The study indicates content illegally republished on third-party sites gets two-and-a-half times the traffic, on average, that the original and official version does. The most extreme cases, it says, happen in stories about cars, travel, and movies. Dupes of those sorts of stories were found to get as much as seven times the traffic as the originals.

The report (PDF), conducted by Attributor Corp., suggests online publishers are losing out, on average, on $150,000 in ad revenue from those unauthorized online copies. Some bigger Web publishers could stand to lose as much as $1 million a year, it claims.

So can publishers really take advantage of this information, or is it just a reminder of how much they’re getting screwed? The obvious implication is stepping up copyright enforcement, and it’s worth noting that Attributor — the group that did the study — is a copyright enforcement company, so it may have had its own reasons for doing this research. (The company sells software that hunts down copyright violations on the Web.)

Attributor also suggests the idea that companies could “figure out a way to mine advertising revenue” from these stolen copies. It’s a nice concept, sure, but I don’t know that the sort of blogs that are outright stealing content will be open to the idea of an external company placing ads on their pages.

If someone can figure out a way to make that happen, though, they’ll be not only a millionaire — but also could be credited as being the genius who gave struggling mainstream media companies a new lease on life. Think it’ll happen?

Related posts:

1. Microsoft destroys FriendFeed (or how to come up with a high traffic post)
2. Scribd targeted over pirate content, UK press over-dramatizes the story
3. NY Times: print revenue down, online up

NBC is rolling out a “link out” policy with its owned affiliate stations starting today, The New York Times reports. Starting with Chicago station WMAQ, the network will attempt to recreate its local Web sites as “city guides,” with ample links to third-party sites. A beta version, The Times says, featured links to local papers as well as USA Today and TMZ — and, perhaps most notably, there’s no difference in branding between the internally created and externally created content. As an executive explained to The Times:

“If we can provide them great content, that’s wonderful. If it comes from somebody else, that’s fine, too.”

Spin Zone

While the stations are working hard to spin the shifted focus as a fresh change that’ll “provide a destination” for its audience, we here in the modern Web community know the concept is far from new; it’s just thus far been resisted (or ignored) by traditional media. There’s another side of the equation not being touted, too: cost-cutting. Local television stations are scaling back like you wouldn’t believe. Smaller staffs are doing more than ever, and typically, these added online duties are being done by the same people already performing the equivalent of two jobs for the on-air product.

A Matter of Math

Now, to be fair, in NBC’s case, the network says it’s hired about 50 people to help power the expanded online operation. But what it doesn’t say is how many others it laid off in the time leading up to then. At Gannett, for another example, the nauseatingly overpromoted “Information Center” notion attempts to give viewers the impression that TV stations are a central source of information flow in and out, and that the news teams are everywhere, bringing you the latest information on whatever medium you need.

The impression you don’t see is that within the same company, producers — who are responsible for shaping a newscast, writing its content, and conceptualizing all of its graphics and visual elements, among other things — are also about to start having to edit video for their shows as well. (That’s something that one or two dedicated and trained video editors used to do.) Many of them are also now finding themselves overseeing two newscasts rather than one, as positions are being eliminated. Oh yeah, and those are the same people bringing you those “24/7 information updates” online at the same time, too. And that’s just one example.

The Final Word

The efforts to evolve, even if overdue, are a positive step. The underlying problem, however, remains constant. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The broadcast news industry cannot grow and expand into new media while concurrently cutting back its staff and resources in record numbers. The math just doesn’t add up.

Related posts:

1. Traditional Media has 5 years left: PWC Analyst
2. Television will be the first traditional media medium to fall
3. Media Briefs: Gannett to cut 10%, Time 600, TV stations hit by car industry