Now, for those of you who have previously read my blog, you know that I’m a proponent of transparency and when it comes to an issue like monetization, I think companies need to increase transparency to lessen the impact of employees who believe that making money isn’t their problem.

Years ago, I worked for a company that had a gainsharing program.  The idea was that when the company was successful and earned revenue above a certain target, the results were share with employees. When business didn’t go well, those results were also shared with employees who wound up referred to the program as “painsharing.” More then anything, the program made it clear to all employees that everything had a cost and that if there was an expense, there needed to be revenue.

Now that didn’t make reporters report any less, nor did it make editors assign fewer stories or photographers shoot fewer photos, but it did make nearly everyone pause and think.  For example, editors asked if there was someone else already on duty instead of a reporter working overtime to cover a meeting and designers took a closer look at how much space they needed for a special section. But don’t get me wrong, the program did not suddenly erase waste nor make everyone more frugal.

With the economy being what it is, one would be hard pressed to find a company still running a gainsharing program. But I think the broader lessons are just as relevant in these difficult times.

I’m not proposing that everyone should follow the Dallas model (and yes I know that they say advertising is not really setting strategy), but I do think a better job needs to occur with making building revenue everyone’s problem and where that is already successfully happening in print, it needs to be extended to online.

So if I’m not calling for a Dallas approach, then what do I mean?

Simply put, I think there needs to be an approach that provides a seat at the table for all relevant parties not just advertising and/or content. I would suggest that from the start you involve people from your tech, business development, advertising and content and design teams. Make it clear not only what the goals are, but also what are the expenses. And make sure not to overlook any expenses, for example even the use of open source software can have associated expenses.

How often does advertising come up with an idea for a special section that content readily can’t fill? Or how often does content decide to create a special package that ignore advertising or sponsorship opportunities? Occurrences like those and many others happen in many different types media companies.

While an approach that treats everything as a product and is inclusive in its creation doesn’t guarantee a revenue positive effort, the alternative just doesn’t seem to be working.

What’s the approach at your company? Drop a comment and let me know.

All these companies have a long ways to go before they start to reap significant rewards, and along the way some of the decisions they make are drawing the ire of bloggers, colleagues and even employees. For example, Howard Owens recently wrote about the decision of MediaNews Group to outsource their comments management to topix.com.

“The last thing you should do is outsource community participation,” he wrote.

I agree with him (and said as much on his blog) and would argue that this is an example of a newspaper company wrestling with a difficult issue and ultimately making the bad choice.

To me, it seems that when it comes to online, there are many, many difficult issues for newspapers to wrestle with.

Recently, Pat Thornton wrote a post on his blog discussing how newspaper companies integrate their print and online staffs.

“And where are your new media people located? At many newspapers, if not most, they are off to the side somewhere — often out of sight, out of mind. Few newspapers integrate their Web producers, editors and developers into the newsroom. Many people tell me they don’t even know where their online staffers sit or their names,” he wrote.

While some editors might say “so what,” Pat maintains:

“Online members often feel left out and looked down on by the print staffers. This perception is never helped when the online staff is stuck by the marketing or business staff or cleaning staff or some random closet.”

I believe his observations are compelling and are a symptom of a more critical issue. Many newspapers still aren’t sure where an online staff fits in to their overall structure. Is an online editor the same as a print editor? Are online producers equal to print reporters? And what about online developers, can they be equated to, say, page designers? Who should the online staff report to? All of these are a build up to one big issue, and that is pay. Many newspaper companies are wrestling with the question of how much to pay their online staffs.

To me, this is a critical question, one that if newspaper companies are going to compete and be successful in the online arena, they need to get right.

Now if these were pure-play businesses, the answer would be easy, you want your online products to be the best and your business to be a success, so you hire the best you can afford and, if necessary, you look for other places to save. But newspapers aren’t pure-play businesses when it comes to online, so this issue is a harder one for them to wrestle with. I would contend though, that they need to apply the same rules.

We all know that, increasingly, online is where the money is, but it will take talent to earn it. I would urge newspapers to make sure they’re paying their online employees appropriately; if new positions open, hire the best you can afford. This is one place where you don’t want to go with the lowest bidder and more importantly, this one place where wrestling with a difficult issue and ultimately making the bad choice won’t do.

As folks whose lives are shaped by deadlines, we are sorry we are writing to you so close to yours. We know that, by now, you have received most of your requests, but Santa our newsroom has been really, really busy — producing evergreen copy and the pages that will fill our holiday papers. We hope that despite our tardiness you’ll still consider this appeal.

Now Santa, we want you to know that we think we’ve been really good this year and we hope you realize just how difficult that was. Ours is a challenging industry and being good takes lots and lots of effort. But we’ve listened to our editors and respected our copy editors. We’ve played nice with other reporters and even stopped making fun of the photographers. We no longer say things about the web people behind their backs.

We know that you receive lots of letters from people saying just how much stuff they need, and that ours is just another in the pile, but we hope you will recognize the uniqueness of our situation. See Santa, it’s been a difficult year for our industry, despite profit margins that make most businesses jealous, at times it seemed like everything but us was bad – revenue, advertising and circulation. As a result, there wasn’t so much cheer to go around our office, the holiday spirit was truly challenged.

Santa, we were told that there was no money for raises, new office chairs, better pens, benefits or new computers. Even the holiday party was turned into a pot-luck and for the Christmas tree we had to use an inflatable one that we got from a PR company. It truly looked dark. But reminded ourselves about all the good things we did this year: We championed the underprivileged, gave voices to the voiceless. We uncovered corrupt politicians and helped keep criminals off the streets. We covered tragedies and triumphs and worked through storms and heat waves.

You know when we are sleeping and you know when we are awake, but in case you’re confused, we’re the people who spend 60-70 hours a week in our offices, we’re those who work while we’re home and even when we’re driving between.

So we hope you agree that we’ve not been naughty and actually, we’ve been really nice.

With that said Santa, all we want ask for are raises that show us some respect (cost of living at least); computers that were made at least in the 90s; a mileage reimbursement that if nothing else, covers the cost of a gumball; more space for our stories, additional reporters, photographers and web developers and publishers who read our newspapers would be nice, but we understand that may be asking too much.

Santa, we thank you for considering our request and although we’re going to try to stay in the newsroom until you arrive, in case we can’t, we’ve left a cup of coffee for you and a bag of microwave popcorn if you get hungry.

Now if you’re a newspaper editor or publisher, none of that is likely surprising or especially revelatory. But despite knowing this, newspapers, including my local papers, still fill their front sections (typically referred to as the “A” section) with national and international news reported by wires services. I guess their hoping that while you’re looking for the rest of the local stories from the front page, that you’ll stop and read some likely outdated and previously reported national or international news.

Their other hope is that you’ll pay some attention to the premium advertising that fills the A section. That’s right, newspapers charge a premium for the ads that occupy much of this section. Actually, I don’t know why advertisers, given the trend among newspaper readers to local news, agree to pay premium rates for placement in a section that receives only cursory attention. Frankly, if I was an advertiser, I would be asking newspapers to provide me with stats on the amount of time people actually spend on pages in this section, just like I would want to know how much time people were spending at one of the paper’s webpages.

Now if newspapers really wanted to justify that premium and maximize the amount of time that people spend with pages in the A section, I have a simple recommendation for them — fill it with local content. As a reader, I would be impressed; to me it would seem like my newspaper was recognizing and adapting to my reading habits. Additionally, this move would likely provide more space for local content then what you typically find in the traditional local section.

Just like the suggestion I proffered on Saturday, that newspapers should consider doing away with their Saturday editions and refocus strained and limited resources, this also requires a change in traditional thinking. But this decision should not be nearly as difficult to make. For in the end, this decision is about giving readers what they want and newspaper’s putting their best work front and center, I would call that a win-win.