blog.

The video is a spoof - but the device is actually real and being installed in certain AT&T stores in four cities New York, Atlanta, San Antonio and San Francisco. 

To borrow a phrase from Uncle Fester (Steve Ballmer), “$10,000? Fully subsidized? With a plan? I said, ‘that is the most expensive coffee table book display in the world.’ And it does’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine. Now, it may sell very well, I dunno…”

Very funny video! Here is the spoof…

Here is Uncle Fester…

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

Well, guess that’s it. Obama is the winner, why bother to continue? As his campaign manager stated, there is no way that Clinton can catch him now unless she wins 3 out of 4 delegates going forward. I didn’t check his math, I mean, why should I? It’s Obama’s manager, so it must be right.

Thank goodness that petty politics are now a thing of the past (forget of course, the sour grapes Michelle Obama - who doesn’t think she can vote for Clinton). No, no, petty politics is all behind us now. Why I feel new and clean already!!

So, taking this break from my tax organizing duties, I should be thankful. Now, I can finally sleep at night knowing that hope has emerged victorious over the nasty Cruella DeClinton! Inspiration has won the day. I can simply sit back and let the next generation solve our problems with their immutable hope and vision.

I realize now that it was silly of me to think that years of experience would matter at all. All that matters now is that we stop those old school Democrats from continuing to fight those kindly, good hearted Republicans. After all, it’s the Clinton’s fault that we had any rancor at all these last 16 years. No one on the other side of the aisle had anything to do with the divisiveness. I see now that it was clearly one sided and that the only way to solve it is to remove the Clinton clan from public life.

Linked from: http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2008/01/10/

I rest easy knowing that the retired Jewish couples in Florida will embrace Obama over John McCain this November. I know they will find his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be… oh so inspirational. (Nevermind that you might agree with him, or that his view is more even handed than any leader in recent memory.)

Yes, folks, it’s finally over. And we know of course that Obama will win in November. Why, he carried all of those solid red states in the mid-west and south - you know - the ones that voted for George W. Bush (twice) by 30 and 40 point margins!! How could he possibly loose in November when it’s so clear to everyone that he has turned those states a shiny sheen of purple?

And if my optimism bothers you, just remember that this year I haven’t been right about one single thing in politics!!! I might have nailed it perfectly in 2000 and 2004. But this is 2008 - the year of the O-hope-obama movement. And nothing matters now but hope and inspiration!

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

Is this it? Is this the end? Is there finally light at the end of the primary tunnel? Can we say we have a candidate now? Not by a long shot.

Obama’s strategy is brilliant! In this rare, never before seen strategy, devised in part by sheer accident, we have activists driving caucus results, and caucus results driving the public’s perception and the public’s perception (now) driving his first real primary wins (VA, MD, DC).

But it’s far from done. No one can take these last few wins from Obama. No amount of data parsing can do that. True, DC and MD have large African-American populations and true, he now receives as much as 90% of the African American vote. And yes, the whole Potomac region is stocked full of the high income, college educated voter that is driving his victories. But when you take a primary by these margins, a win is a win is a win.

For the first time in this race, Obama has the lead in delegate count, by 25 delegates - more or less depending on which news source you choose to belie. But he is ahead. For now….

This is a tough choice for me. I’ve waited 8 years for this change - any change to be honest. For a long time now, I’ve waited to see the shock and disbelief on the faces of all the right wing nuts on talk shows, religious broadcasts and radio shows, as Hillary Clinton stepped into the White House. My first (presidential) voting experience was in 1992. Then, as a college student, we were excited about ‘change’ about ‘hope’ - about Bill Clinton. So yes, I have some loyalty here. Were Clinton not in the race, this would be a no brainer. For all of you hope seekers, understand that long before you hoped for Obama, we were hoping for Clinton. And I dare say, we got some solid results for 8 years.

With half of the 4,000 and something delegates already split almost perfectly even between the two candidates, there are only three possible outcomes now:

So, I’m looking for data, signs, something to use to read the cards. Should I finally ditch my loyalty and get behind Obama? For that answer, I decided to follow the money. Can the money behind the candidates provide an answer? Maybe. The idea here is that while one candidate may lead in polls, another may be leading in fund raising in the same state. Where people have put their money counts more than how they answer a poll question. And those with money in the game are going to argue for the cause with a little more conviction.

To be fair, I didn’t look back over the states already won, only forward to the states soon to vote or caucus. (source: WashingtonPost.com) Where do they stand?

Obama has raised more money than Clinton in Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina and Mississippi.

Clinton has raised more money than Obama in Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.

Now, let’s combine that with poll data from each state (source: electoral-vote.com).

For Obama, we don’t have any poll data for Kentucky or Mississippi. But of all the remaining states in which he leads in dollars, he is behind in the polls except in North Carolina. To be fair some of the polls (in Vermont for example) are months old. But the big states in his top dollar list - Oregon, Wisconsin, and Ohio, do have recent poll data, all pointing to Clinton.

For Clinton, the money versus poll data is quite clear. In the states listed for her, as top dollar states (IN, WV, PA, RI, TX), she is ahead solidly in the polls and all of those states are holding primaries, not caucuses. Texas is doing a hybrid of some kind, so that one will be unpredictable until the days before the vote.

When I look at the money and the polls and the primary versus caucus map, the data still continues to favor Clinton. In fact, it’s only in Mississippi and North Carolina where we can assume an Obama win.

The road ahead is no picnic for either candidate, nor the party. And while the data may favor Clinton in both polls and dollars, there is no denying the Obama surge. Until now, I think both candidates have played the best game they could. Obama, as the challenger was smart, quick and agile. He developed a savvy plan and executed flawlessly. Clinton, as the incumbent has played defense like a champ, waiting out this final surge of the Potomac primaries and readying for the final play. But the final play cannot avoid the ugly truth ahead. The Democratic party is about to divide, and at this point it’s uncertain that either candidate can win in November - six long months away.

Why would I say such things when the Democratic vote turn out has been almost 2 to 1 vs. the Republican vote? Simple. Neither Clinton nor Obama will take the other as running mate, nor should they now. They are now as mixable as oil and water. Neither base group will be on board for that. I still stand by my conviction that in the general election, there are simply not enough, real, true, independent voters willing to swing to the Democratic party to change the solid red states to even just barely blue. As for the 6 or 8 states that are currently on the edge, I simply don’t believe that either Clinton or Obama can effectively say they can do a better job than McCain with the independents.

Folks, this is going to be ugly. Looking over the data, and considering the voters in Michigan and Florida, I have to say that it will be Clinton who wins the overall delegate count. But that simply will not be acceptable to the Obama camp. At this point, they are convinced that they have the sole right to the nomination. Not saying they shouldn’t feel that way. But hope as they might for unity, this is going to be about division. History shows us that the divided party does not win in November. Period.

Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/jd/

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

Let’s start this post with the most entertaining read in years, and one that is perfect for a college focused site: NYT: Questions for Dr. Retail

So TIME magazine does a poll sometime in the last few days stating that a McCain/Clinton match up results in a deadlock of 46% each, but a McCain/Obama match up results in a victory for Obama, 41% to 48%. Having read my comments here, my friends email me to point this out.

Problem is, I just simply disagree that it’s all about the independents and the actual DATA does too! There are no real independents. And yes, I know that we have a system where two parties are entrenched, making it almost impossible for a true third party.

Folks, there is a reason why we teach history in school, reference it in our politics and write about it on our blogs. History, is the best guide to the future no matter your age, your outlook or how much hope you have in your gas tank. That ditzy cheerleader in high school is still a ditzy cheerleader. She just doesn’t look as appetizing. The quarterback is still a quarterback, only in his armchair.

The TIME magazine poll simply ignores the truth as pointed out in “The Myth of the Independent Voter” (Keith, Magleby, Nelson, Orr, Westlye). As I have noted previously, the DATA - not the hope - the DATA simply do not back up this assertion that there is a huge groundswell of independent voters who will not back Clinton.

Even TIME magazine acknowledges that it’s only in Caucus states where Obama has the advantage. That’s not to say it won’t work for him, it’s worked so far. But Obama supporters (count me as a former supporter), are simply ignoring the data, which show that Clinton is getting the actual votes. And, as TIME points out, on Super Tuesday, there were 15,417,521 Democratic voters, and only 9,181,297 Republican voters. Look at which of the actual primary states won by each candidate and it’s no question at all who the for whom the overwhelming majority of those Democratic votes were cast. The DATA simply speaks for itself.

Let’s boil this down even more to the essence of what will count, electorally, in a general election, when so called “independents” get to choose 8 more years of war, conservative supreme court judges, tax breaks for the wealthy and Exxon Mobile profits of over $1,300 per SECOND or choose “change” - of any kind! Let’s also take out each candidate’s home state to see what they can really do.

To clarify even more - WHEN YOU LOOK AT BLUE STATE, PRIMARY WINS OBAMA IS NOT THE CANDIDATE BRINGING THE VOTES. Period.

Clinton takes 82 electoral votes by solid margins in each of these states, Obama takes a mere 10 electoral votes by smaller margins. There is simply no getting around the data.

Quoting from electoral-vote.com: “Obama did especially well in Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. Whut? Yes, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. One of the big questions of this election has been the role of identity politics. Would white people vote for a black man, for example. Well, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska are full of white people. In fact, they have very few minorities of any kind (except the Eskimos in Alaska). What gives?”

Quoting from electoral-vote.com: “Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people have to publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence. Now it becomes clear why Obama won North Dakota but Clinton won Oklahoma, a demographically similar state in the same part of the country: North Dakota had a caucus and Oklahoma had a primary.”

A Clinton/Obama ticket wins hands down. Come on Obama, shut this thing down so we can win in November.

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

We love the idea of “we the people.” Just love it.

Except when it’s not our voice or when it’s not the majority voice or, pick a reason.

Consider this from www.electoral-vote.com

“Yesterday [2/6/08], a Democratic precinct chair from Colorado reported about being curious as to why Obama did so well in the Colorado caucuses (including hers) but only so-so in the nearby New Mexico caucuses. Some investigation showed that the New Mexico caucuses were in reality primaries: people came in, voted, and went home. There was none of the open discussion of the candidates that characterizes the caucus process as we have described here earlier this year. This tends to confirm the theory that Obama does better when there are small groups discussing the candidates where his cadre of enthusiastic supporters can try to convince other voters that he is the best person for the job. If the caucuses in Washington and Nebraska on Saturday are true caucuses, he will probably also do well there. Next Tuesday we are back to primaries, with few recent polls there.”

The evidence for Obama doing well in small groups - one on one - continues to mount. And that’s not only fine, it’s awesome! Here we have a candidate so energizing that his supporters have become evangelizers - sort of like Apple’s users.

However, wherever the majority of the “people” have a voice (actual primary votes), Clinton is winning, often by solid margins. As I noted yesterday, aside from Obama’s win in his home state of Illinois which is everything above and beyond a solid, fantastic win, he only truly took 3 states from Clinton - Deleware by 11%, Connecticut by 4% (both solid wins), but Missouri by less than a point. Sorry, but solid red states don’t count. They will go red again this year. So win or loose them, whether Obama or Clinton, it’s irrelevant.

For me, I am conflicted ever more on who to support. Early on, I emailed friends saying I’d like to see if an Obama/Clinton ticket would work. But as I look at the data behind the primaries so far, I’m increasingly skeptical of Obama’s win, his lack of details on issues, and the media’s infatuation with him. Yes, I am aware that there is something deep in the American psyche that doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. I know that. But no one can find the rationale.

If we honor the voice of the people, then let’s consider - In almost every actual voting primary contest, the people have spoken for Hillary. If Obama takes the lead in delegates and gets the nomination, then it’s not because the people have overwhelmingly spoken. It’s because he has run an amazing, smart, strategic and flat out perfectly brilliant campaign as a challenger and managed to win despite the voice of the people, through small evangelical supporters. Simply brilliant.

But it’s not the voice of the people.

You can darn well expect that there is going to be some deep seated resentment among not only the Clinton establishment, but also among Hillary Clinton’s supporters. My own life has been one of the underdog. And so I’m not surprised that I’m not feeling Obama today as I did in January. I can certainly respect what he did here, and while I acknowledge it’s smart, even savvy, I can’t say that it was the voice of the people. It’s not.

Yesterday, Obama stated that he felt certain that Clinton’s supporters would vote for him, but that he was not so certain his supporters would vote for Clinton. Unfortunately, that’s a dangerous gamble since a large majority of people in actual Democratic primaries have voted for Clinton. Change is a two way street - don’t count your votes before we the people cast them!

Bloodsport.

Posted under Anything goes | 2 Comments »

Holy krap! Just look at Obama go! H&R Block has nothing on this man. This dude has “people!!” Super Tuesday was indeed a bit crazy!

Now, time for a reality check.

Obama won 13 states (14 IF New Mexico does come in for him - doubtful), but overall he didn’t get what he needed, nor is he likely to after February and March are through. Worse, the Democrats may have lost it now. They will go on to convention in a deadlocked fight and probably broke. (Obama has been spending money much faster than Clinton. Clinton’s fundraising has slowed down.)

Had Obama taken California, it might have been time for Clinton to bow out. Now, the possibility of the Democrats losing in November is real. Politics is a game of chess and last night, the Democrats got checked. November could be mate, and Karl Rove is rolling with laughter.

Just take a look at the electoral map for 2004 and, before you wax poetic about change and how it’s 2008 and the past doesn’t matter, and the young people will change the world, and how Obama can bring people together, and blah, blah, blah… consider:

• Obama’s top five states by percentage won: Idaho, Kansas, Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota, were caucus states, not primaries. Except for Iowa, most caucus turn out is low, and at caucuses, people have to potentially defend their choice in public, in front of a group of caucus goers, something Clinton voters have been hesitant to do as Obama’s fortunes have risen. By contrast, an actual primary state in the same region (Oklahoma) went for Clinton.
• Now dig deeper. Obama’a number six and seven states are Georgia (overwhelming African American Democratic vote) and Illinois, his home state.
• We’re not done yet. Win number eight (by percentage won) is North Dakota. Again, a caucus state.
• Wins number 9 and 10, Utah and Alabama. In 2004, utah went for bush 71% in 2004 versus Kerry’s 26%. Utah counts for nothing in this case. Alabama? Again, a large African American Democratic vote, and a state which also went for Bush in 2004 by 62%.
• It’s not until we look at wins 11, 12 and 13 (his final and slimmest wins), that we see a real win for Obama: Delaware by 11%, Connecticut by 4% and Missouri by less than a point.
• New Mexico is still up in the air, but as of Wednesday, Clinton leads by about 100 votes (CNN). This one may go to Obama in the end. But that’s not a win. That’s a shave, whether we’re talking legs or beard.
• Every other state after that, New Jersey, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, California, New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas, all went to Clinton by increasing margins as you go down the list. All were primary states, not caucuses.
• Based on the 2004 map, there are really only three pick up states for the Democrats: Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada.

Source: www.electoral-vote.com

What this means, this data set, is that Obama is not winning where it actually counts. Yes he won the Iowa caucus. But Nevada and New Mexico are a different story. Nevada’s vote went to Clinton, even though Obama got the most delegates, because while technically a caucus, it turned into a primary. People simply dropped in, voted and left. No discussion, no arm twisting. New Mexico is still up in the air - but it will be slim for either candidate. If I were to bet who could carry those three states against McCain, it would be Clinton.

In red states, it seems some people have been on the losing side for so long (Democrats), are so scared of losing again that they’re ready to scream from the top of thier lungs that Clinton can’t win and so we should get behind a fresh face in the hopes of being less divisive. Need I remind you, it was not Clinton who made the 90’s politics what they were. Even more people have bought into the idea that Clinton can’t win across party lines. Yet, she has done so twice, and in a not so very blue state.

The answer now, after Super Tuesday, is for Obama to be the bigger man (pardon the pun), and shut this race down. By ceding the nomination, he would wield enormous power over Clinton for the next four years and ensure both of their political futures, a better future for every citizen, and his own eventual presidency. The alternative is a brokered convention, bitterness and financial problems in the general election, capped by a loss to John McCain.

We can pretty much assume that the Republican ticket will be McCain/Huckabee. We’ve already seen evidence of this in the West Virginia Cuacus where McCain supporters fell in behind Huckabee to prevent a Romney win.

The Republicans will reel in Romney, clean things up and get ready for November. They have no choice now but to take Huckabee as the VP - he brings the God vote. Romney is a looser all around, but lives to fight another year. Despite the frothing of right wing talking heads and self appointed ambassadors of God, their base will vote McCain, especially with Huckabee as VP.

The Democratic ticket will either be Clinton/Obama or Obama/_________

And therein lies the problem, and I cannot overstate what it means. So just stop and dwell on that blank spot for a moment. 

The problem is that Clinton will NOT take VP now, not after being stabbed in the back by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill and others - people she and her husband have helped over the years. Had she lost several primaries in January, she would have scaled back, or resigned herself to taking VP. Not now. Not after all this. So if the DLC and delegates knock her off at the convention, and make Obama the nominee, they have to come up with a new VP.

Sure, people like to say the VP makes no difference, but it actually does. In 1960, Johnson helped balance Kennedy. In 1980, Bush Sr. took one for the team to get the party back in power. In 2000, Cheney helped people feel comfortable with a brain dead, “screw the constitution” Bush. Do you really think that Bill and Hillary will enthusiastically support and raise money for Obama as the nominee after this? No way. Their support will be tacit at best, word only, no deeds. Say what you want to about Bill, but the democratic nominee will need both Clintons.

The Democrats don’t have a VP pick that can stand up to this challenge or balance the ticket. Obama would have to carry the full load with some no name has been or wanna be. The only viable VP would be Oprah and that’s just not happening. Obama is great, he is positive and his presence is invigorating. But, he is not Jesus.

So, who could the Democrats pair with Obama?
• Edwards? Forget it. No one votes for a two time looser.
• Former Iowa Gov., Tom Vilsack? Square him against Huckabee and that’s like Jesus vs. Saint Peter. Peter’s great, but Jesus is Jesus.
• Kerry? As with Edwards, no one likes a looser.
• Indiana Senator Evan Bayh? Indiana went 60% for Bush in 2004, vs. 39% for Kerry. He brings nothing.

You could say this is Howard Dean’s revenge. In 2004, the press killed Dean, slit his throat over a non scream. Anyone who saw that clip knew he was raped by the media unnecessarily. The Democratic party leadership watched that slaughter like a pacifist vegan sent back to the middle ages and did nothing. Then the establishment (Clinton) promptly got behind Kerry. Well, Dean is now in charge of the Democratic party. This is payback and maybe it’s his to give. But it’s our future he’s tinkering with.

As a result of the recent endorsements by Kerry, Kennedy, et al, Hillary will exert a huge payback as will Bill Clinton. Remember, he’s the party’s only successful ex-president in more than 40 years (soon to be 50 years). If you don’t get his support, hang it up. And, yes, (Hillary) Clinton should exert payback for this! Politics is personal, it’s blood sport. Deal with it. If you can’t trust your family, who can you trust?

The ugly truth here is a reality that no Democrat wants to hear because it demonstrates last night’s “check.” But it’s time for some reality:
• Obama is not winning votes as the media is portraying. Instead, he is winning through coersion at caucuses. It’s smart - but it’s a shortcut, not a victory.
• The idea that people will not unite behind Clinton in a general election after 8 years of distruction and a (now) poor economy is flawed.
• And yes, both Obama and Clinton each deserve to be the nominee given their accomplishments, vision, record and political capital. But only one can have it.

Now what does all of that get you? 

Bottom line, the DLC abdicated responsibility. They should have pulled one horse back (either Clinton or Obama) early on in this process in order to have something in the stable and avoid this ugly fight. Instead, they let both of their best horses run. Now, they’re screwed. Clinton will never take VP. Obama can NOT carry the whole ticket. And by all accounts, they are going to duke it out to the death.

The one way to ensure a blue victory in November is for Obama to make the right move, right now. That doesn’t make him a loser, it makes him smart.

The country as a whole (unfortunately) does not give two cent’s about Iraq (Obama’s winning vote getter). And in 2012, it’s Jeb Bush for the Republicans.  On a personal note, all of you self righteous D’s who had a problem with a dynasty (including me to some extent) just remember this: the Republicans are already covered in their own orgasms at the mere mention of the next heir to their dynasty. Meanwhile, for the Democrats, the ghost of Ralph Nader lives on.

We just got checked.

Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/jd/

Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/

Posted under Anything goes | 2 Comments »

Way, way off topic and yet not! I’ve seen my share of ads looking for child care and I am sure most,  - OK, I am sure NONE - of the advertisers on CollegeClassifieds.com are like this (I hope), but in case you are, please look deep inside and find some compassion. Filed under: “Anything Goes” … in a place I like to call, “the get a brain zone.”

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

(As of January 31, 2008, DormItem.com is now part of CollegeClassifieds.com. This entry originally appeared on DormItem.com on August 13, 2007.)

DormItem’s Dan Scudder and Zack Coburn posted this blog entry back in the fall of 2007, and people seemed to enjoy it (or, well, I am not sure the word is enjoy…). Anyway, by popular request, I am keeping it on the CollegeClassifieds.com blog for your uh… pleasure? Filed under: “Anything Goes” … in a place we like to call, “the twilight zone.”

“Browsing the internet leads you to find lots of funny and scary things. This is amongst the funniest and scariest. Long live the fine line between educational and downright creepy. Here are some shots of the book.”

“What ever happened to ‘One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish?’”

Posted under Anything goes | 23 Comments »

From : a recent Time magazine article: “[the researcher] surveyed 12,000 people over a 20-year period. They found that exercise and drinking alcohol each had an independent beneficial effect on the heart and a compounded effect when practiced together. The investigators got even greater insight when they separated the study participants into four categories.”

Posted under Anything goes | No Comments »

The trend toward a free, partially free, or all on line (and free) classified service across many newspapers and even more small newspapers (professional and collegiate) is clearly gaining steam.

Even without big success stories to confidently herald the new age of magical revenue from free advertising, it’s easy to see the validity in this trend. Simply put, it’s called giving the customer what they want - what they demand. You can debate who let the genie out and why, but there is no changing this.

To believe that this has no impact on college media would be a mistake. To not reflect on it as part of a broader evaluation of your newspaper would be short sighted. And, as an invested party, I’d like to offer a comment.

Since 1998, UniversalAdvertising.com (my company) has worked with college media to make classified ordering easy, reliable and affordable. Although my company is small, the service has been successful for many newspapers. In recent years Ad2Ad, whom many of you work with, has also worked to provide top quality classified service to this market.

Now, after a complete executive staff turn over and an apparent loss of knowledge of previous relationships, MTVu (Y2M/College Publisher) has made the decision to integrate a new offering into your on-line newspaper sites, powered by newcomer CampusAve.com.

How MTVu’s decision affects your current on line classified ordering system or relationship with companies such as Universal Advertising or Ad2Ad, is unclear, though probably minimal. I can only expect that you will still have a choice in keeping your current classified service no matter the provider, once MTVu rolls out their latest upgrades, and no matter how many times the folks at MTVu change the links on your websites (yes, this HAS happened to papers I work with).

While it would be unprofessional and rude not to congratulate CampusAve on achieving an agreement with MTVu, an accomplishment under any condition, it is also evident that MTVu has the ability to both build up, and/or take down agencies and companies whose goal and livelihood it is to work for your revenue. This is certainly not a positive position for college newspaper advertising in general.

The declining numbers of solid and successful advertising agencies participating in the college media business during the past deacade, has been rather depressing. During this same time span overall ad spending has continued to climb across all mediums (television, print, radio, web) until the recent declines in print and print only. And despite a slowing economy, projections are for on line ad spending to grow as much as 48% in 2008. Where is your cut?

• 2008 Local ad spending will increase 48%
• David Hallerman, senior analyst at eMarketer, predicts that online ad spending will grow by 28.5% in 2008
• Paid search growth projected to increase 31.9% in 2008
• On line advertising share of total ad spend to hit 9.4% in 2008 to overtake radio

In 2005, I began to research and experiment with free, on line classifieds (i.e.: CraigsList) for the college market. The main concern I had then and have now, is how to make “free” work for college newspapers, and how not to impact those newspapers whose revenue is still sufficient to merit print classified sales. 

It would be easy enough (some would even say it wise) to leave the college newspaper arena completely and focus solely on the on line audience. But I do not believe it would be the -right- thing to do. 

So, in March of 2007, I opened CollegeClassifieds.com to everyone, continuing the experiment with the help of several college newspapers. To date, the site has received over 1.1 million page views and has become the clear, top choice for classified listings targeting college markets. Month over month audience comparison against -any- other college targeted listing service will support this claim. 

Much has been learned in this process and is now ready to be applied for the benefit of college media willing to make the transition. In the next 30 days, I will have an announcement for you concerning CollegeClassifieds.com and an offer to share in the knowledge and revenue I believe the site will generate in the coming months and years. 

Today, in light of the recent Chicago Tribune announcement, and MTVu’s ongoing changes, three things should be very, very clear to every college newspaper.

1. While paid, print classifieds continue to work for many [college] newspapers, by and large they are not a revenue builder for college media and will continue to be ever more devalued. For those newspapers whose classified revenue is still sufficient, you should continue to sell classifieds and make every effort to streamline this effort through a company such as Universal Adveritsing or Ad2Ad, whose sole purpose is to provide this service.
2. For many of you, and especially for the smaller newspapers, the continued resistance to free classifieds is draining your newspaper operation of brain power, effort and time, and physical and monetary resources as well. It’s time to stop. If you are making less than $5,000 per year on classifieds, just stop. Contact me at sales - at - collegeclassifieds.com and I’ll help you from there.
3. The Chicago Tribune has made a clear statement about its future - it is on line. (Isn’t yours?) Making this move with such a staple item in a newspaper this large sends a loud and clear message that they intend to increasingly shift to an on line product first, and a print product second. Keep in mind that the timing of, and moving to, a free on line classified model is unique to each newspaper. The Tribune felt its time was now. Yours may not be (see the first point again).

It is time then, to make a choice about the future of your college newspaper, and as a former award winning student advertising manager and award winning student Editor in Chief, I would ask these questions of you.

1. Do you wish to continue to cede complete knowledge of on line marketing, advertising choices and revenue to MTVu, whose interest is not your own, when it is clear that ownership and development of your on line property, its identity and its revenue is the real path to long term success for your newspaper?
2. Do you wish to continue to refuse additional advertising networks such as Commission Junction, AdBrite, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Double Click and others, from participating in building your on line revenue simply because you are locked into a model written in 1996?
3. Do you wish to delay any longer, the steady effort that it will take to transition to an on line first product?
4. And most importantly - do you have a real understanding of the ups and downs of audience building and traffic generation techniques needed to build a viable on line presence? Do you really, and truly, and honestly? What are your real audience numbers today - do you really know? And how in the world, is sticking with MTVu helping your newspaper learn this most important element? Would you dare leave the circulation count and physical distribution of your printed newspaper in the hands of another company? Why do so with your web site?

Many fine college newspapers across the country have taken the time and effort to simply build their own, on line newspaper and content management system (CMS), from readily available and free, open source options, including: Joomla, Drupal, Mambo and others. Some have even used WordPress or MoveableType and decided to focus on a blog format which is surprisingly flexible.

There is no longer an excuse to use a limited, entertainment focused CMS system from a company whose fortune is made and lost on the latest antics of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton.

Lack of hardware, IT knowledge or programming is not an excuse. All of those problems can be solved with the slightest effort either inside your universities and colleges, or with help from the outside. And yes, there will be mistakes along the way, that’s how it goes. It will hurt and burn and sting and you may cry. Suck it up.

I do not make this complaint without monetary motivation, a concern for my own financial well being, my own company’s future. Indeed, my complaint is that the reliance on the MTVu content management service does you and I both a great deal of harm.

• First, it leads you to believe that your on line problems are solved. Not even.
• Second, it allows you to pretend that not accounting for on line revenue with the same effort as print is OK “for now.” Pretty soon “for now” becomes “for ever.”
• Finally, the closed eco-system of MTVu’s publishing platform suppresses what would be a natural growth of outside advertising agency revenue, and their desire to represent your newspaper on line, i.e.: there is currently no [profit] motivation for agencies to bother advertising on your MTVu sites at this time.
  
  And that of course, is my concern.
  It should be yours as well.
  

Respectfully,
Derrick Peavy
CollegeClassifieds.com

Posted under College media related | 1 Comment »