While most newspapers are battling with online media for their very existence, the Washington Post is turning lemons into lemonade.

Online revenue jumped 24 % during the past quarter over the previous year's take, and it is up by more than 31 percent for the year. While online brings in only 1/10th of their print newspaper, the increase online covered more than half of that division's losses. The revenue split will probably get much closer to balanced within a few years, but just as TV didn't kill the newspaper, neither will the Internet.

What is WaPo doing right? It was relatively early in embracing blogging, including having many of its columnists blog as well as promoting blogs that are syndicated through BlogBurst. The company was equally quick to promote the sharing of its content through social sites including Digg, Reddit, and even Facebook.

The websites offers a smattering of video content and has had live discussions for years. Basically, they get that they must adapt to succeed online, and are executing.

The Washington Post is also running an advertising section about innovations in information, sponsored by Hyundai. There a bit of a disconnect between RSS and cars, but at least they are taking advantage of the medium.

What they haven't done is to take advantage of reader registration (or IP tracking) to target ads based on geography. Since I live just south of the other Washington, the likelihood of my taking the train into D.C. isn't too high. They should focus on national advertisers or find advertisers that are local to me.

Yahoo rolled out two new content sites as it continues to differentiate itself from Google as a destination and not a search tool.

Yahoo this week launched websites covering food and "green" cars as it attacks the verticals.

Google built on its tools portfolio by purchasing wiki software company JotSpot.

So which company - search portal to other sites, or aggregator of "best of" content - is a better buy for advertisers?

People use Google because they are looking for an answer, which may be a product or information. Yahoo is more of browse-type destination, where people may find what they want and buy it on the site, or read recommendations about their universe of interest.

While Google makes a mint in advertising, by not selling products or owning the content, Google can be unbiased towards its ad sales. If you are on their site, you may only have one shot before people leave, but at least you know the searchers are generally action-oriented.

Yahoo readers tend to stay longer, so you may have a better chance of having your message penetrate their awareness on the third or fourth go round of a session.

Advertisers should plan their ad buys with these factors in mind, and might try different creatives based on user expectations.

Brightcove is transitioning from online video tools company to operator of a video search and upload site, advertising agency, and technology platform, according to Marketwatch's Bambi Francisco.

While there are efficiencies in providing all services, that's a lot of areas of expertise for one company. Publishers such as partner Time-Warner may not want to put all of their eggs in one basket and prefer to sell their own advertising. Also, conflicts will result when companies that want to be a video destination are buying technology from a company that is a competitor.

If I were them I'd focus on the technology and distribution aspects, becoming the Akamai-like experts in video distribution. Bundling the advertising piece will work with some clients, but not everyone. Competing head on with YouTube etc. for eyeballs will be a rough business that could take away from the lucrative margins of the technology side of the business.

Websites look to have friends and family put them on the top of the Digg heap will have to work a bit harder.

Digg has reportedly adjusted its algorithm so that more diggs are needed for posts to get primo placement.

With more data out that newspapers are hemorrhaging readers to the web, perhaps a company such as Hearst or Knight-Ridder should buy Digg and implement its technology company wide, much like Conde Nast plans on doing with Reddit.

Hearst is organizing its magazine properties such as Cosmopolitan, O, Good Housekeeping and Country Living into a digital network, and similarly organizing the content from the Houston Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, San Francisco Chronicle and allowing readers to vote would boost the traffic of all sites and compete head on with Yahoo and Google News.

Watching recorded video through video on demand services or DVRs like TiVo maybe be only a fraction of TV viewing today, but I say it will surpass "live" TV watching by 2012.

Approximately 4 % of TV watching today is done through DVRs or VOD through cable or satellite, according to Leichtman Research Group. But that's double the figure it was just two years ago. And when you consider that this fall was the first time that the networks are also streaming prime time programs online, the pressure to extend these services is now even greater.

VOD is now in 25 million homes, and 60 percent of digital cable subscribers have used VOD, up from 25 percent two years ago, according to LRG. About 12% of households in the United States now have a DVR - up from 3% just two years ago.

There are lots of programs that we would watch if they were on at a more convenient time for today's modern families. With having to rush to a soccer game, working late or sacking out early because of the strains of the day, parents that are now missing out on the best programs don't have to. Daytime shows like Oprah and Ellen are already being repeated in the evenings, but DVRs further expand their reach.

TV has never had so many competitors. Folks without kids maybe at a concert, bar, or immersed in Everquest or Second Life, and setting up the DVR to make sure you don't miss House lets you have a social life and your favorite shows.

I also noticed that invaluable resource IMDB now shows you the next times that your favorite movies will be shown on broadcast or cable. Being able to schedule TV to your life and not vice versa is a desirable reality. Advertisers and network programmers have to adjust their business models accordingly.