Personally, I think this stuff needs to be a lot shorter, like the industry satire that CollegeHumor put together a while back. But whatever. It’s amusing enough, and it’s not aimed at me, anyway.

Which is a good reminder that despite what armchair ad critics like me have to say, a lot of the rebranding efforts that Yahoo, and now, AOL, have underway aren’t aimed at us anyway: They’re aimed at a relatively small number of ad buyers, planners and other pros who decide where marketing money goes. But we’re still going to enjoy assessing them.

And yes, while we’re at it, let’s note that this video is running on YouTube, which is owned by Google (GOOG). What does Carol Bartz plan to do about video, anyway?

What exactly did Adconion buy? Some of Joost’s technology, as well as its trademark, and about a dozen of the company’s remaining 25 employees, a spokeswoman says.

So what does that leave? Does any part of the original Joost survive as an operating company? “I believe so,” says the spokeswoman, who is going to get back to us about that.

Price? Your guess is as good as mine. But I’m guessing it’s not going to be very much, and nothing close to what investors like Sequoia, Index and Viacom (VIA) were hoping when they plowed $45 million into the company more than two years ago. Index, by the way, is also an investor in Adconion and led an $80 million C funding round in February 2008.

In any case, this is all a matter of “i” dotting and “t” crossing, as Joost has officially been in hospice mode since June, when the company laid off most of its employees and replaced CEO Mike Volpi. Prior to that, Volpi and his investors had been trying to broker a sale of the company, hoping that they could convince a big infrastructure player like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) to bail it out.

No dice, though Time Warner Cable did end up hiring some technical help from Joost.

ADCONION MEDIA GROUP ACQUIRES JOOST ASSETS

New Capabilities Provide Advertisers, Content Owners and Publishers with an End-to-End
Cross-Channel Video Solution

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. – NOVEMBER 24, 2009 — Adconion Media Group (www.adconion.com), the largest independent global audience and content network, announced today that it has acquired certain assets from privately-held Joost, the online video service. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“Video is a top priority for our company, and through the acquisition of the Joost assets we will be able to provide advertisers, content owners and website publishers with an end-to-end global video platform and cross-channel video and display ad-serving solution,” said Tyler Moebius, CEO, Adconion Media Group. “This acquisition immediately brings additional scale and content to the Adconion video pre-roll network for clients who are looking for a safe, cost-effective alternative to achieve the maximum value of online video advertising. We’ll also continue to operate Joost.com, providing clients with a destination site to showcase and distribute their branded entertainment content.”

In June, Joost announced a change in its business strategy to focus on providing white-label video platforms, and Adconion plans to pursue this strategy. On Friday, Adconion announced its first long-term licensing partnership as the exclusive display and video ad-serving solution for the Goldbach Media Group in Europe.

The acquisition of Joost assets adds many dimensions to Adconion’s existing video services and further will solidify its position in the online video and content syndication market. Prior to the acquisition, Adconion offered targeted distribution of content, including video and television commercials, to audiences around the world via Adconion.TV; as well as customized branded entertainment solutions for clients through its exclusive relationship with the digital studio RedLever. Through the Joost acquisition, Adconion.TV will add to its library of professionally-produced video content available for targeted pre-roll advertisements across 2,000 premium publishers.

Janus Friis, co-founder of Joost, said, “Over the past few months we have been actively exploring strategic options for Joost, and have concluded that the sale of certain of its assets to Adconion is in the best interests of Joost. Adconion has a strong technological platform and a compelling business model, and we believe that both businesses will benefit as a result of this acquisition.”

A leader in advertising innovation, targeting and distribution, Adconion reaches nearly 300 million unique users on a monthly basis. Prior to the Joost acquisition, Adconion was serving more than 80 million video streams per day to targeted audiences across 2,000 global websites.

Condé has a demo video it has been showing to advertisers, employees and plenty of other people, including me. The demo gives you a pretty good overview of what the publisher and Adobe (ADBE), which is building the software to produce and view the magazines, have in mind. But the publisher has turned down my request to show the clip to my readers.

This doesn’t mean you can’t see it, though. If you’re in New York City, you can troop down to the promotional “store” Wired magazine sponsors each year, located this time in the Meatpacking District (keep an eye peeled for the Betaworks guys). The publisher is showing off at least part of the clip there, and you can see some of it in this YouTube clip below (thanks to Brian Chen for spotting):

Obviously, it’s a much better experience if you can watch the video directly, instead of through someone else’s video camera. Also, I think you’d prefer to see it outside of the store, where you’re not subjected to slit-your-wrists techno music. So perhaps this will prompt the Condé folks to put the entire clip out in public.

In the meantime, here’s a gallery of “Saturday Night Live” cast members and other sort-of-famous people checking out last year’s store.

Call me Professor Positive if you must, but I don’t think that’s terrible: It means that 60 percent of phone users are okay with ads. And I suspect the number will be higher once the ads move from the theoretical/novelty realm into something you see whenever you use your phone or in exchange for getting something of value.

(And yes, I understand that a vocal minority absolutely hates advertising of all sorts and is reading this story on a computer that runs ad-blocking software. Good for you! Please let me know how you’d like to pay for this stuff and everything else you consume on the Web).

Here’s the research from Parks Associates, via Mediapost (click to enlarge):

Remember that even if mobile ads do take off as expected, it’s still going to be a relatively small business for some time. Bernstein Research figures mobile ads may generate $2.2 billion by 2013, which is nothing to sneeze at, but still a small fraction of the $32 billion Web ad market. Most of the mobile ad dollars, of course, are expected to flow to Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

But Condé, like other publishers, says Apple (AAPL) won’t actually talk to the company about its plans for the device, or even acknowledge that it has plans.*

Condé’s plan, meanwhile, is to create digital versions of its magazines that will work on all the upcoming tablets, using new software from Adobe (ADBE). Those tablets aren’t actually on the market yet, but the publisher says it’s confident that we’ll soon see multiple versions of machines featuring large color touchscreens and wireless connections.

So who’s going to make those gadgets? Condé Nast CEO Chuck Townsend says his company is working closely with Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and that it has also been communicating its plans to Apple. But Townsend made a point of saying that Apple executives themselves refuse to acknowledge that they’re actually planning a tablet: “They’re not talking to anybody openly,” he says.

Adobe is creating a publishing tool for the new format, as well as magazine-reader software that may come pre-installed on the devices or may require a download. The software company says it is working exclusively with Condé now, but will offer its tools to other publishers next year.

[Important technical point several readers have brought up: Adobe says its new reader software will run using its AIR platform, which works on multiple operating systems, including Apple's desktop system. But neither AIR nor Adobe's flash software works on Apple's iPhone, so if the new mystery device runs on that operating system, there's a problem. I'm following up with Adobe to see what it has to say. UPDATE: Here's Adobe's response.]

Condé says its work with Adobe won’t preclude the company from joining the “Hulu for magazines” storefront/distribution joint venture it has been discussing with Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and other publishers. “Those discussions are ongoing and important and imminent,” Townsend says.

Okay. So what will Condé’s magazines look like once the tablets appear? The publisher has been showing a demo video to advertisers, industry executives and employees, and I’m trying to convince the company to show it to the rest of the world. (UPDATE: Here’s a partial, low-quality version of the video).

But until then, you can get a sense of it by checking out the publisher’s first attempt to port a magazine to the iPhone, which was released today at the iTunes App Store.

Like the iPhone version of GQ’s December issue, Condé says its tablet magazines will feature the same content found in the print versions, including original advertising, with the ability to view pages in their original form or in formats designed specifically for the device. They will also import multimedia content, like videos, and offer the ability to synch up with social networks and other Web sites.

Condé also thinks the business model for its tablet mags will mirror that of its iPhone app. The company intends to charge readers for each title, and it plans to convince the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the magazine industry’s standards board, that its online sales are equivalent to newsstand sales. That will allow Condé to charge advertisers the same rate as for print ads.

If all of this works, it’s a dream scenario for Condé and other publishers. The magazine industry gets to keep the revenue streams its print publications generate without having to make the “analog dollars for digital pennies” discount that the Web requires. Meanwhile, Condé gets to bask in the benefits of digital–lower distribution costs, more engagement with readers.

Or put another way: Publishers hope the new devices will repair all the value destruction the Web has wrought.

But all of this assumes that consumers, who’ve shown no inclination to pay for this stuff on the Web, will be willing to pay for it once it appears on devices no one owns yet. We’ll find out soon enough.

*One possible exception is the New York Times (NYT), where editor Bill Keller refuses to talk about possible talks with Steve Jobs and company.

And the first look at results from News Corp., which owns this Web site, seems similar. Revenue of $7.2 billion are in line with Wall Street’s expectations, and the company figured out how generate earnings of 22 cents a share, a nice bump from the 18 cents a share consensus.

Just as Time Warner reported this morning, News Corp.’s most valuable assets are its film studio and its cable TV business. Its broadcast TV business is wobbling, and its print business has been in decline for some time. A quick look at each sector:

• Movies: Operating income up due to yet another “Ice Age” movie, among other releases.
• TV: Fox’s local stations saw operating income drop 26 percent due to crummy advertising; the Fox broadcast network also dropped because programming costs increased and ad revenue dropped.
• Cable networks: Booming. Operating income up 41 percent, as News Corp. is able to extract increased fees from cable operators for the likes of Fox News Channel.
• Newspapers: Getting hammered. Operating income was a mere $25 million, a decrease of $109 million in the last year. You know why, but for the record: The Wall Street Journal saw ad revenue decline, though price increases boosted circulation revenue.
• MySpace/Web properties. News Corp. doesn’t offer much transparency here, but does say that “earnings contributions” from its Web unit dropped $22 million because of lower search and advertising revenue. Sure we’ll hear more about this during the call.

Beyond the macro take, News Corp. (NWS) is worth paying attention to because of Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly pugnacious stance toward what he calls the Internet’s “Philistine phase”–the one where just about everything on the Web is free. And because Murdoch almost always makes for entertaining earnings calls, where he frequently veers off script.

I’m covering the earnings call as it happens. All notes below are paraphrased unless I use quotes.

CFO David DeVoe notes the digital group (MySpace, etc.) is in “significant transition.” Revenue was down 26 percent at the unit. Says MySpace revenue goals will take longer than expected.

Rupert Murdoch:
Looking ahead, seeing “encouraging trends in most of our businesses.” Broadcast TV business appears to have hit bottom of cycle. Advertising pacing for December looks good. October flat, November up in midteens. Cable TV ads doing well. “Quite pleased” with momentum at film biz.

Cable now generates half of company’s operating income, which is “no accident.” Love those dual-revenue streams, especially when we can jack up affiliate fees.

Digital media group: Difficult to predict when we’ll see improved results, but overhaul has clearly helped it for long-term.

Newspapers: For what it’s worth, all of our newspaper and TV businesses are having a great November.

Very confident about short- and long-term future. Clearly in better shape than a year ago. But recovery is “still a little fragile.” [Note: Rupert is clearly sticking to his initial script this time.]

Q&A

Question: When will you start cutting shareholders some dividend checks?

Murdoch: Not thinking about it. We’re right to be sitting on this cash. We have a $2B debt repayment due next year, so pile isn’t as big as it looks.

Question: How does international cable market look?

Murdoch: For the most part, it’s a new growth area. Markets are relatively undeveloped. So they’re all growing double digits, 15, 18 percent on average. May start another 30 channels this year.

Next, there’s a question about retrans (getting paid for broadcast programming): How many renegotiations will we see in next few years? Murdoch offers a nonanswer, for the most part.

Question: You said affiliates fees were up 18 percent and that affiliates fees represent 70 percent of revenue. So that means cable ads are down, right?

David DeVoe: Yes, but I think they’ll be up a bit this quarter.

Question: How can MySpace search revenue be down? Isn’t Google (GOOG) kicking in a fixed amount through next year?

Murdoch: Quite simple. “We have not been making our minimum guarantees,” so our search revenue will not be what we’d expected.

Missed most of the M&A question and answer, but it Murdoch evidently said he wouldn’t rush into anything. That doesn’t mean that much.

Question: Can we get an update on The Wall Street Journal and the relationship with Amazon (AMZN) Kindle, other e-readers?

Murdoch: Oh. WSJ.com going well. Pricing up very strongly. Will be announcing some “extra developments” with it “if they haven’t been announced already, I’m not sure.” Kindle: Look, it’s a fantastic invention for reading books. It’s not great for newspapers. We’ve gotten them to charge $15/month for WSJ and give us $6.50, but that’s not a great deal for us. Half-a-dozen early-stage e-readers on market for Christmas, and we’ll be available on them provided they give us a good deal. But there’s much more advanced work going on.

Question: What’s the new strategy at MySpace?

Chase Carey: Obviously, we got spread a bit wide and thin. No focusing on heart of business being a social network focused around key content sites. “We’re not trying to beat Facebook. We’re not trying to beat Twitter.” Music, gaming, etc. Farthest along with music. “Clearly a work in progress. We’re still losing traffic.”

And now for some press Q&A. This usually makes Rupe a bit testy, which is fun:

Question: Any interest in NBC?

Murdoch: No. “When things come around, we kick the tires, but we’re not in any talks with anybody at the moment.”

Question: What’s up with MSNBC-Fox News truce, which appears to be broken? 

Murdoch: “We didn’t start this abuse, which we thought went way beyond…finally, we had to allow people to retaliate. When they stop we’ll stop.” 

Question: And is it good for you to have antagonistic relationship with the White House?

Murdoch: No.

Question: Bidding on Travel Channel?

Carey: We’re not going to comment on any specific properties [mumbles].

Question: How will Comcast-NBCU deal affect way you deal with Comcast (CMCSA)?

Murdoch: It won’t. We’ll be competitors with NBC as broadcasters and partners with Comcast when it comes to cable.

Question: What’s up with plans to erect some sort of paywall at all News Corp. newspaper sites in 2010?

Murdoch: “We’re all working very hard on this, but I wouldn’t promise that we’re going to meet that date…it’s a work in progress, and there’s a huge amount of work going on.”

Question: Is WSJ profitable?

Murdoch: “Yes. Barely. But Yes.” How did you do that? “We produced a better newspaper.”

Question: Please talk about digital/MySpace some more.

Carey: Going to repeat what I said already, basically. “We’re in state of transition…work in progress.” Can’t tell you what it will look like in 12 months because I don’t know. “Work in progress.” “Work in progress.”

Question: Google promised you $900 over three years. How far short will you fall?

Murdoch: “I don’t know. But it will be a real figure….It will certainly drop by $300M.” Carey or DeVoe corrects Murdoch, noting that it will be closer to 10 percent. I’ll ask News Corp. PR for a ruling and get back to you. UPDATE: Ruling from News Corp. PR–MySpace will be about $100M short on its Google payment for this year.

$279.99, exactly.

What do you get for that? The same thing the band and EMI Music Group are already selling for $219: All of the band’s music, in a remastered stereo mix. But if you’re willing to pay extra, you can now get the same tunes bundled up in a single USB stick. Like so:

People who care about this stuff will be pleased to know the files will be available in both FLAC and MP3 formats. More details here, although there does seem to be some confusion about whether there are 30,000 of these puppies or just a couple hundred. Either way, they go on sale Dec. 7 in the U.K. and the next day in the U.S.

By the way, if you’re the kind of Beatles fan who considers plunking down more than $200 for music you already own, then you’ve most likely seen this. But it’s free to everyone, thanks to Google’s (GOOG) YouTube:

That’s the pitch Apple has been making to TV networks in recent weeks. The company is trying to round up support for a monthly subscription service that would deliver TV programs via its multimedia software, multiple sources tell me.

Apple (AAPL) isn’t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. Instead, the company is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software and store, which already has 100 million customers.

A so-called “over the top” service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already  buy from cable TV operators–if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.

That’s a big if: Apple has told industry executives it wants to launch the service early next year, but I have yet to hear of a single programmer that has made a firm commitment to the company, which has tasked iTunes boss Eddy Cue with promoting the idea.

Industry executives believe that if anyone jumps first, it will be Disney (DIS), since CEO Bob Iger has shown a willingness to experiment with Apple and iTunes in the past: In 2005, Disney was the first player to sell its programming on iTunes, via a-la-carte downloads. And Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney’s largest single shareholder, a result of Disney’s 2006 acquisition of Jobs’s Pixar animation studio. Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Network executives I’ve talked to are intrigued by the idea–they are eager to find new revenue streams–but are also wary, for several reasons.

Cable networks, for instance, don’t want to threaten existing relationships and subscription fees from cable providers like Comcast (CMCSA). And programmers are also worried about the effect a subscription service would have on advertising revenue: Even if the service didn’t distribute TV programs until after their initial air date, that could cut into ratings, which now measure viewership over the course of several days.

But the move to deliver TV and movies over the Web is already well under way. Netflix (NFLX), for instance, already bundles free streaming movie and television along with its disc-by-mail subscription service. iTunes and Amazon (AMZN) rent movies on a one-off basis, and Google’s (GOOG) YouTube is trying out the same thing. Meanwhile, Hulu, the joint venture between GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, and ABC, is figuring out how to launch a paid service that may include rentals, paid downloads or subscriptions.

So Apple’s proposed subscription service, which the company has floated in the past, is no longer a huge stretch. Says one executive briefed on the company’s plans: “I think they might get it right this time.”

The latest in a string of downbeat declarations comes today, via Steve Ballmer’s visit to South Korea, where the Microsoft (MSFT) CEO warned that tech spending would take years to get back to its pre-recession peak. AP:

“The economy went through a set of changes on a global basis over the course of the last year which are, I think is fair to say, once in a lifetime,” Ballmer told a meeting of South Korean executives in Seoul.

Spending on information technology, which accounted for about half of capital expenditures in developed countries before the crisis, was unlikely to rebound fully because capital was more scarce these days, he said.

“While we will see growth, we will not see recovery,” Ballmer said.

Which is pretty much what he’s been saying for some time.

There’s at least one upside to this kind of relentless and sensible negativity, though: If you deliver any news that isn’t straight-up awful, people get ecstatic. As they did last month, when Microsoft posted a downbeat but better-than-expected earnings report (click on graph below to enlarge).

What happened? Apparently, Microsoft (MSFT) realized that “Family Guy” is a ribald, off-color sitcom–but only after showing up to the taping of “Family Guy Presents: Seth and Alex’s Almost Live Comedy Show.”

Variety says “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane and actor Alex Borstein did indeed promote Windows 7 during the Oct. 16 taping. Alas, “for most of the special, however, MacFarlane and Borstein made typical “Family Guy” style jokes, including riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest.”

Whoda thunk?

Give Microsoft credit, though: At least the company figured this one out before the show actually aired–unlike the vomit ads it used to push Internet Explorer 8 last year. And, in defense of MacFarlane and Borstein, Google (GOOG) hasn’t seemed to run into any problems with the pact it struck with MacFarlane last year.

Microsoft’s backpedal, via Variety:

“We initially chose to participate in the Seth and Alex variety show based on the audience composition and creative humor of ‘Family Guy,’ but after reviewing an early version of the variety show it became clear that the content was not a fit with the Windows brand,” said a Microsoft spokesperson. “We continue to have a good partnership with Fox, Seth MacFarlane and Alex Borstein and are working with them in other areas. We continue to believe in the value of brand integrations and partnerships between brands, media companies and talent.”

Here’s a representative sample of the show Microsoft was betting on: A clip that Hulu says is one of its users’ favorites. Warning! The following includes flatulence, some sex talk and some racial stereotyping. No mention of Microsoft products, though.

Perhaps plow it into more start-ups like Aviary, a Long Island-based design software company.

Bezos, via his Bezos Expeditions fund, has followed up an investment in the company earlier this year with another slug of cash. It’s part of a $7 million Series B round led by Spark Capital, best known in these parts as the guys who made a very big bet on Twitter, which Bezos also invested in.

If you’re sick of hearing about Web start-ups with just the vaguest sense of a business plan, Aviary may be a refreshing change. It is trying to make money by selling cheap, Web-based alternatives to popular, expensive design software, primarily the stuff that Adobe (ADBE) sells, like Photoshop and Illustrator. Granted, it doesn’t make much money yet: The company only began selling $24.95 subscriptions to its software suite earlier this year.

Down the line, Aviary also imagines it will be able to create an online marketplace where the creative types who use its software can bid on work assignments. Sort of like eBay (EBAY) meets Craigslist meets Etsy meets Amazon’s (AMZN) own Mechanical Turk.

Here’s the full press release:

Aviary Secures $7 Million in Series B Financing Led by Spark Capital

Provider of Creative Application Suite in the Cloud Makes Creation Accessible to All and Advances the Growing Digital Economy

LONG ISLAND, New York (October 26, 2009) – Aviary, Inc., a pioneer of a creative application suite in the cloud, today announced that it has received $7 million in Series B financing led by Spark Capital, with participation from existing investors, including Bezos Expeditions, a personal investment company of Jeff Bezos. With a suite of digital creation and editing software available as an online service, Aviary offers a simple and cost-effective solution for creators of all genres–from graphic design to audio editing – to express their creative talents and participate in the burgeoning market for digital goods. In conjunction with the investment, Mo Koyfman of Spark Capital will be joining Aviary’s board of directors.

“Aviary’s robust suite of online creative tools is fundamentally democratizing digital creation. Whereas the market for digital goods was once reserved exclusively for creators using proprietary desktop software, Aviary is delivering creative applications that allow anyone with a browser to participate,” said Koyfman. “And by doing so in the cloud, Aviary allows for seamless online creation, collaboration, distribution and ultimately monetization previously not possible. The Aviary model has the potential to exponentially increase the number of creators and collaborators contributing to the digital economy.”

Until now, the digital creation market has been largely dominated by desktop software solutions which are often cost prohibitive and involve complicated interfaces. By contrast, Aviary offers a powerful creative toolset in the cloud that enables professional and amateur creators alike to easily create their own digital works. The basic Aviary suite is available for free to users and includes an image editor, vector editor, audio editor and more. Users can also upgrade to the pro suite to gain commercial features such as unlimited private storage, as well as collaboration and community enhancements. For more information, visit http://aviary.com/.

“We are disrupting the status quo by eliminating the long-held barriers to digital creation and giving creators the tools they need to create, market and monetize their vision,” said Avi Muchnick, founder & CEO of Aviary, Inc. “We are extremely excited to have Spark Capital on board. Their broad-ranging internet, software and consumer experience will be a tremendous asset to us in furthering our mission to make creation accessible to creators of all genres.”

The search giant is working on a new service that will provide searchers with streaming music, which sounds a whole lot like a content play at first blush. But Google will only be offering limited bits of music, and it will be relying on other companies to actually provide the tunes.

Sources describe the service, which they refer to as “One Box,” as a refined set of answers for music queries. The idea: Punch in, say, “Madonna,” and you’ll be presented with one or more songs, which may be partial clips or full-length versions, then guided to other sites where you can purchase the music.

That is: If you’re looking for Google (GOOG) to launch a rival to Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes or to music streaming services like iMeem and MySpace Music, this isn’t it.

In fact, Google is actually partnering, in a way, with News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace: iLike, the music start-up that MySpace purchased earlier this year, is one of the two services providing music to Google, industry sources tell me. The other is Lala.com, which has a novel streams-plus-cheap-songs concept. (This is presumably one of the “big announcements” Lala founder Bill Nyguen was referring to yesterday when I spoke to him).

UPDATE: Streaming music service imeem will also be providing songs for the new service, I’m told by people familiar with Google’s plans. It’s unclear to me whether the company will provide full streams in search results. No comment from Google, Lala, MySpace or Imeem. Or the labels, for that matter.

At this point I’m not clear how Google and the labels will determine how much of a song a searcher will be able to listen to. Last I time I checked, iLike didn’t have the ability to provide full song streams at all. And Lala’s licenses only allow the service to provide listeners with a full song once–after that, they have to purchase the track from the service.

One other note: “OneBox” is the name of an existing Google feature that offers up not just links, but actual answers to certain queries. (Think of weather, or stock results). So while it’s possible that Google intends to brand the service with that name, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the term the company has been using internally and with the labels, and that the service will have a different name when it launches.

TechCrunch first reported about the service this morning.

You can reach me via email (peter@allthingsd.com) or by leaving a comment below. I can’t promise any results, but I’ll do my best.

For the record: From afar, the Nook appears very similar to Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle, with a few additional bells and whistles–a second color screen at the bottom of the device for navigation, wireless connection from AT&T (T) instead of Sprint (S), Wi-Fi connectivity, etc. The most intriguing tweaks, from my perspective, are a “sharing” feature and the fact that the Nook runs on Google’s (GOOG) Android operating system, which might allow for interesting upgrades over time.

But all of these features seem to be aimed at tech’s earliest adopters and not the general book-buying public that Barnes & Noble (BKS), Amazon, Sony (SNE) and everyone else is hoping to court. Recall that in the early days of music players, plenty of competitors offered competitively priced gadgets with features that Apple’s (AAPL) iPod didn’t have, and today, it’s like we never heard of them. My hunch is that we might see a similar dynamic play out with e-readers.

Spotify, the much hyped service that has yet to appear in the U.S., is a mobile play. Rival MOG says it will have a mobile subscription offering in the near future as well. But the new mobile product from RealNetworks’s (RNWK) service, Rhapsody, has actually been up and running for a little more than a month, and the company says results are encouraging: Real says that more than 500,000 people have downloaded its app for Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone.

The problem: This stat alone doesn’t mean much. You can only get streaming music through the Real app if you’re already paying the company $14.99 a month for its “Rhapsody to Go” service.

So how many app users are paying customers? And more important, how many of them became paying customers because of the app?

I’ve asked Real for comment, but I don’t expect one, since the company has typically been close-mouthed about this stuff. But I’m told that Real has about 700,000 to 800,000 paying Rhapsody customers overall. So it’s possible that almost all of the app downloaders are already paying customers and that the app is just a nice bonus.

Did anyone out there actually start subscribing to Rhapsody because of the iPhone app? Let me know via email or in comments below.

UPDATE: Real, to its credit, isn’t making too much of the numbers itself. From spokesman Bill Hankes:

Although we are pleased to see excitement and interest in the Rhapsody iPhone app, it is too early to tell how this will translate into subscriber numbers since we suspect many of the people who downloaded the app are current subscribers already or are trying Rhapsody for the first time with the seven-day free trial.

That’s the worrisome conclusion you can draw from Dan Roth’s excellent profile of Demand Media in the new issue of Wired. The piece is well-worth reading, but here’s the very short version: Demand has figured out how to generate a massive stream of low-cost stories designed to extract the maximum dollars from Google’s (GOOG) advertisers.

The company has plenty of competitors that do similar stuff–Associated Content, Mahalo, and About.com, owned by the New York Times (NYT)–but Demand’s secret sauce is an algorithm that helps it figure out the most valuable stories to assign, based on search terms and keyword prices. Which leads to stories like “Where can I donate a car in Dallas?”

Demand currently produces about 4,000 new stories a month, paying the freelancers who create them between $15 and $20 a piece. But CEO Richard Rosenblatt wants to up that to a million per year. At that point, Roth notes, “the payouts could easily hit $200 million a year, less than a third of what The New York Times shells out in wages and benefits to produce its roughly 5,000 articles a month.”

Which is why Demand is constantly floated as a potential acquisition candidate for the likes of Yahoo (YHOO), at price tags of $1.5 billion or more. Investors, who bid up Times stock a bit after the company announced plans to cut its newsroom headcount by eight percent, currently value the publisher at $1.3 billion.

All of that make you queasy? Then you’re going to hate reading paragraphs like this:

Here is the thing that Rosenblatt has since discovered: Online content is not worth very much. This may be a truism, but Rosenblatt has the hard, mathematical proof. It’s right there in black and white, in the Demand Media database–the lifetime value of every story, algorithmically derived, and very, very small. Most media companies are trying hard to increase those numbers, to boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it–perhaps an impossible proposition–the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value.

I think there’s an equally worrisome story–worrisome, that is, from the admittedly self-interested perspective of content creators like me–about the pressure from advertisers, armed with their own technology, to push the value of online content down even further. But we’ll save that for later. One downer a day is plenty.

Want to know what the face of new media looks like? Here’s a 2008 interview Kara Swisher conducted with the preternaturally peppy Rosenblatt: