Or at least that’s the way I read it. My guess is that Jim is using the “leaky wall” strategy to access the rest of the Journal piece rather than using a paid subscription. But the writers seem to have made that deliberately oblique. Or perhaps they think their audience has zero interest in the minutiae of media economics.

And for the record: In addition to Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.

It’s not clear if News Corp. (NWS) will end up investing in the joint venture, which is designed to control distribution of “print” content to readers like Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle and Apple’s (AAPL) rumored tablet, or if the company will simply agree to tailor its stuff–most notably, The Wall Street Journal–to the joint venture’s standards.

In either case, News Corp. has yet to officially sign on, sources tell me. An announcement formally acknowledging the JV itself is supposed to be a couple of weeks away, though I have been hearing this for at least six weeks.

No comment from News Corp. or Time Inc., the Time Warner (TWX) publishing unit that has been assembling the JV. Other expected partners include Hearst, Condé Nast and, perhaps, Meredith. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

In some ways, News Corp. is an obvious partner for the coalition, which I like to call “Hulu for magazines.” Murdoch has been an outspoken critic of Amazon’s distribution and pricing policies; he argues that by controlling the subscription of digital newspaper and magazines delivered through its e-reader, Amazon deprives publishers of a valuable asset.

Murdoch also wants more money for the stuff it does sell: In an earnings call last week, he said that while the bookseller was now paying his company up to $6.50 a month for each $15 monthly subscription to The Wall Street Journal, that split wasn’t good enough.

The JV is supposed to solve those problems for publishers by letting them control sales, customer billing and pricing. But it is also primarily designed with magazine publishers in mind, and News Corp. isn’t in that business.

Meanwhile, New Corp.’s Dow Jones unit is proprietary about the system it has already built to handle subscriptions to the Journal’s print and online editions and its BlackBerry and iPhone apps.

While it’s possible that the JV could use the Dow Jones subscription/commerce platform as the technological base of the JV, Dow Jones could be prickly if asked to play well with others. “Newspapers and magazines, don’t mix well, for reasons that aren’t obvious to the outside world,” says a News Corp. executive briefed on some of the company’s conversations.

In any event, balancing different partners’ interests is only one of the hurdles facing the JV. Some others, from the story I published last month:

• They’ll have to convince consumers who already have billing relationships with Amazon, Apple and other vendors to sign up with yet another service.
• They’ll have to convince device makers to play along with the strategy, which runs counter to many of their own plans. Both Amazon and Apple, for instance, have intentionally created closed systems that give them control of both devices and distribution.
• They’ll have to create content consumers want to buy. The new product can’t simply be a digital version of the magazines they’re already printing: That’s already available on the Web, and consumers have shown almost no interest in paying for it, and advertisers haven’t fully embraced it either.

So what exactly will the JV be selling? That’s probably the most difficult question for publishers to answer, made even more difficult because they don’t know what capabilities the e-readers of the future will boast. Apple for instance, refuses to even acknowledge to Time Inc. executives that it plans to produce a tablet device, let alone provide them with specs.

The takeaway: The site is losing traffic and money and no longer expects to get all of the $900 million it once counted on from a Google search deal. Also, the company really doesn’t know what to expect of the property going forward, except that it’s a work in progress.

So: Either digital media boss Jon Miller, MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta and the rest of the new team brought in this year to fix the site have an impossible task or expectations are now so low that even modest improvement will look like a huge victory.

Details from the earnings call, which I covered live this afternoon:

• Revenue was down 26 percent at Miller’s Digital Media Group (MySpace and a handful of other sites).
• That’s in part because conventional ad revenue is down and in part because search ad revenue is down.
• But isn’t Google (GOOG) supposed to be paying $900 million over three years in a search deal? Yes, but only if News Corp. (NWS) hits certain traffic/query guarantees, which isn’t happening anymore, says Murdoch.
• How much is MySpace going to miss by? This question occasions much confusion on the call. “I don’t know. But it will be a real figure,” Murdoch says. Then he throws out the number $300 million. His lieutenants suggest that it’s closer to 10 percent, or $90 million. I’ve since checked with News Corp. PR, which says the figure is “in the 100 [million] zone for the year.”
• So what’s the plan to fix all of this? “It’s a work in progress,” News Corp. officials say over and over during the call. Chase Carey, Murdoch’s new number two, uses the phrase at least three times in one answer.
• Any other color on overhaul plans? Nothing you haven’t heard before: The company is trying to become an entertainment portal instead of a social network. Carey: “We’re not trying to beat Facebook. We’re not trying to beat Twitter.”

(Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site).

This should finally change next year. People familiar with Microsoft’s (MSFT) plans say the company intends to open the exchange, which will allow online ad buyers and sellers to match up in real time, in January. That will put it several months behind Google (GOOG), which turned on its real-time ad exchange in September.

But on the plus side, AdECN will offer lots of intriguing inventory from the get-go: It will sell space on Microsoft’s giant MSN network, as well as inventory on sites the company reps, like Facebook, Digg and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox Sports.

Here’s Microsoft’s formal statement about AdECN’s the timeline:

AdECN and Microsoft remain fully committed to the AdECN Exchange and exchange business.  AdECN has been running a Pilot of its Federated, real-time bidding technology within Microsoft for the past several months and will be rolling that product out to a select group of participants in the coming months.

Real-time ad exchanges are a big deal for people trying to automate advertising buying and selling. They differ from older ad exchanges, like Yahoo’s (YHOO) Right Media, in that they’re supposed to let buyers and sellers negotiate a price within milliseconds on specific pieces of inventory.

But it’s not clear that buyers and sellers will embrace real-time exchanges. In order to use them, for instance, they’ll have to build, buy or rent technology that allows them to make and process orders at lightning speed.

AdECN manager Jeff Green left Microsoft earlier this month without explaining what he intended to do next. Jed Nahum, Microsoft’s director of network strategy and planning, is running the unit in the interim.

(Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

[Image credit: rednuht]

Employees at MySpace have been waiting to find out who their new ad sales boss will be, as All Things Digital reported earlier this week.

And here she is: Nada Stirratt, who until today was running digital sales for Viacom’s (VIA) MTV Networks. (You can read her goodbye memo to MTV colleagues below.)

It looks as if MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta is assembling a team of MTV veterans at his company, which he’s in the process of overhauling.

In addition to Stirratt, MySpace has brought former digital guru Jason Hirschhorn over as chief product officer. And Courtney Holt, who runs MySpace Music, had run digital music for MTV before Chris DeWolfe, Van Natta’s predecessor, brought him on board last year. Viacom hasn’t named a replacement for Stirratt.

Next week could be Stirratt’s debut in front of the entire advertising sales staff of MySpace, who are set to gather at a new seaside resort about 20 miles south of Los Angeles to get a first glimpse of the fresh direction the company is preparing to take under its new management.

The struggling social networking site, HQed in Beverly Hills, has been trying to reboot its image, spur innovation in its product and most of all, pull itself out of a too-long slump, even as longtime rival, Palo Alto, Calif.-based Facebook, has seen explosive growth.

In late August, MySpace sales and marketing head Jeff Berman left the company as MySpace hired MediaLink, a New York- and Los Angeles-based media consultancy, to help get its ad sales business back on track.

That effort has been led by MediaLink President Wenda Millard, who is well known in the ad industry and was longtime leader of the ad sales force at Yahoo (YHOO).

Getting an experienced top ad exec in place will round out a recent spate of new hiring by MySpace, including a new CTO, Alex Maghen, who moved over from its MySpace Music joint venture, and a new CFO, Mark Rosenbaum.

This has been part of Van Natta’s wholesale flushing out of most of the top execs who worked under DeWolfe.

Now, with a new team of execs, the News Corp. (NWS) property is putting the finishing touches on a master plan, which will include a new redesign of its hopelessly messy interface and doubling down on a product strategy that will center on, said one source, “what we own,” namely, music and entertainment.

Music is the obvious key leverage point, the still-bright spot of MySpace, followed by adding big entertainment categories like movies, television, gaming, video and other pop culture arenas.

Once the rejiggered product is in place, it will be up to Stirratt to sell it to advertisers.

Until we see how she does in that key job, here’s her missive to MTVers:

From: Stirratt, Nada
To: MTVN Digital Advertising
Sent: Fri Oct 09 16:34:51 2009
Subject: Thank You for Everything

Hi Everybody–

It is with mixed emotions that I write to inform you that I will be leaving MTV Networks. I have accepted the job of Chief Revenue Officer at MySpace and will be starting there later in the month.

The past 3+ years have been such a wonderful experience and I thank you for the extraordinary work you all have done to make MTVNetworks Digital stand for a best-in-class sales organization unlike any other in the business. Truly. We rocked the industry with our innovation, ideas, relationships and results. And we had a ridiculous amount of fun along the way. So thank you for everything. And a special heartfelt thanks to my leadership team of Kevin, Brad, Jason and Heather: I have learned so much from each of you and will cherish your friendship.

Xo 
Nada

(Full disclosure: News Corp. also owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

What else would you expect Ballmer to say? Now that Microsoft (MSFT) has got its hands on Yahoo’s (YHOO) search business–without paying a “boatload” for it–there isn’t a whole lot left to buy.

Emphasis on the word “buy.” Microsoft may still be willing to write a big check to boost its search share, specifically to get its hands on queries controlled by Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL, which has about three percent of the domestic search market.

AOL currently outsources its queries to Google (GOOG) in a deal that is said to make quite a bit of money for both sides of the table because AOL’s core user base tends to click through at a much higher rate than the rest of the Web. But AOL’s Google contract is expiring, and both Mountain View and Redmond are thought to be in hot pursuit of a new one. AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, though, is taking his time about his decision.

Also in the potential mix for Microsoft: A deal with News Corp. (NWS), which owns this site. Google’s $900 million search deal with News Corp.’s MySpace and IGN sites expires next year, but unlike the AOL deal, it has been a disappointment for Google.

It’s hard to imagine Ballmer spending much to wrest that one away, but News Corp. digital boss Jon Miller is doing what he can to drum up interest: He’s been talking up the idea of bundling multiple News Corp. properties–like, say, Dow Jones–into a larger deal. But since many of those properties have their own particular agreements and peculiarities, that’s going to take some doing.

It doesn’t. Except when it does.

Contrary to News Corp. (NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch’s comments earlier in the week, Dow Jones will not be charging customers who subscribe to both its Web and print versions a weekly fee to read the paper on its iPhone or BlackBerry apps.

But if you’re only subscribing to one version? That’ll be a buck a week, starting Oct. 24. The Journal will also start charging mobile-only users $2 a week, which is essentially the same price as a Web-only subscription.

That second charge makes some sense to me. The Journal has always said that it would start charging for the apps it makes for Apple’s (AAPL) and Research in Motion’s (RIMM) handsets. Right now these apps are gratis, which means you can either pay the Journal to read it in print or on the Web, or read it on your iPhone and pay zilch. That had to change at some point.

But while I have to be a tiny bit delicate here–Dow Jones owns this Web site, and I still have some aversion to insulting my employers in public–I don’t see how dunking paying customers a second time makes sense.

I do understand some of the impulse. Publishers of all stripes seem to think that while charging for content on the Web is tough, people are happy to pay for something delivered wirelessly. I think that many publishers are going to be very disappointed when they try this out in practice, but that’s another story.

And I also know that News Corp. has steadily been pushing Dow Jones to raise its subscription prices for the WSJ since it acquired the company, and this strategy sort of dovetails with that.

But seems to me that if I am paying for information, I will expect to consume it wherever I am, at the same price. And you’re starting to hear some publishers say the same thing–see Variety’s comments about subscription plans today in PaidContent.

I don’t actually pay for my WSJ subscription; my employers, who, I should stress, are truly excellent people, have hooked me up–so maybe I’ve got this wrong. Or maybe it’s merely a marketing issue: If you jack up my WSJ subscription and tell me you’re throwing in access to the mobile app for free, I might be okay with it.

But tell me you’re charging me an additional fee to read it on the go and it will stick in my craw. Let’s see if the paper’s paying subscribers feel the same way.

That factoid comes via Web-tracking service comScore (SCOR), which says the two sites accounted for 17.4 percent of the display ads in the U.S. market in July.

News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, in the midst of a turnaround effort, has a slight lead over Facebook–9.2 percent of the market versus 8.2 percent. That makes sense since MySpace has always been aggressive about loading up with ads, while Facebook has been fairly reticent, much to the dismay of the “when are you going to monetize?” crowd. (Click table to enlarge.)

That’s something you knew intuitively, of course. But interesting to see it in graphic form.

Another data point you already knew, but may still find worthwhile to see in black and white: Just how small the scraps are for the rest of much of the social network ad world. By comScore’s count, the next eight-biggest social networks command a collective 1.4 percent of the market. (By the way, ever heard of MocoSpace.com before? Do you know anyone who claims to be a user?)

Remember that we’re just talking about overall impressions, not dollars. And ad impressions on social networks are famously cheap, so this stat only tells part of the story. But it’s an important part. It illustrates the potential that the services have, even if they haven’t capitalized on it (not that they haven’t tried).

Meanwhile, here’s a bonus table from comScore laying out the top advertisers on social networks. No surprise to see the likes of AT&T (T) and Sprint (S) here. But perhaps it’s noteworthy that Verizon (VZ), the strongest U.S. telco, spends the least on social media impressions. Meanwhile, social network app makers/services like Zynga are spending heavily.

(News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

Fair enough. But if you’re that confident in your model–which, in short, allows Web surfers to look in on the FT.com site 10 times a month for free but demands payment for anything more than that–what’s with the following message at the bottom of each story?

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Anyone else think that strikes a weird tone between pleading and chiding? I’m told the note started showing up on FT stories about three weeks ago and that staffers at the paper are a bit confused about it as well. Here’s how FT spokeswoman Darcy Keller explains the message, via email:

The FT copyright simply protects our ownership of FT content. There is obviously a distinction between third parties referring to FT articles and linking back to FT.com and those that reuse and distribute our content without attributing it to the FT.

Obviously there is! But there’s also an obvious distinction between friends and colleagues who pass along an interesting article and, say, people who run sleazy “scraper” sites that publish other people’s copy in the hope of gaming Google’s (GOOG) search engine. Right? And more important: The people in the second category won’t be deterred by a copyright note–even a sternly worded one. Right?

Obligatory to-be-sure grafs: News Corp.’s (NWS) Dow Jones, which owns this (free) Web site, also charges for access to (some of) its Wall Street Journal. And it also tells people not to distribute WSJ.com stories without its permission. But in order to find that boilerplate language, you’d have to seek out the “Subscriber Agreement & Terms of Use” page, and slug your way through legalese until you got to section 6 (b)–“Limitations on Use.” Or you can just trust me. Does that make you less likely to copy and paste this story?

Here’s the complete internal memo from CEO Owen Van Natta, which describes Millard’s position as head of the ad sales group as an “interim” one and announces that former sales boss Jeff Berman is out. (Van Natta’s official statement for public consumption is here.)

Hi everyone,

I want to share some thoughts about our advertising product strategy and give you an update on the structure of our sales organization.

In the last three months we’ve focused our attention on restructuring the business, refocusing the MySpace user experience, and hiring some talented people particularly in the technology and product organization. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made in these areas and now want to focus on ensuring we have the best advertising product, sales strategy, and team in the market.

MySpace has always been a leader in the social media advertising space. Maintaining our leadership position requires that we foster the perfect balance between content and commerce. With this in mind, I’m pleased to announce that we are bringing a new partner into our global organization. Please join me in welcoming to the MySpace team, Media Link – a top media representation and strategic advisory firm founded by Michael Kassan and whose clients have included Microsoft, AT&T, Unilever, Home Depot, and Colgate-Palmolive. Michael is an internationally recognized leader operating at the intersection of the media, advertising, and entertainment industries. He’s the founder and managing principal of Media Link and acts as an advisor to many of the Fortune 100’s best-of-breed global brands

Media Link will be focusing on two primary objectives. First, the firm will provide guidance as we reconfigure our ad products to meet the current needs of the marketplace.  As a key strategic advisor and partner, they’ll provide us with an external perspective on the larger advertising market as well as insight into what top clients (and those we’re looking to attract) are asking for.

Second, as part of this process on an interim basis the firm will help manage our day-to-day sales organization under the leadership of Wenda Harris Millard. Many of you know and have worked with Wenda in the past and for those who haven’t she’s truly an internet advertising pioneer. Her reputation on Madison Avenue is unmatched and after holding executive sales posts at Ziff Davis, Yahoo, and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia she recently joined Media Link as President.

After more than three years of managing a highly diverse set of responsibilities at MySpace including content and sales roles, Jeff Berman has decided to explore other opportunities. During his tenure at MySpace, Jeff brought leadership to our sales organization and built an incredible team with expertise across every advertising vertical. I appreciate all the support that Jeff has given the new management team and look forward to welcoming new sales talent to compliment the tremendous group we currently have in place. We wish Jeff the best in his future plans.

Within our sales team, we have a deep bench of talent responsible for managing one of the most dynamic advertising platforms on the Web. I’d to like recognize the sales team for their hard work and dedication in creating meaningful ad solutions for our roster of advertisers.

Our senior sales team (in alpha order) includes:
·         Chris Carlson – Regional Vice President of the Mid West
·         Angela Courtin – SVP Marketing, Entertainment, Content
·         Shari Friedman – Vice President of Entertainment Sales
·         Mitchell Kreuch – Regional Vice President of East Coast Sales
·         Abe Thomas – VP of Online Marketing
·         Valeh Vakili – SVP Sales Strategy and Operations
·         Sam Wick – SVP of Strategy for MySpace Music
·         Andy Wiedlin – Regional Vice President of West Coast Sales

I appreciate your dedication and focus on delivering for our advertising partners during the last few months. I hope you’re as excited as I am to take our sales organizations to the next level.

Full disclosure: News Corp., owner of MySpace, also owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

That distinction popped up this morning after Politico detailed an “astonishing offer” by the paper’s business staff to lobbyists–a chance to underwrite “salons” with D.C. bigshots, hosted at the home of CEO Katharine Weymouth.

A promotional flier Politico got its hands on also promised that the Post’s editorial staff would be part of the events, including one scheduled for July 21. But that part isn’t true, a Post spokeswoman told me via email this morning:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.

As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.

We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate.

OK, so that’s cleared up. But let me play devil’s advocate: What exactly would be so wrong about getting the paper’s reporters or editors to to participate in one of these?

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the Post has been at the nexus of power, money and influence. In fact, Weymouth’s grandmother, Katharine Graham, was famous for hosting gatherings much like these at her house. And publications of all stripes, including this one, as well as Dow Jones, which owns this site, frequently charge fees to attend networking events where their editorial staffs participate.

And you’re likely to see more of this stuff, not less, as publishers search for revenue streams besides advertising to stay afloat. Any tempest you see about this today is going to look quaint in a couple of years.

UPDATE: The ensuing uproar has forced the Post to cancel the events altogether. Post execs are now busy pointing fingers at each other, although it seems clear a lot of the blame is going to be laid at the feet of the paper’s conference group and/or marketing team.

But note Howard Kurtz’s report on his employers’ reactions to the reaction: Weymouth (or her proxies) say she was OK with the idea, but not the marketing; Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli says he was OK with the concept, but not this version:

Weymouth knew of the plans to host small dinners at her home and to charge lobbying and trade organizations for participation. But, one of the executives said, she believed that there would be multiple sponsors, to minimize any appearance of charging for access, and that the newsroom would be in charge of the scope and content of any dinners in which Post reporters and editors participated.

Brauchli said he had been involved in discussions, stretching back to last year, about newsroom participation in conferences of the sort commonly staged by major news organizations.

But he said he made clear to the company’s marketing officials that Post journalists would participate only if they could substantially control the nature of any such conference. Brauchli said he was blindsided by the wording of these fliers and that they are an embarrassment to the newspaper.

In the old days, the fact that this story broke just before the long holiday weekend would help the Post. But this story will now have legs, egged on by stuff like this:

The New York Times turned down a chance to borrow money from Hollywood mogul David Geffen last winter, and went with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim instead.

So says he New Yorker, which has an extensive profile of Slim in this issue. Writer Lawrence Wright says that when Geffen learned that the Times was working on a deal to borrow $250 million from Slim, he offered to make the loan on the same terms, but was rebuffed by  Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

The Times chairman, Wright says, told Geffen’s people he preferred to work with Slim because the telco billionaire already owned Times shares and because “he was reportedly also worried about Geffen’s ambition to take over the company.”

Where would Sulzberger have gotten that idea? From Geffen, of course.

Wright also reports that Geffen offered to buy the publisher outright last September; he says Geffen made the offer via Steve Rattner, the media banker turned Obama adviser who is one of Sulzberger’s closest confidants.

The pitch: Sulzberger would oversee the New York Times’s (NYT) editorial operations, Geffen would handle the business side, and eventually the entire business would be handed over to a nonprofit foundation. Obviously, Sulzberger turned that one down.

Wright’s piece–which is behind a pay wall, so it will be interesting to see how much of the story gets circulated via the Web–is first and foremost a profile of Slim, and secondarily about the Times. So it doesn’t spend much more time on Geffen or the notion of other white knights for the paper, a la Google (GOOG).

But in just a few paragraphs, the article does seem to sketch out Geffen’s desire to associate himself with the Times in whatever way he can: Buying it outright, lending it much-needed money or buying some of its stock (via Harbinger Capital).

For now, the Times is controlled by Sulzberger and his extended family, who have repeatedly insisted that they’re not interested in parting with it. Then again, that’s what the Bancroft family always said about Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal. And those properties are now a part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (NWS)–as is this Web site.

If the Times ever does need a deep-pocketed buyer, Geffen has made it very clear he’s available.

BusinessWeek’s Ron Grover says Geffen “doesn’t so much see this as a business venture, but rather as a civic investment.” Newsweek’s Johnnie L. Roberts goes further, suggesting that Geffen would literally turn the Times into a nonprofit if he bought it.

Both Grover and Roberts are longtime media reporting pros, so when they cite sources with knowledge of Geffen’s thinking, I believe them. What I still don’t understand, and what observers and investors I’ve talked to are still puzzled about: How does Geffen plan to do that?

To reiterate: Geffen has reportedly tried to buy the 20 percent stake in the Times now owned by Harbinger Capital, though the two sides couldn’t agree on price. But even if they did, the transaction would only bail out Harbinger, not the Times.

And because the Times has a dual-class stock structure that keeps control of the company in the hands of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, taking on Harbinger’s stake doesn’t give Geffen a foot in the door to the company. It gives him the right to appoint two representatives to the company’s 14-member board of directors, but nothing else. Just ask the Harbinger folks.

Again, there are two plausible ways to acquire the Times:

1. Buy the super-voting shares outright from the Ochs-Sulzbergers, who have said they have no intention of selling. But then again, that’s what the Bancroft family said about Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal and this Web site. And News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch was able to overcome their objections by offering a 60 percent premium to the company’s share price. Maybe Geffen could try that.
2. Establish a large debt position with the company and exercise the power that comes along with that in the event of a restructuring. The problem: Billionaire Carlos Slim has already done that.

So. Anyone close to David Geffen want to explain what he’s really thinking? I’m all ears.

Caraeff is already heading up Vevo on an interim basis, but right now he’s still holding down his old job as executive vice president of UMG’s eLabs unit. At some point later this year, he is “99.99 percent certain” to be named president of the video site, according to someone familiar with Universal’s thinking. No word on who will get his old job.

That’s a good start for Vevo, which you can think of as either a “Hulu for music,” or more practically, “YouTube Music,” since the project will move videos at the world’s biggest music company from the world’s biggest video site and onto the new venture.

Running a start-up will be a new role for Caraeff, but at least he knows digital music and UMG specifically–he’s been working there since 2005. Prior to that, he ran wireless for Sony’s (SNE) movie arm.

Just as important, the appointment means Vevo will at least have cleared one hurdle that tripped up News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, which announced its plans to start a music site in the April 2008 but couldn’t land a CEO for the venture until MTV vet Courtney Holt took the gig in November–a couple months after the site launched.

There’s plenty for Caraeff to do: In addition to overseeing the launch of the site itself, he’ll need to staff it–while Google (GOOG) is helping Universal build and power the site, Caraeff will need to hire a “couple dozen people,” says a source familiar with his plan. A big priority: Assembling a sales force to sell the video clips.

And then? Plenty of other questions, which I raised a month ago when the deal was first announced. Forgive me, but I’m just going to quote myself here:

And even if Google’s technical expertise makes it easier for UMG to get a decent site up and running, neither company has a real track record when it comes to getting big brands to pony up for video ads, which is supposedly the whole point of the site.

Lots of people made similarly disparaging remarks about Hulu, of course. There was no way that GE’s (GE) NBC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox were going to be able to launch a decent site, let alone provide a challenge to YouTube. But they did, and they are. So the Vevo folks have that example to inspire them. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

But even if UMG gets the site off the ground, there is a considerable risk for both the label and for Google. Because if it works, Vevo will be diverting a lot of eyeballs away from YouTube–yesterday’s press release boasted that UMG’s YouTube channel has racked up 3.5 billion views.

The idea is to provide advertisers with a clean, well-lit space that will make them feel comfortable enough to spend money. But part of YouTube’s appeal is that is a riot of  the good, the bad and the WTF? You may start out watching a U2 video, and 20 minutes later end up watching a clip of a doped-up seven-year-old after a visit to the dentist. If you end up at Vevo, you’re going to have be very interested in music videos–and, at least for now, just the ones that Universal owns.

Are there enough video watchers out there to justify a business with some 50+ employees, which is the number I’ve heard Vevo/Universal is looking at? And can Universal figure out how to turn those eyeballs into more money than they’d generate on YouTube itself? Got me. Can’t wait to find out.

People familiar with the matter tell me that DeWolfe and News Corp., specifically new digital boss Jon Miller, are discussing a leadership change today. News Corp. (NWS) officials declined to comment. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

Sources tell me Miller hadn’t been planning on getting rid of DeWolfe (pictured above) in the near future, and that until yesterday he was still evaluating his options. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch had once treated DeWolfe as a favorite and gave him significant autonomy at MySpace. But Murdoch, who brought Miller on earlier this month, has been leaning toward a change as MySpace’s traffic has stagnated and its buzz and momentum have moved to Facebook.

Still, Murdoch had left the decision about the site’s leadership to Miller, his new hire, sources said. One possibility: Elevating DeWolfe to a nonexecutive advisory position.

Those options narrowed last night once TechCrunch ran a story claiming that News Corp. had hired a headhunting firm to “scour for possible replacements” for DeWolfe.

News Corp. hadn’t actually hired a headhunter, I’m told by multiple sources. But I’m also told that the report was enough to spook DeWolfe into calling Miller to ask what his plans were. That conversation led to today’s negotiations, which will likely lead to his stepping down as CEO, although he may remain affiliated with MySpace in some capacity.

Meanwhile, News Corp. has been talking to Van Natta (pictured here) about taking DeWolfe’s place. Van Natta, who had been a highly regarded executive at Facebook, was at one point the leading candidate to head up MySpace Music, which launched last fall, and the two sides held extensive conversations.

But Van Natta, like many other potential hires for that position, bristled at the job’s org chart: Rather than a standalone company, a la Hulu, the site News Corp. set up with GE’s (GE) NBC, MySpace Music is simply a unit of MySpace, reporting to DeWolfe. MTV executive Courtney Holt eventually took the job.

But Van Natta’s fate has remained closely intertwined with MySpace anyway. Project Playlist, the free music-streaming site he took over last fall, has seen traffic plummet after MySpace, along with Facebook, cut off the site’s access to their users, a move prompted by lawsuits from several major music companies.

Van Natta has made some headway at extracting the company from its legal mess, which predated his hiring, and he has hammered out a settlement with EMI Music Group. But Playlist is still being sued by Warner Music Group (WMG) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, and even music sites that aren’t in legal trouble are struggling to keep their heads above water. Plenty of Silicon Valley watchers wonder why Van Natta landed at Playlist in the first place and think that he has been looking for a way out.

Here’s a video of DeWolfe talking with BoomTown’s Kara Swisher a little more than a year ago when MySpace opened a new office in San Francisco. Below that is a video of Van Natta talking to Swisher in 2007 about Facebook’s ill-fated “Beacon” project.