For the past several weeks, Ohio.com, the online home of the Akron Beacon Journal, has positioned a button ad on the right side of its home page where Dr. James George, DDS promotes his dental services. (By the way, doesn’t this guy look like James Lipton?)

Ohio.com doesn’t use its medium, the Internet, in the right way for two reasons:

1. The ad is an annoying Flash animation that blocks you from clicking on any news story in the path of a blimp that zips across the page.
2. If the blimp entices you to click on George’s button, an external application fires up to read a linked pdf.

Usability expert Jakob Nielson notes in his Top 10 Mistakes in Web Design that

Users hate coming across a PDF file while browsing, because it breaks their flow. Even simple things like printing or saving documents are difficult because standard browser commands don’t work. Layouts are often optimized for a sheet of paper, which rarely matches the size of the user’s browser window. Bye-bye smooth scrolling. Hello tiny fonts.

Worst of all, PDF is an undifferentiated blob of content that’s hard to navigate.

PDF is great for printing and for distributing manuals and other big documents that need to be printed. Reserve it for this purpose and convert any information that needs to be browsed or read on the screen into real web pages.

Worse yet, on slower computers or Web connections, unexpected pdfs have the tendency to crash browsers and computers. Even if that doesn’t happen, pdfs really slow down the users’ experience as their computers manage an unexpected download. On faster machines, less savvy users are disorientated, not recognizing that they are actually in an external application. I’ve witnessed this many, many times.  All sorts of other usability issues pop up with pdfs as Nielson notes in another post.

Ok, so we’ve established that pdfs generally are not user-friendly. What should have Ohio.com done?

1. If there must be an annoying flying blimp, which I’m sure the client loved, render it in javascript or some less obtrusive form of Flash so users can navigate to surrounding stories without interference. You still grab the readers’ attention but don’t meddle with their ability to use your product. (Journalists should also contemplate the ethical dilemma the blimp creates by obtruding their content.)
2. Get off their lazy butts and create a landing page for Dr. George. What an awesome upsale! Or at least do it like George does on his Web site. Although surrounded by an ugly wrapper, George’s coupon page allows you to print gifs of his money savers by opening them in a pop-up window. (If I wanted to get picky, I would point out that pop-up blockers are standard with many modern browsers and are on by default. By making the coupons a pop-up, many users will not see them — at least not easily.)
3. At minimum warn users that an external application will open a pdf of the coupons.

Ohio.com’s ad salespeople are really doing Dr. George a disservice by linking to a usability-unfriendly pdf of his printed ad and deploying story-click-blocking animations. They are not alone. Many newspapers republish pdfs of their print ads online as a “service” to readers — but more accurately as a disservice to their advertisers. The online salesforce would do better to take advantage of the Web’s abilities rather than lazily posting a pdf of the newspaper ad.

What do you do when you want to save your business from failure? Seek taxes, sue your customers or find some government protection, apparently.

Although the auto and financial industries’ troubles are the obvious, in-the-news examples, many other traditional businesses have been struggling for years too. Think movie, music and newspaper companies.

The Internet being the great disruptive force it is has thrown many firms into a tailspin trying to protect their old business models from its influence. Here are some recent examples.

• Record companies in Canada receive 29 cents — recently up from 21 cents — for every blank CD sold in the country. The Canadian copyright board levies this charge in an attempt to “compensate” artists record companies that are suffering loses due to music piracy. IPods, flash drives and even DVDs are not taxed.
• This guy — who is a professor, god help us — suggests newspapers should seek an antitrust exemption so they can collude and start charging for online subscriptions.
  

  Now, here’s my idea: The newspaper industry should ask the Justice Department for an antitrust exemption that would allow publishers to collaborate on a decision to begin charging for their Web sites. No paper would have to charge, and each paper could determine its own price. But if most papers in a region – San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, for example – began charging for Web access at more or less the same time, many readers would likely subscribe.

• Speaking of papers, this writer and others think the government should revive the Depression-era Federal Writers’ Project to put unemployed journalists to work.
• Ever wonder why sharing music is such a pain in the butt? Blame DRM, which many record, movie and software providers use to block you from sharing their works. What happens when companies put particularly intrusive DRMs in their products? Revolution.

  The Dark Knight, which grossed nearly a billion dollars worldwide, was 2008′s most-pirated movie. (Could have all the piracy actually encouraged people to pay and see the blockbuster movie?) Spore, a popular computer title, and despite its DRM, was ’08′s most-pirated computer game. Have they not learned?

  Sony widely received criticism for putting DRM malware in its CDs in 2005. The protection software actually opened users’ computers to viral attacks. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the technology.

  Say what you will about piracy/sharing’s legality, but the Web makes “owning” intellectual property in the 21st century very difficult.

• The Recording Industry of America rushed to shutdown two last.fm-like music-sharing Web sites because the group couldn’t collect royalties. Never mind that these sites encourage more music consumption and exploration.
• The much-hated RIAA has shifted its failing strategy of suing its customers to suing Internet Service Providers. One record company exec has even suggested taxing universities for all the music their students steal.

Even Web companies struggle making money off the Internet. The first dot-com crash showed that your .com needs a business plan beyond piles of venture capital money and unrealistic initial public offerings. (Goodness, Netscape had revenues of just $16 million when it went public and was valued at more than $2 billion(!!).) I believe the later days of Web 2.0 are showing that you can’t count on just advertising to sustain your online business.

Still, some companies successfully mix free and charge services. Basecamp creator 37signals is an oft-cited example.

Bottom line: Businesses are struggling to survive in a world of “free” online. Competition is fierce and creating a scarcity online is difficult. With the cheap cost of entry, anyone can undercut you by being a disruptor. Taxes, suing your customers and government interference are hardly business plans, though.

Medill’s tool takes news-story commenting out of the ghetto. You know you’ve seen it — those awful, racist, and oftentimes off-topic comments made under some news articles. Newspaper Webmasters have been notoriously awful at moderating their communities. Ohio.com, the online home of the Akron Beacon Journal, once used Topix.net for its commenting. Not only were the BJ people outsourcing their comments, they were sending them to Topix, the ghetto of commenting ghettos. Much to the publication’s credit, the Beacon moved its comments back on site a few months ago.

News Mixer features three ways to converse:

1. Q&A – Leave questions for reporters or other readers
2. Quips – Short, less than 140-word thoughts
3. Letters to the editor – Longer than quips and the software allows editors to highlight the best

The icing on the cake, though, is the Facebook ID integration. This forces users to use their real identities — although the users could fake a profile on Facebook, just like anywhere else, but I don’t see this as likely as on-the-spot Web site registration. The social-networking integration isn’t completely new. A couple months ago, CNBC inked a deal with LinkedIn to use that social network’s profiles on its site.

Facebook Connect Live lists what sites are using its new platform. With Facebook Connect, users can utilize their Facebook ID’s to log into other sites to leave comments and extend their identity beyond the walls of Facebook. This is similar to OpenSocial and OpenID, which I’ve written about before.

Perhaps Newsmixer will help end the debate over the value of story commenting. Yes, there is value! Blogs and other non-newspaper sites have proven this for the past few years. The difference, though, as Techdirt notes (emphasis mine):

The argument [against commenting on newspaper sites] is, basically, that a lot of the comments are really dumb, and don’t add very much. That may be true, but in many cases, that’s because the newspaper doesn’t give anyone incentive to add smart comments. There’s no indication that anyone at most newspapers read the comments. The authors of the articles rarely, if ever, respond to people in the comments. There’s little to no engagement or discussion. So, instead, the comments just become a way for readers to vent. Just tossing up comments and thinking you’ve created a community is a mistake — but that doesn’t mean newspapers shouldn’t enable comments. It just means they should do so in a more intelligent manner.

I onced suggested — and received a fantastic guffaw from an older journalist — that we should treat stories online more and more like blogs. Does this mean dropping objectivity and providing more analysis than just-the-facts-m’am? I don’t know, but I do think it means writing stories and directly engaging the people who comment below them. Aside this News Mixer system, reporters should be regularly responding to and commenting below their stories. Arguably, these same journalists, with some help, should be managing the online communities of their beats.

(News Mixer stuff via Patrick Beeson)

Gawker’s network of sites aren’t the only ones experimenting with using an open(ing) architecture. Social-network-for-professionals LinkedIn will provide CNBC its user profiles. Users will be able to recommend articles, see who is connected to companies mentioned in the stories and the whole thing will have some crossover onto the cable channel. (I hope someone gives CNBC an MSNBC-like makeover. Yikes, is it loud!)

Like I said, none of this is revolutionary; it’s just evolutionary. Gawker and CNBC’s moves further realize the social/sharing/geektopia nature of the Internet and break down walls. No longer will contrived barriers hold your online “identity” within the bounds of a .com.

The Facebook/LinkedIn collaborations stem slightly from the OpenID and OpenSocial movements.

OpenID also advances this universal identity idea/ideal. With OpenID, users can use one identity across multiple Web sites including Yahoo, Flickr and WordPress. If you’re this guy, you hate OpenID. If you’re me, you’re ambivalent, though see the potential goodness.

OpenSocial, a Google-led effort, puts a twist of the OpenID theme onto social networks. The program tries to create a common API to share across social networks. (So far at least Myspace. Like many efforts, the openness is only as good as the alliances big companies can forge.)

Yes, many sites use “Digg this” or other social media buttons before this. But more and more integration will continue to happen. What is your news site/Web site doing to embrace this?

Update:
Ning.com CEO Gina Bianchini talks about many social networks being walled-off gardens, which don’t focus on specific user interests, but instead are one-size-fits-all destinations. Ning, of course, changes this greatly and is a member of the OpenSocial group. (via SitePoint)

With a new Web site called Mygazines, you can scan in your favorite periodical and share it with the world. That’s a lot of work for something that is terrible to read on a computer screen.

Are publishers grateful for these extra eyes on their content and advertising? I guess not.

No, I don’t get the “convenience” of being able to read a print publication on my computer screen, especially when many Web technologies exist that allow you to do this more easily. MP3s, music, movies and software certainly lend themselves to piracy; I don’t think magazines do. I can’t think of a publication that I would like to spend time scanning. Plus, many of these magazines are already online for free!

But wouldn’t that be … awesome?

Some commenters on the Mashable article like the concept. One remarked that you could assemble articles from various sources into a single, uber magazine. This experience is something I think you could do more easily (and legally) via RSS feeds, blogs, news aggregators and the like. On your mobile, Google’s site for cell phones provides an excellent RSS reader, and there are various iPhone apps that also pull this off.

Another commenter thinks this site is the magazine industry’s Napster-like wake-up call. Uh, that wake-up call came nearly 18 years ago when the Web really took off. Newspapers and magazines alike have tried to put up pay walls on their sites and have failed miserably. The mainstream media’s problems are well documented, and I don’t need to elaborate on them ad nausam.

Go free

What does this mean for publishers? It’s just a repeat of something they should already know: you cannot control your information on the Internet. Information wants to be free, and there’s little you can do about it.

Free is not the future; it is now. Says “Free” author and Wired editor Chris Anderson:

Once a marketing gimmick, free has emerged as a full-fledged economy. Offering free music proved successful for Radiohead, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and a swarm of other bands on MySpace that grasped the audience-building merits of zero. The fastest-growing parts of the gaming industry are ad-supported casual games online and free-to-try massively multiplayer online games. Virtually everything Google does is free to consumers, from Gmail to Picasa to GOOG-411.

Anderson goes on to outline how smart business people can make money off of “free.” Clever publication leaders should take note.

If publishers wanted to get ahead — well, at this point “even” — with the game, they would create a Mygazine-like service themselves and do it better. Make it more stable. Heck, they have access to the PDFs and raw files already. They should also drop Zinio and monetize it themselves. Make this service available for free on Kindle, and create iPhone and Android apps. This alone could boast sagging subscription rates and bring more eyes to grateful advertisers.

(And don’t just post your PDFs online. That’s lame and not in the most usable form.)

As we know, a publication’s subscription rate usually goes to the costs of getting it to you via snail mail. (There are exceptions, of course, like journals that survive on subscription dollars, rather than ad money, to deliver content.) Electronic distribution is nearly costless and gets valuable content into more hands.

Would dead-tree subscriptions fall? They already are. Look at this as a way to boost them in the short term. An aging audience is *gulp* dying off and the younger one that is replacing it is turning less and less to print products for information. People who like getting a magazine every week will probably stick to it because that’s the medium they most enjoy perusing. Those people aren’t going to go to these extra services. I think online and print audiences for some publications are different beasts, different demographics.

I won’t use Mygazines, but its arrival shows there’s some sort of demand. Are magazine publishers listening?