I need your help. No, I was not robbed while on vacation and am not trapped in some foreign city – I just need your vote. That’s right, your VOTE.

Kevin Sablan of the Orange County Register and Bill Adee of the Chicago Tribune and myself (representing Philadelphia Media Network) are trying to get our panel “Survivalist News: How Far WIll You Go for Readers” accepted for SXSW 2012.

Organized by Sheigh Crabtree of Perfect Market, this is one of a bunch of panels attempting to focus on the news industry, but in my unbiased estimation, the very best. Here’s a description of what we’ll attempt to do:

The Survivalist Newsroom: How Far Will You Go to Get Readers? In today’s frenetic media world, it’s never been more difficult for media companies to attract readers. They’ve used sophisticated search technologies, content seeding, social media, promotions, and splashy homepages to try to lure the most eyeballs possible to their sites. But how far would you go to get readers? In this session, hear from one newspaper that decided to sell Android tablets with its content pre-loaded at a massive discount, juts to get readers in the door. Hear how they also used games, giveaways, and sophisticated data-mining content management techniques to successfully increase readership.

Not bad, right?

Well here is where you come in. This year, with nearly 4,000 sessions submitted for the week (March 9-18), your votes and comments will account for about 30% of the decision-making process. The balance of the decision comes from the SXSW Advisory Board, which is a group of industry professionals from across the US and around the world and finally, the input of the SXSW staff. So please, vote. You can learn more about how to vote here. You can see the full description of our panel here.

So do Kevin, Bill and me a favor and show your support and vote and, while you’re at it, feel free to express your enthusiasm about the session on the comments portion of the page

I’m excited to be able to share that I have been invited to represent Philadelphia Media Network and speak at Digital Content Monetization East 2011 taking place from October 11-14 in New York City.

For those of you not familiar with DCM East, it is “a multi-stream summit incorporating only the most senior strategists and decision-makers in Film, Sports, TV, Publishing, Games and Music” … “DCM East helps you to sort out the best short and medium terms strategies for delivering revenue through digital content.”

While I don’t yet have all the details (such as the when and where), I can tell you that it’s not a panel, but my own session. More details to follow, but if you’re thinking of attending, here is a link to register. And let me know if you’re going to be there!

After speaking on the “Subscriptions, Paywalls and Real Money. Will Users Pay Up or Fade Away?“  panel at the Digital Publishing and Advertising Conference in New York City, I was interviewed by the folks from Scribemedia.org and no, my use of “monetization” is not intended for a drinking game…

All too often when I ask a colleague at another media company what their monetization strategy is (in general or regarding a specific product) the response I’m given is akin to “that’s not my station.” To me, that answer epitomizes the problems we’re seeing at too many media companies – too many people passing the proverbial buck.

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.

At too many newspapers reporters have been given smart phones to use when they’re out in their beats only to return to the office and work on circa-1980s desktop computers. They sit on chairs that are held together by bubblegum and Scotch tape and talk on phones that are a mix of handsets, cords and cables scavenged from other phones. Photographers use digital still cameras and hi-def video cameras and work on new(ish) computers with big monitors that receive power thanks to enough extension cords and outlet multipliers to bring a fire marshal to tears.

I can not think of a more fitting symbol for a troubled industry then crumbling offices and derelict buildings.

While much of this may exist outside of the watchful, critical eye of readers and advertisers, it is not lost on a newspaper’s staff who, understandably, interpret the poor conditions as a symbol of low regard. To them, if their corporate or private owners cared about them and respected what they did, they would not let them work in that environment.

With revenues continuing to shrink, it is understandable that there will be those readers of this post who will argue that I cannot in good consciousness be suggesting that companies invest limited dollars in infrastructure. While I respect that opinion I think it misses the point. I would say how can you not invest in infrastructure. All the equipment a staff uses, from the pens and pads to the computers and servers to the copy machines and printers have a direct impact on bottom line. Can you imagine an automobile manufacturer expecting its employees to churn out contemporary vehicles using old and broken equipment in an antiquated facility?

I recognize that increasingly, newspaper companies are faced with difficult decisions about how and on what to spend limited funds. But I think the approach of ignoring infrastructure, from office furniture to computers, to phones, to even the paint on the wall and the bulbs that go in the lights, needs to stop. Everyday, editors and publishers expect more and more of their staffs and, all too often, offer less in return. Frankly, there needs to be more of a balancing act otherwise performance will continue to degrade, morale will continue to suffer and more and more employees will continue to leave the industry.

So my advice to newspaper companies is to look elsewhere for savings and to spend at least some of what is needed to improve their facilities. And if the response is that there is no where else to look, I would reply look harder — your business and your future depends on it.