The voluntary layoff program begins Dec. 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If AOL doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will ax people on its own.

This is lousy news for employees, who are faced with a “jump now or wait to be pushed” decision, but it is designed to cheer investors: AOL says the cuts will drop its annual operating expenses by $300 million. Through the first nine months of this year, AOL’s operating expenses ran around $1.8 billion.

Meanwhile, AOL is looking to shed some parts of its business altogether. It has hired bankers to sell off its ICQ messaging service and is considering dumping MapQuest, among other assets.

Armstrong’s (expensive) goodwill gesture: He is giving up his 2009 bonus, which was to be at least $1.5 million. His explanation to employees: “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.”

Here’s the text of the company’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

On November 19, 2009, AOL Inc. (the “Company”) informed its employees of proposed restructuring activities as part of its continuing cost reduction initiatives aimed at aligning the Company’s organizational structure and costs with its strategy (the “Restructuring”). The Restructuring is conditioned upon the successful completion of the Company’s previously announced spin-off from Time Warner Inc. (the “Spin-off”), as well as the approval of the Company’s new Board of Directors that will begin service in connection with the Spin-off. It is anticipated that, if approved, the Restructuring will include the reduction of approximately a third of the Company’s current employee base, which will be conducted on a voluntary and involuntary basis. The goal of the Restructuring is to reduce ongoing annual operating costs by approximately $300 million. If the Restructuring is approved, the Company expects to incur restructuring charges of up to $200 million, substantially all of which is expected to be incurred from the date of the Spin-off through the first half of 2010.

But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.

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.”

Unless the 400 or more people I follow on Twitter have all gone mute at the same time, I suspect that something’s wrong with Twitter, since I haven’t seen a new message for the last hour or so. A quick scan of Facebook–and Twitter’s own search engine–indicates that other people are seeing the same thing: We’re tweeting, it appears, but into a void. How meta!

Twitter’s status site, designed just for instances like these, has a message it says is 16 hours old: “We’re currently diagnosing the causes of an unplanned site outage that happened a few minutes ago. We are recovering from this issue now and apologize for the interruption in service.”

Twitter now acknowledges there is a current problem: “We are currently investigating a problem causing many users’ timelines to be delayed. We will update with status here shortly.”

I’m confident we’ll survive this crisis if we all band together. And perhaps go out for a walk–it’s really nice today in New York.

The semi-serious point here is that this stuff used to happen to Twitter all the time, and happens much less now. But the pressure is on Twitter–users are increasing, and so are expectations–to make these outages even less frequent.

Counterpoint: Even mighty Google (GOOG) is prone to this kind of thing.

Nope.

Check out these snapshots of Akamai’s live traffic meters, which I took shortly after 1 pm EDT. They indicate that the Web infrastructure company’s clients are serving up more than 109 million customers per minute–more than they have at any other period this year, including Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Akamai (AKAM) doesn’t represent all of the Web, but since it’s by far the biggest content delivery network service, it’s a pretty darn good proxy. The previous record appears to have been 90.6 million, set last month during the Iranian elections (click to enlarge):

UPDATE: The Akamai folks want me to note that this chart measures overall Web traffic, not just traffic to news sites, etc. Which means that there could be other factors pushing up traffic today — large software downloads, etc. And, for that matter, if you look at Akamai’s peak traffic days over the last year, you’ll note that they’ve increased nearly every month. So while we can say that Akamai’s was serving more Internet traffic at 1pm eastern time than it has at anytime in the last year, we can’t draw a straight line between that fact and the fact that Jackson event was happening at the same time. But I’m going to go ahead and draw a dotted line.

UPDATE 2: Now I see why the Akamai folks were so cautious. New stats indicate that the event was big on the Web, but not as big as the Obama inauguration.

Meanwhile, while I didn’t actually go ahead and write this, my hunch was that any Web traffic we did see today might come from countries outside the U.S. that either didn’t get a TV feed or that cared about Jackson much more than Americans did.

But Akamai’s visualization of traffic to news sites world-wide says I would have been wrong about that, too: Almost all of the traffic is being served up by American news sites, and traffic to sites around the world is down for this time of day.

But here’s the thing I still don’t get: All of this has been happening when there has been nothing to see. Here’s a representative screen grab of ABC’s live feed, which I took around 1:10 pm Eastern Time.

OK. Have at it. I’ll be back later in day with whatever other traffic tidbits I can round up.

Turns out the majority of those new Twitterers won’t be back in May.

So says Nielsen Online, which estimates that 60 percent of Twitter’s users leave after a month. That makes sense on a gut level to me: Twitter is easy to use, but it often takes a while to make sense, and if you’re not a professional self-promoter–or someone with a lot of friends who are already on Twitter–it may never make sense.

It’s worth noting here that Nielsen is likely overstating the churn because it is only measuring visits to the Twitter.com URL. The majority of Twitter use happens away from the site, on mobile phones and apps like Tweetdeck, and it’s theoretically possible to be an avid Twitterer but never visit Twitter.com after you sign up. I’ve asked the Twitter folks for their take on the stats and will update if they respond.

But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Nielsen stats are correct, or close to being correct. Is that a problem? Obviously, every Web service attracts new users who never come back after they try it out, so churn in itself isn’t a problem. The question is the rate.

The good news is that Twitter’s 40 percent retention rate is higher than it used to be. Prior to the Oprah madness of this month, Twitter’s rate was closer to 30 percent, Nielsen says.

But the measurement company argues, via a fancy chart and equation, that 40 percent retention makes it mathematically impossible for Twitter to achieve significant penetration with Internet users. The simple version is that if Twitter loses three out of five users a month, its growth will be capped at about 10 percent of the audience. Fancy version below (click chart to enlarge):

And here’s how Twitter’s retention rate compares to that of Facebook and MySpace (again, note that Facebook users and MySpace users more or less have to visit the those sites to use them, so the numbers are likely slightly skewed):

So what if Twitter really is a service that appeals to no more than 10 percent of the Internet audience? Is that such bad thing? Not at all. That’s an awfully big number.

And “retention” may end up being the wrong metric to measure a service like Twitter, anyway. See this perceptive post by Andrew Chen (thanks to OMGPOP’s Dan Porter for the link).

But a lot of the Twitter sales pitch–to investors and would-be partners like Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT)–is contingent on the service’s eventual ubiquity. The appeal of Twitter’s real-time search capabilities, for instance, is less seductive if you’re only searching what a sliver of Internet users are Tweeting about. And knowing that growth is capped could make that impressive hockey stick chart a little less so.

[Image credit: Weegee via the International Center of Photography]

At first glance, it looks like the company beat them. Netflix (NFLX) posted earnings of 37 cents a share on revenue of $394.1 million. Wall Street had been looking for 31 cents and $390 million, respectively. The company said it ended the quarter with 10.3 million subscribers, which is the high end of the range it had promised to deliver.

And guidance was strong, too. From the company’s press release, here are Q2 predictions:

– Ending subscribers of 10.4 million to 10.6 million
– Revenue of $403 million to $409 million
– GAAP net income of $27 million to $32 million
– GAAP EPS of 44 cents to 53 cents per diluted share

And here’s the company’s revised guidance for 2009 (full year), which it increased:

– Ending subscribers of 11.2 million to 11.8 million, up from 10.6 million to 11.3 million
– Revenue of $1.63 billion to $1.67 billion, up from $1.58 billion to $1.635 billion
– GAAP net income of $96 million to $106 million, up from $88 million to $98 million
– GAAP EPS of $1.56 to $1.72 per diluted share, up from $1.43 to $1.59 per diluted share.

All of this seems to compare favorably with Wall Street’s expectations. Via Citibank’s Mark Mahaney, here’s what investors were looking for (click to enlarge):

Netflix shares have been bouncing around in the aftermarket following the earnings release, and last I looked, they’re just about flat. It will probably take investors a while to figure out if they’re disappointed that the numbers aren’t even bigger.

UPDATE: The stock is now down around 5%, presumably because guidance wasn’t strong enough. I’m back for the earnings call, which I’ll live blog part of: I’m particularly interested in Netflix’s digital strategy, so I’ll be focusing on that.

CEO Reed Hastings: Subscribers renting more DVDs and Blu-rays than ever. Disc rental will continue to grow for many years, so we’re investing in that.

More realistic Blu-ray pricing (previously discussed) of 20% to 25% premium for subs. Though we’re paying the studios a higher premium for Blu-ray. If we can get those costs in line, we can promote Blu-ray more agresssively [i.e. bring down your prices, Hollywood, and we'll push more of your high-margin discs].

We are losing customer to $1 kiosk rentals. “By end of they year, kiosks will likely be our #1 competitor,” as rental stores fail. “Longterm effects,” of cheap kiosks “are not positive for us, or the industry as a whole.”

Streaming: Overall consumer embrace of online video growing. “Not hard to believe that online video will grow substantially every year for a long time”. [Duh]. Important for us to be spending “aggressively” on streaming content. “But that means we are essentially buying many titles twice now”. Buying once on DVD, and again on streaming. Great for content owners, ok for us since costs for streaming are lower than physical distribution.

We believe we’ll get more streaming licenses as TV networks, who control titles, look to increase distribution. We are looking to a day, when we have plentiful content for streaming… “we will simply be a fourth option for consumers and a fourth revenue source for networks and studios”. It’s possible that within a few years, all CE devices sold will include a Netflix component.

It’s easy to focus on the Internet for its distribution abilities, but its important to think about social possibilities. Future of Internet TV is closer to Facebook and social networks than the standard grid lineup. Social, social, social. Long term outlook for Internet TV is very promising.

[Join to pass on most of CFO notes] No “cocooning” effect from recession apparent in DVD usage. Acquisition costs “record low” in part because of depressed online ad pricing.

Q&A: “Tremendous amounts” of hardware partnerships in the pipeline. Xbox renewal? No answer.

Have sub growth slowed at end of quarter? No. Q4 growth back-end loaded because of holidays, and Q1 growth front-end loaded for same reason.

How about a fee-based service for a streaming only service by year’s end? We talk about that from time to time, but not pressing. For now, combination of DVD rental and streaming is what consumers are interested in. A streaming-only service would be a “sweetner” to what we have now. We don’t think it would cannibalize, though.

Can you talk about streaming-enabled devices’ contribution to subscriber additions? No details, but we think it’s helpful to have Xbox, Blu-ray players, etc. “It’s definitely a very positive part of the ecosystem for us”.

What are dynamics to adding more content to streaming library? More money.

Can you talk more about new marketing efficiencies? There aren’t any new ones, really. Weak economy, lower ad prices, plus consumer excitement about streaming product.

What does competition look like on streaming front from Apple and Amazon? Right now, “all three of us are three drops of water in the pool that is watching television”, … “we all recognize in the long-term there will be competition between us” but we’re all “so tiny” compared to TV-viewing that that’s what we’re focused on.

That appears to be it for streaming-related queries. I’ll check back in with the full transcript later on.

It’s no surprise, obviously, that financial advertising has slowed down in the first three quarters of 2008. The surprise is that it’s only been a 10 percent reduction (so far), according to Nielsen.

There are also some interesting breakdowns: Mortgage and loan companies spent 62 percent less (of course). But credit service companies increased their spend by 22 percent, and investment service companies boosted their spend by six percent.

Here’s Nielsen’s list of top 10 financial advertisers (click chart to enlarge): Note that Bank Of America (BAC), one of the comparative winners during the meltdown, has cut its spend by 30 percent so far this year–slightly more than teetering Citigroup’s (C) 26.5 percent cut. Previously left-for-dead ETrade (ETFC), meanwhile, bumped up its spend by 24.5 percent.

Want more unpleasantness? OK. Comes now yet another ad executive to tell you that next year will be very unpleasant for anyone looking to make a living off of advertising revenue.

U.S. advertising spending will drop 5-8 percent next year, says Steve Lanzano, chief operating officer of MPG North America, a unit of French advertising conglomerate Havas SA. Lanzano predicts that sports advertising, long considered one of the most impervious to downturns, will get roughed up as well:

Even television sports, which have become more popular with advertisers since audiences tend to watch the events live rather than recording them, will suffer from the broad pullback in marketing spending, said Lanzano.

Lanzano estimated 9 to 10 percent of spending on broadcast sports comes from financial services and automotive, both industries that have been in turmoil. ‘That’s a lot of money moving out,’ said Lanzano.

‘Because of the hits in the categories that support sports–whether it’s financial or automotive or retail–I think they might take a little more of a hit than they would in other recessionary periods,’ he said.”

OK. Let’s break the glumness up a bit, shall we? If you’re looking for a cheap laugh, head to the Hollywood Reporter’s take on the Nielsen numbers. Then feast your eyes on the unintentional, yet very successful contextual advertising placed to the right of the story (which is where I borrowed the image currently at the top of this story).