a public role as owner of a newspaper.

Barbara Carlson Gage and Marilyn Carlson Nelson: Same story. The sisters, daughters of the late Curtis Carlson, have stayed out of the limelight in recent years – although Marilyn Nelson was unquestionably the state’s most powerful businesswoman for decades.

Richard Schulze: The Best Buy founder has shown admirable community-mindedness with his generous donations to educational institutions. But he’s never given any public indication of a desire to become a media mogul.

Stanley Hubbard: Now, this guy is already a media mogul. A legend in both terrestrial and satellite broadcasting, he’s smart and tough. Just the man to take on the challenge of breathing life into a fading news medium. The only trouble is, he’s probably too smart to bet on such an uncertain enterprise.

Bottom line: We probably don’t have anyone likely to step up and buy either of our daily newspapers. And you know what? We may not even need them. The Star Tribune has Mike Klingensmith, Editor & Publisher magazine’s newly named “Publisher of the Year,” and the Pioneer Press is under the corporate management of one of the news industry’s current visionaries, John Paton.

If they can’t figure out a path to the future, none of our local moneybags is likely to, either. And we’ll be a cold Omaha – without Omaha’s news coverage.

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.

Which media logos do the best job reassuring potential customers that a business is legit? One online service recently ran interesting experiment to find out. (Hat tip to MediaWire for the heads up on this study.)

Thumbtack.com, which hooks up service providers with people in need of service, concluded that logos from the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal boosted conversions among the general public. The familiar blue-and-white USA Today nameplate actually hurt business.

Thumbtack did A/B testing on separate landing pages aimed at consumers and service providers (house cleaners, handymen, pet sitters, etc.). The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal boosted conversions for both sets of users. The New York Times did great among consumers, but didn’t do well among the service providers.

USA performed poorly among both groups, actually driving down conversions. In other words, Thumbtack’s call-to-action pages hooked more users without the USA Today logo than with it.

In its post explaining the results, Thumbtack said, “We have no idea why this hugely popular newspaper would have decreased conversions across the board. Your guess is as good as ours.”

So here’s my guess: Even after all these years, USA Today comes across as a lightweight media brand. The paper marks its 30th anniversary next year, but it’s still seen as something of a freebie. You know, the newspaper you see laying around the boarding area at the airport or the paper you find waiting for you outside your hotel room door.

Some of the knock against USA Today is unwarranted. The paper’s reporters have done great work over the years. One notable example was USA Today’s work in 2006 exposing the National Security Agency’s efforts to compile a gigantic database of Americans’ private phone calls. USA Today’s entertainment and sports pages have been good over the years, too.

USA Today ushered in a new era of graphic design among newspapers — punchy layouts, quick reads and lots of color graphics. In some ways, USA Today’s bold look and bite-size morsels of information were a precursor to what we’ve become used to on the web.

In recent years, of course, USA Today has been beset by many of the same problems plaguing newspapers across the nation. Revenue losses have forced staff reductions, which in turn have hurt the quality of the product.

Way back when, I was part of endeavor mocking USA Today. In December 1991, the staff of the Minnesota Daily put out a USA Today spoof called the U of M ToDaily. We packed almost story with bullets and tweaked the familiar “Snapshots” feature with a tagline of “A look at stats that don’t really matter.” Not long after the issue came out, we got a letter from USA Today lawyers telling us to knock off the knock offs.

Maybe we were on to something even back then. USA Today is the paper millions of people read, but few truly love.

By Horsey, courtesy of Chazz Writes

A couple of months ago, I wrote that the end of newspapers is closer than you think. Since then, events have lent credence to that prediction.

Most notably, several newspaper companies have moved decisively toward a digital-first identity. Let me explain why that’s a big deal.

In the infancy of the Web — barely a decade ago — newspapers often held their scoops for the morning print edition. And TV stations held their best stuff for the 10 o’clock news.

Though the newspapers and TV stations had websites, they didn’t want to publish significant stories on the Web first, fearing that the competition could follow up with its own version during the same publishing or broadcast cycle. That line of thinking went out the window a few years ago. Now, media organizations almost always publish their news to the Web as soon as they can.

Many TV stations and newspapers still do hold out some exclusive content to give people an extra incentive to watch their broadcast or buy the print newspaper. But those are usually so-called “enterprise” stories involving significant reporting that can’t be easily repurposed by a competitor.

For the most part, there’s been a recognition of the importance of immediacy. The modern news consumer has many choices, and often the key to engaging a reader or viewer is simply to be first with the story, rather than offering the most insightful or the most complete version.

Now, several newspaper companies have gone all-in on that notion:

•    Booth Newspapers, which publishes eight newspapers in Michigan cities like Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, announced last month that it’s adopting a digital-first strategy. Most of its newspapers will cut back home delivery of print editions from seven days a week to three. As further proof of its commitment to the digital world, the company is changing its name to MLive.

•    GateHouse Media, which owns nearly 500 newspapers — mostly small-town dailies, weeklies and shoppers — announced an acceleration of its digital efforts as part of “Project Apple.” Newspapers, the GateHouse CEO declared, are “a product declining in popularity and readership.”

•    The Roanoke (Va.) Times, owned by Landmark Media Enterprises, announced job cuts and a reorganization geared toward “building a newsroom that is oriented first toward delivering news online.” Said Editor Carole Tarrant in a memo to her staff: “We do not expect to see growth in our print advertising base. … We are pursuing growth where growth continues to reside — on the digital side of our company.”

•    Just last week, Pittsburgh got a new, digital-only afternoon newspaper. The Pittsburgh Press launched under the same name that died 18 years ago when the competing Post-Gazette bought and closed the Press.

•    New York Times journalist David Carr published a compelling look at the strategy of John Paton, CEO of MediaNews Group — the nation’s second-largest newspaper company and owner of the Pioneer Press. Wrote Carr: “[Paton] is absolutely convinced that if newspapers are to survive, they will all but have to set themselves on fire, eventually forsaking print and becoming digital news operations.”

Nobody loves print newspapers more than I do. I’ve been reading at least three newspapers a day since I was 7 years old, and there have been few thrills in my life to match the occasions when I’d walk into a coffee shop and see people reading a front-page story of mine.

But the growing body of evidence is overwhelming. Many of the people who run our nation’s newspapers have decided that the future of their print product is unsustainable.

I hope they’re wrong. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.

Turns out we’re not alone.

A recent study by Yahoo found television alone just isn’t enough for most audiences, as 75 percent of Internet surfers are browsing while watching television. Break it down by device and tablet users are the biggest multitaskers:

Yahoo featured the study on its advertising blog, but the findings confirm what sharper PR and marketing professionals have come to realize. These days, consumers have a voracious, irresistible hunger for media, and it’s completely telling that a favorite television show or big game can no longer completely engross viewers.

Take me, for example. During a single televised Minnesota Vikings game, I keep close watch of my fantasy football team on ESPN.com, I post about the game on Twitter and Facebook, I read player bios on Wikipedia, I read rapid reaction from bloggers, I review statistics on Football Outsiders and I monitor other games on NFL.com. It’s not that I’m distracted. I’m just interested in the broader context of the game and I don’t allow television to limit my experience.

Think about what the multitasking television viewer means for public relations. In the past, landing a client on the six o’clock news gave marketers a chance to positively shape a story and influence consumers. Altogether, a nice win. Now, television is just a jumping off point. You get your client a glowing three-minute segment, that’s just the start. The same consumer you’re trying to reach might visit your client’s website, blog, Facebook page and Twitter account before the segment ends.

The lesson for PR pros? There’s no sense in separating traditional and digital media strategies while consumers are devouring both forms simultaneously. Tell your client’s story on television and viewers will come to the Internet with questions of their own. Viewers aren’t distracted by their devices. The reality is they’ve never been more engaged.

The Strib made the strategic business decision to institute a subscription system for its online version, meaning readers can view up to 20 articles for free each month before hitting a “paywall” and being blocked from content. It took me two days to reach that limit, but I still haven’t subscribed. I suspect I’m not the only one.

For those who don’t subscribe to the print edition, online access will cost $.99 per week during a 10-week introductory period. Sunday-only subscribers can add online for $.29 per week. Those prices will go up after the introductory period, but the Strib hasn’t announced how high yet.

I don’t blame the newspaper for trying a pay model to help a business that’s been struggling for years. And frankly, if newspapers would’ve had the foresight to charge for online editions when they first launched, we wouldn’t think twice about paying in 2011. But as it stands, it feels like a takeaway.

I guess the fact that I haven’t taken action is part stubbornness and part laziness, but the biggest factor has been the many free alternatives. The Star Tribune needs to make its content irreplaceable for this model to work. That’s why The New York Times can get away with it — the writing is second to none.

If I want local sports coverage, 1500ESPN.com is doing a very good job — including regular contributions from current and former Strib veterans Patrick Reusse and Judd Zulgad. There’s CityPages.com for local entertainment news. Of course, there’s always the St. Paul Pioneer Press online. There’s plenty of good stuff coming from MinnPost and countless other sites. And if I absolutely have to read a Star Tribune article, I’ve been doing it on my iPhone or home computer.

Ultimately, it’s part of my job to keep up with the local news, so I’ll bite the bullet and become a digital Star Tribune subscriber. But the last few weeks have proven that I could live without it. And I wonder how many others feel the same.

Someday we may look at the Strib as a trailblazer in helping save daily newspapers, but I think it’s just as likely they’ll end up doing even more damage to their business. What do you think — is this a smart move? Will you pay?

Newspapers face a perfect storm of trouble: rising newsprint prices and transportation costs, coupled with declining readership and a shrinking ad base.

Though newspaper companies are working hard to increase their digital presence, they still get anywhere from 80 percent to 90 percent of their revenues from the struggling print editions.

But at some point, the expense and decreasing relevance of day-old ink on paper will force newspaper companies to severely curtail or even shut down their print editions.

And that day might come sooner than you think — perhaps within five years, and very likely within 10.

Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper company, is a good proxy for the industry. According to a recent item in the Gannett Blog, readers are dropping their Gannett papers at a frightening rate.

Overall, Gannett newspapers lost 27 percent of their subscribers in the past decade. The drop occurred in large markets such as Phoenix and Indianapolis; medium-sized markets such as Des Moines and Rochester, N.Y.; and small markets such as Marshfield, Wis.

But that 27 percent drop hides an even uglier truth: Circulation held reasonably steady through the first half of the decade, then began falling dramatically after 2005.

Meanwhile, the newspaper industry has lost more than half its ad revenue since 2005 and the typical newspaper has slashed anywhere from one-third to one-half of its news employees.

Fewer readers, fewer dollars and fewer newspeople generating less news coverage. That’s not a recipe for success in either the long or the short term.

I actually believe that the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press will last longer than newspapers in other markets. Readers here are loyal and both papers seem to have steadied themselves after the shocks of recent years. But even Nancy Barnes, the editor of the Star Tribune, told a professional group this month that the Strib’s weekday print editions might not be around much more than five years.

When print dies, newspapers will be forced into even more severe staff cutbacks. A handful of professional editors will oversee web content from poorly paid freelance writers and photographers, bargain-basement “content farm” news services and unpaid community members.

Newspapers will make increased use of computer programs that generate simple news, business  and sports stories from statistics and factual data – no human writing required.

They’ll fill their websites with sensational, titillating — and cheap — photo galleries designed to boost page views. Again, Gannett has pioneered this with the Metromix feature found on many of its properties’ websites – for example, this 54-photo gallery of Indianapolis Colts cheerleader tryouts.

When print newspapers die, their online brands will suffer, too. Right now, newspaper websites get great traffic, but still don’t bring in a lot of revenue. When their organizations lose that lucrative print revenue stream and cut back on news personnel and quality content, their websites won’t be as compelling as they are now. Traffic will drop as people find fewer reasons to visit.

Smaller weekly and community newspapers will last longer in print. Reader expectations are different and they’re already on a less-demanding publication schedule. And the handful of national papers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal will continue to be available in print – at a very hefty price for those who still want the paper edition.

But the age of the large, metro newspaper as a common news source for the majority of residents is drawing to an end – and that end might come more quickly than any of us could have imagined just five years ago.

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.