Opinion, Analysis and News from MarketingProfs Opinion. Commentary. News.
BLOG HOME RSS/XMLBOOK CLUBMARKETING PROFS
   
 
Cam Beck Cam Beck   Bio
04.23.08

The Publisher's Paradox: Why Traditional Advertising Models Are Dead

stumbleupon digg del.icio.us

Against the backdrop of incessant reporting about record reductions in newspaper subscriptions and advertising revenue, I read a recent article that stated the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is losing about $20 million per year.

This made me wonder about not only newspapers, but also all content publishers in a world filled with information foragers who are more likely to reward link aggregation utilities like Google than the actual creators of the content. It is in these moments of reflection that I must ask with all sincere empathy, "Is this model sustainable?"

Before we explore the topic, though, we should retrace our steps to figure out how we got here.

The old model of publishing

  1. Attract an audience through compelling content.
  2. Sell advertising to those looking to reach your audience.

When the audience consumed the content, sometimes the advertising worked, and sometimes it didn't. But whatever the case, the content publishers were able to sustain themselves and grow because companies found it worthwhile to invest in the effort.

When people started getting more advertising messages than they could possibly be asked to remember, they tuned most of them out. Instead of adapting then and there by giving people what they wanted (partially due to the immaturity of the industry) , companies instead chose to advertise in greater quantities as well as more intrusively.

As a result, when innovators with more heart and vision than (arguably) concrete business sense offered people the opportunity to pay attention to something else, people gladly took it.

Arising out of that came the expectation that certain things are free, and they could, in most cases, ignore most of the ads they were served. Anyone who insisted on forcing ads upon them could also be abandoned for someone else less intrusive.

It became apparent, then, that in order to be successful as a content publisher, a company must learn the most basic attributes of their common audiences.

What is with these people?

  1. They dislike being interrupted by advertising.
  2. They don't want to pay for things that have customarily been free.
  3. They insist advertising be appropriately labeled as advertising.
  4. They sometimes appreciate finding out about some unique products that will benefit their lives.
  5. They don't want to tell you more about themselves than is necessary to tactically deliver something that uses their information to deliver.

The publisher's paradox

Points 1 and 2 suggest the answer is to sell advertising as content, but this violates point 3.

If we are to rely on appropriately labeled advertising, point 4 suggests we harness the ability to deliver exactly the right ad in exactly the right way to exactly the right person at exactly the right time, which up until now has been impossible without gathering so much information about the consumer that we effectively violate point 5.

Understanding all of this, we have a choice. We can either stand and curse the situation or seek to do something about it.

We can strive to shift consumer attitudes about the acceptability of interruption advertising, shift attitudes about how advertising is labeled, or rely on a different form of marketing that is (pulling from my memory of at least one of Seth Godin's books):

  1. Invited
  2. Welcome
  3. Expected

Shifting attitudes about anything, particularly advertising, is a fool's errand. Attempts to change the way people think or to "perfect" humanity have unerringly led to failure, so from an advertiser's view, the prospective ROI is reduced proportionally to perceived risk at the attempt.

Therefore, to compensate for the realities of points 1-5, companies look for ways to get the word out through other means, including by PR -- with getting mentioned in a bona fide news article in the New York Times being the Holy Grail of such efforts, or by (albeit reluctantly) publishing their own content and developing a more direct relationship, at some level, with the audiences themselves.

Both of these options potentially reduce the income of the publishing companies, which without severely reducing operating costs, is not sustainable.

The final option is to sell something tangible that people value.

The marketplace has changed. The sooner we marketers get that through our thick skulls, the better we can serve our customers.

The marketplace can no longer be driven by simple, traditional advertising but will instead be driven by content and the slow art of the customer seduction. Exceptions abound, but in general your prospects and loyal customers are not interested in a one-night stand.

Making the ads bigger, more plentiful or more intrusive is not going to help us solve the paradox. Barring some global paradigm shift, we cannot  count on people changing their attitudes and acceptance of advertising. Therefore, we have to rely on our wits to change the way we approach them.

At first that may sound scary, but it's far less scary than relying on a system that by design is fundamentally unsustainable. - Cam Beck



Read more on this subject:
Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships Advertising Branding Content Customer Behavior Customer Relationships advertising crisis marketing traditional


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mpdailyfix.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/12403

Comments

Cam, It’s ironic that even as the new model plays out, the race is still on to find more ways to cram more ads in our face. I wish the new model would hurry up and get here.

Posted by: Jay Ehret | 04.23.08

The best model is to provide tons of excellent content for free. That gets people interested in you and they realize that you know what you're talking about.

You then provide even better premium content for a fair price that they want to buy.

You then sell them the premium content for a fair price. You make money and they are happy. Everyone is happy. Everyone is treated fairly. Everyone wins.

Forget selling advertising.

To me, that's the new business model.

MrAchievement
Stanley Bronstein
Attorney, CPA, Author, Blogger & Professional Motivational Speaker

Posted by: MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein) | 04.23.08

Cam,

Fabulous analysis. In some ways, I agree with Stanley. "Forget selling advertising." Except for my retail clients, I seldom recommend the marketing tool to my clients.

Here is my takeaway from your analysis: Businesses should focus on building relationships with their clients, customers, readers, listeners and viewers, and their marketing efforts stand a good chance of succeeding.

Posted by: Lewis Green | 04.24.08

Jay - Based on my last visit to Ad:Tech, I can report to you that some people are starting to get it, but they're sometimes still a bit tethered to the old world. I'm hoping that this will lay the foundation for their future understanding. We'll see.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.24.08

Stanley - That model has worked for some companies, but I don't think it's the only one that can work. It depends on the situation. That premium content must be especially compelling to work, and it must be digestible by those who are willing to foot the bill. This may mean that it has to be flexible, portable and, in some way, shape, or form, transferable.

This may mean that the content might be cannibalized, so this has its own challenges.

Good insight, though. Thank you for sharing it.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.24.08

Lewis - That's right. I intentionally am short on tactics and long on principle in this post specifically because the tactics are going to change over time.

If you lay out the case for the principles right, the correct strategy is more likely to follow than if you just become tethered to a specific tactic.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.24.08

kinda funny that one suggestion you present is to use PR to get mentioned in a traditional publishing outlet, the NY Times, which is struggling with all of the above itself. What's saddest at newspapers is that flagging revenues are leading to layoffs of editorial staff, i.e., fewer reporters to whom you can pitch your story, fewer reporters to write about your company's market. So much for making "really great content" the one thing that must remain constant.

Support your (local) newspaper!!!

Posted by: patricia | 04.24.08

Patricia - Great point! That's why it's a paradox. :)

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.24.08

Jay, you are definitely correct that the premium content must be exceptional, or people won't buy it.

I guess the key then is to do what it takes to produce quality content.

By the way sir, the content on your blog IS quality content.

I read a ton of these types of blogs daily and yours is definitely one of the better ones.

MrAchievement
Stanley Bronstein
Attorney, CPA, Author, Blogger & Professional Motivational Speaker

Posted by: MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein) | 04.24.08

Yes, it is a paradox, Cam.

Despite the gloom & doom we keep hearing about newspapers, I still think they have something to offer consumers and advertisers, as I wrote last week on my 2 cents ( http://reichcomm.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/04/taking-a-new-lo.html )

But the publishers and ad sales reps need to do a better job marketing what they offer to advertisers.

And then there are some, like one of my clients who is CEO of a major media agency here in NY, who boldly says that newspapers have absolutely nothing to offer advertisers anymore that they can't find elsewhere for more impact and possibly less money. I hope he's wrong in his assessment.

Posted by: David Reich | 04.24.08

I think online publishing is the best tool to increase the subscriptions as the online readership rate is increasing rapidly. This is the only solution to save the industry from dooming. Distribution over the new technology mediums will work well and it will increase the revenues. I heard that there is some companies like http://www.pressmart.net which is distributing over the new technology mediums and I think these kind of tools will work well!

Posted by: John smith | 04.25.08

David - Although I haven't worked at a newspaper in about 11 years, the thought of never again being able to walk into a pressroom when the newspapers are being printed makes me sad. I hope they can turn it around, but they're really going to have to stretch themselves to do it.

I'd also hate to see the smaller guys lose out to big conglomerations like the NYT or USA Today, but the challenges facing the industry may require more resources than the little guys can bear.

I hope not, though.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.25.08

From all I hear and read, it's the "national" papers like USA Today and The NY Times that stand the best shot at long-term survival, while local papers have to face more reader and advertiser losses as local radio, TV and the web encroach.

Sad.

Posted by: David Reich | 04.25.08

Cam: Excellent analysis of the current terrain.

I think Mr. Achievement's suggestion to create "premium content" is not a long-term or scalable proposition: there's just not that much content people want to pay for, as many publications have found out. (wsj.com is a prime example: the pay status of many articles mostly just irks people and let us note that the Wall Street Journal is, along with the Times, the most respected newspaper in the US, so it's starting with a huge advantage.)

The second part of why that won't work is that there just aren't that many people who can create "premium content." It's a talent issue and that sort of talent has always been scarce.

I don't have a solution for the newspaper industry. Though I do think people will pay attention to advertising if there's less of it and if they realize it's *why* something is free. Especially if you give them the choice of paying to read it ad-free.

To switch gears slightly, I have a bigger fear related to the slow death of the newspaper industry: that we will lose the quality reporting we've come to expect from our newspapers. Most blogs and other online sources COMMENT on the news. They re-purpose other sources rather than actual reporting on the news and breaking stories.

Reporting the news (vs. commenting on it) is a full-time gig that requires a decent salary and more than a skeleton staff. I hope that we're able to retain the sort of news coverage that's necessary for a democracy going forward.

Posted by: Toad | 04.25.08

Toad - I was thinking about the plight of newspapers about a year and a half ago (http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2006/10/extra_extra_a_n.html if you're interested).

What I said then still applies to today, especially concerning smaller newspapers.

What they really need is an effective and profitable network of content (and advertising) delivery vehicles. I think we see it being developed in bits and pieces as, for instance, Monster.com and all of these offer services so that newspaper websites can be integrated with job classifieds, but a more robust solution encompassing the complete problem hasn't been developed.

Although I'm too far removed from it to really know anymore, there are probably organizations formed to tackle this very issue (and if there aren't any, there should be).

On one hand, newspapers may be reluctant to share information out of fear of losing their competitive advantage, but on the other hand they don't have the resources they need individually to develop a solution themselves in the time that they need it.

In a way, the small newspaper situation reminds me of the famous revolutionary Benjamin Franklin's words, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.."

Like you, I hope they are able to figure it out, and for many of the same reasons.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.26.08

Apparently there is an association of newspapers out there.

http://www.naa.org/

This is what they say about themselves: "NAA is a nonprofit organization representing the $55 billion newspaper industry. NAA members account for nearly 90 percent of the daily circulation in the United States and a wide range of nondaily U.S. newspapers. NAA also has many Canadian and International members. Educators, university newspapers, press associations and suppliers/vendors also are members. The Association focuses on six key strategic priorities that collectively affect the newspaper industry: marketing, public policy, diversity, industry development, newspaper operations and readership."

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.26.08

I personally find advertising has become so intrusive. If u look at inner city london, its hard to find a surface without some kind of ad. if a lot of people r like me, they r tuning them out now, walking straight past. i read a book where advertisers actually thought to use dna to create advetising on fish! i was aghast! can u imagine, we marketeers start to destroy the natural world all in the name of advertising. i wont be going that far.

Posted by: alliyah brown - lingoworx | 04.28.08

B O R I N G

Posted by: John | 04.28.08

Contextual advertising is my favorite because I notice it more, but what I notice is that I'm being advertised to.

Posted by: RussPagePR | 04.28.08

Alliyah - Advertising written on the DNA. So clever I wish I thought of it. So diabolical that I'm glad I didn't.

John - Which part?

Russ - I'm pretty sure the data supports your experience. However, contextual advertising requires you know a few important things about the user. Sometimes you can infer based on where they are within a site, and sometimes you can infer based on their behavior (search terms, clickthrough paths, etc.).

The difficult part for the marketer is to identify what is important information to gather, and what is just noise. Too much can stall the process of getting things done, and too little makes it hard to determine what exactly the context really is.

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.28.08

I love the broadsheet newspaper, and the journalism and editorials provided.

Here in Australia, as is probably the situation everywhere now, you can access most of the news stories for free on the web... but with loads of advertising attached. So the situation is improved, previously, I had to put up with buying something (half?) full of ads. Now I can get something full of ads for free!

Looking forward to the takeover of the new, but sad at the loss of the old institutions that it may bring.

Posted by: CS Thompson | 04.29.08

It might be interesting in what way Häusel's theory of neuro marketing interacts with this. Might be an interesting mix.

Posted by: Paul C. Schauer | 04.29.08

As long as advertisers can continue to buy good placement in newspapers and still get a reasonable return on investment, they will do so and be reasonably happy. I say this is the best outcome because to the reader you know it is an ad and if the creative attracts you, then alls fair. It is the sneaky advertiser that infiltrates the so called editorial process (like the stooge on talk back radio or in press releases that are simply top and tailed by lazy journalists) that have and will lead to the demise of the newspaper.

Good content sells in whatever form it is presented.

Posted by: Peter Gianoli | 04.29.08

Hi CS - Interesting perspective. I hope we never lose them entirely. I think it was Jefferson who said (paraphrasing, here) "If I had a choice between a government without the press or a press without the government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

Paul - I have to admit, I have no idea what you're talking about. But you gave me something to look up that sounds quite interesting. Thank you for sharing it. :)

Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.29.08

Multiple media creates the illusion of expanded reach.

Realistically it has become the symbol of over-reach, which forces the customer to develop selective filters.

To put the customer at the centre of your universe, you need to learn how your customer’s filters work and channel your media appropriately.

What does multiple media really mean to the customer?

My…

Eyes
Ears
Nose
Contact
Time
Place

Match your media to my values.
Learn how I like to gather and process information.
Be consistent in the presentation of this information across different media.
Be sensitive to how I interact with different media.
Put the functionality where it is needed to simplify my experience.
Demonstrate how you support a relationship with my interests in focus.

When you build a customer-centric marketing strategy apply media choices that are also customer-centric and you won't alienate your customers/prospects.

Posted by: Jon | 04.29.08

Post a comment

Most Active Posts

Login to Daily Fix  |  Contact the Editor  |  RSS/XML  |  Advertising

 

Copyright 2008 © Marketing Profs, LLC   |  User Agreement  |  Privacy  |  XML Site Map