Comments on: The Publisher’s Paradox: Why Traditional Advertising Models Are Dead

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:53:38 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:26:21 +0000

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.

By: Peter Gianoli

Peter Gianoli — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:25:57 +0000

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.

By: Paul C. Schauer

Paul C. Schauer — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:04:32 +0000

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

By: CS Thompson

CS Thompson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:35:19 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:07:45 +0000

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.

By: RussPagePR

RussPagePR — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:50:24 +0000

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

By: John

John — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:31:22 +0000

B O R I N G

By: alliyah brown - lingoworx

alliyah brown - lingoworx — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:21:16 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:31:44 +0000

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.”

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:32:56 +0000

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.

By: Toad

Toad — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:42:14 +0000

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.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:56:45 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:29:28 +0000

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.

By: John smith

John smith — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:48 +0000

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!

By: David Reich

David Reich — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:47:02 +0000

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.

By: MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein)

MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:59:01 +0000

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

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:46:08 +0000

Patricia – Great point! That’s why it’s a paradox.

By: patricia

patricia — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:59:54 +0000

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!!!

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:01:11 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:58:32 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:53:53 +0000

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.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:40:36 +0000

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.

By: MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein)

MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:03:31 +0000

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

By: Jay Ehret

Jay Ehret — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:32:43 +0000

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.