Continuing misfortunes suggest its not a great time to own a newspaper.
The New York Times continues to suffer with the slump in advertising really hitting home.
Marketing guru Seth Godin has posted a great blog article looking at the ways in which a newspaper could turn itself around in the current climate.
As Seth mentions (and I have highlighted before) the mindset of a newspaper organisation is defined by the daily news cycle which in itself is defined by “cost of paper, the finite nature of paper, the cost of delivery and the cycle of a daily paper. You run enough articles to fit as many ads as you can sell. These are artifacts of a different age, one that today’s consumer doesn’t care a whit about.”
So Seth puts forward some great suggestions for newspaper organisations, mainly focused around understanding and utilising the assets the brand has at its disposable in the digital environment.
This is all about not standing still. Moving with the times and realising that a business has changed or the society in which the business operates has changed.
There is great, practical advice here for any business or start-up: build and optimise your best asset and build value around that. Then don’t rest on your laurels. Stay ahead of the game and develop new ways to grow new assets or develop existing ones. For anyone marketing or publicising a brand, identifying these assets is vital. And an asset could be a great number of things, from the brand itself to a product, service, specicialism, thought, customer, idea, person, supporter….
It is a theme that Seth also explores in his book, Purple Cow, which I also highly recommend.
Whilst I still appreciate that it is slightly ironic to have a magazine dedicated to digital media, the revamped Revolution really seems to tick all the right boxes.
Revolution lost it’s way somewhat when it changed from a weekly to a monthly title and was unable to properly differentiate itself from rival title NMA.
This has now all changed.
The new magazine perfectly positions itself. It’s not a simple news delivery vehicle; this is never going to work for a monthly, with so many websites doing a better, more immediate job (and with NMA doing its best to pick up the rest). Nor it’s it going to be able to compete with blogs and industry opinions formers; it is not immediate enough to be able to respond. What it can do however, is take a step back. Properly analyse, predict and report on longer term issues, strategies and trends.
And this is demonstrated in the launch issue. The first 14 or so pages are dotted with short, sharp news items (not the same predictable pieces you have read throughout the month), including the innovative ‘world-wide web’ double-page looking at digital stories throughout the world.
A few pages of good quality opinion pieces gives way to a number of feature-like pieces, centering on a longer section looking at Google’s 10th birthday and ’search’ in general. The content isn’t trying to be blog-like, but neither is it page after page of arduous text - effective design and fresh page layout plays a key role here.
The magazine ends with a section entitled “The Work” - a series of case studies and examples of real digital work and innovation in practice: a great addition (if still predictably dominated by the usual big brands and big agencies - when some of the real innovation often occurs lower down the food chain).
Both NMA and Revolution plan to redevelop their websites [long overdue in my humble opinion] and it may be that this is where their future really lies [although they better get a move on as they will soon be eclipsed IMHO].
But Revolution deserves credit for bringing in a new team and working hard to create a publication that stands out from the crowd and fills a niche and a need, that readers (and no doubt advertisers) will welcome.
Tomorrow the FT will launch a new homepage on its FT.com website.
It is quite hard to review the developments in detail until the site is live and can be used, but the screenshots released today show a few interesting changes. Firstly the use of the FT’s iconic ‘pink’ as a background colour (this will apparently be rolled out site-wide in due course). Also, the title is now Financial Times rather than FT.com.
The header also looks very ‘Newspapery’ in design. Indeed, speaking with paidContent:UK, FT.com editor James Montgomery suggests that increasing the parallels between print and online is deliberate. He adds that
“We think the Financial Times is a very strong brand and we want the website to have that core brand identity, not be some separate distant thing that it has been in the past.”
I don’t have a problem with a website trying to look like a newspaper per se and I can understand the thinking behind it. The FT’s brand image is very closely aligned with the print version - I always think of the pin-striped suit/FT-pink combo!
I can remember the Independent trying a similar layout in the past and it never seemed to gel properly. It will be interesting to see how the usability of the homepage works when it is launched tomorrow.
I will also be intigued to see how the ‘incremental’ development process works throughout the rest of the site. This is the route that the Guardian and BBC both adopted for their recent redesigns and, whilst I can see the obvious benefits, with the Guardian in particular, I couldn’t help but feel that the whole site became disjointed and lacked cohesiveness throughout the transitional period.
Journalism.co.uk has an interesting video interview (see below) with Kate Mackenzie, interactive editor for the FT, who describes how the new content management system will help to define the editorial decisions made: “At the moment we have a fairly old-fashioned approach to organising the relationship between stories online, but it’s going to become a lot more dynamic and tag driven.”
This is a more interesting development and embraces the unique ability of a website to help users discover information that is of interest that they might not have discovered otherwise.
The event was chaired by Nico Macdonald (consultant) and the panel included Neil McIntosh (Head of Editorial Development, guardian.co.uk), Justin Williams (Assistant Editor at the Telegraph Media Group), Martin Stabe (online editor, Retail Week), Tim Gopsill (editor of The Journalist) and Mike Rowley, (Director of Digital Publishing – Northcliffe Media)
The debate covered a lot of ground - far too much to discuss in detail here - but I wanted to draw on some of the main themes and I might return in due course to explore certain areas in more detail:
Defining Journalism - In these days where citizen journalists are cropping up everywhere, boundaries between traditional journalists and amateurs are blurring. It will be interesting to see whether the NUJ attempts to tackle this head-on.
Delivery - There was much discussion about how content was delivered by Newspaper organisations (not necessarily through their Newspapers!). In terms of online news, Justin Williams even went so far as to suggest that The Telegraph is experimenting with post-moderation, where journalists would be able to post comments immediately (like bloggers) with editorial moderating occurring after the event. This is essentially designed to speed up the process, as getting news live asap is crucial in digital media, especially with the growth of micro-blogging.
Prism of Newspapers - This is a great phrase and was one of the major takeaways for me. It does seem that so many Newspaper organisations continue to view news through the prism of a Newspaper (and broadcast media through the TV etc.). This is a very dangerous path indeed. The Guardian’s attempt to publish a daily PDF version (not to mention the ability to be able to view the actual paper online!) as well as the ever present (and ever failing) ‘e-reader’ being examples of this frame of mind.
Right content in the right way at the right time - Again, another crucial takeaway. Essentially every consumer of news only ever wants to receive content that is right for them, delivered in the most efficient (and cheapest) way at any one particular time. Yes, I might want to flick through the Metro on the train, but I don’t want to read it in the office, just as I don’t want to glance at the BBC website on my iPhone while sitting in front of the TV. As our requirements and expectations change, the media has to be flexible to adapt and change as well. And technology will undoubtedly be the biggest driver in changing our requirements.
So what is the conclusion?
Personally I don’t see a great future for ‘the Newspaper’. Were I not in PR, I would rarely pay for one. My consumption is naturally online. I know this is partly generational and as a so-called ‘digital native’, I am not ‘the norm’. However the Internet is growing and with the rise of netbooks, portable computers and iPhone-like mobiles, the ultra-portability of digital media is just around the corner.
Mass media should be far from dead, but I think it is struggling. This is especially true of the larger media institutions who are traditionally focused around a Newspaper. These are the organisations that find technology difficult. Despite talented and forward looking employees, they seem to be struggling to change.
I imagine size plays a big in this. This institutions seem to lack the flexibility to change and innovate, but it is possible, as parts of the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC are gradually demonstrating.
There is a great post over on the BBC Internet Blog, in which Adam Hutchinson reveals the work he has done examining how BBC viewers consume and share media:
“In early 2008, we studied how people find, play, personalise and share programmes across different devices and services - like BBC iPlayer, Sky+, YouTube, peer-to-peer and traditional TV and radio. We discovered what is important for people and what problems they face. “
As has already been seen to some extent, the growth of digital technologies radically increases the number of ways in which we are able to consume all types of media and, through it, information. TV is a good example of how this is happening in practice, but there are similar trends occuring everywhere. And, as Adam discusses, this very neatly moves into obvservations around social technologies and how we share and broadcast information ourselves to our friends, peers and even strangers.
As Adam highlights, one of the major developments is choice. Whereas previously all our TV viewing would likely have been focused around only a few channels, now we have vastly increased options, not to mention PPV, Sky+ and the iPlayer to name a few. This choice exists online too with the exponential increase of information sources, from blogs and news portals to social media and instant messaging.
Added to this is the ‘democratisation of media’, through which we are encouraged to broadcast our own thoughts and feelings far and wide and ‘engage’ in conversations and discussions.
The way in which we link all these different actions is something I find really fascinating. Are we more likely to share a blog post through social media as opposed to news we read in a newspaper through word of mouth? Do we prefer to consume certain types of information through specific media channels?
As Adam states, the really exiciting element is when ‘the media’ starts to use this information to change the way they operate and improve the user experience. And from a PR viewpoint, this also has obvious, far-reaching implications and considerations.
I’m off to an event tonight looking at the future of newspapers, and I expect that some of the themes explored here will be debated there in more detail…
This blog has been living for two months and there has yet to be a ‘top xx’ list! Well, that will be remedied today with our look at the top online locations to follow the US election.
This follows an earlier post looking at how technological developments have influenced the election so far (and it is also a nice, fun inclusion for our October email newsletter, which you can subscribe to by emailing us!).
So here goes, in reverse order:
5) Traditional media (online) - It is no surprise that media outlets around the globe are rushing to provide 24-hour online coverage of the US election. State-side, USA Today - America’s most widely read paper, has a great interactive map for those that want to check where exactly Idaho is, and Murdoch’s New York Post gives a slightly different perspective! Back at home, the Guardian leads the way with a detailed microsite covering everything from news and video to weather reports and a poll tracker. As ever, the BBC does a solid job of giving you everything you could possibly need.
4) New media - There is developing a new brand of online professional journalism that falls someway between the old media organisations, aiming to stamp their mark on the web, and the ‘amateur-blogger’ types. These so-called ‘professional blog networks’ are appearing all over the place. The best known (especially in the US) is the Huffington Post (which incidentally alone ranks above 11 US newspaper websites), where you can find tonnes of comment and commentary on what is going on. Another one to check out is Politico, which has really taken off through the duration of this election campaign.
3) YouTube - The popular video site remains the place to go for all your election video needs. McCain and Obama obviously have their own channels, but you can also pick up a selection of media outlets and their offerings not to mention the array of viral videos that the candidates would rather you didn’t see!
2) Bloggers - Understandably the blogosphere is all-over the election. Blogs range from journalists following the candidates and their every move, to supporters on both sides aiming to tell the world their latest thoughts and comments. And of course the candidates themselves: Obama and McCain. Potentially the most interesting blog out there, is John McCain’s own daughter, Meghan, and her blog: McCain Blogette!
and the winner is…
1) Twitter - of course! The election looks as though it will be the event that starts to bring Twitter to the masses in the US (we are still a bit further behind over here). Twitter has launched a great election microsite where you can see up-to-date ‘tweets’ on the election in real-time. Expect this to be buzzing as the results roll in. It’s worth following during the debates too! Of course the candidates (@McCain/@Obama) have their own feeds and so does the media (@GuardianUS08, @ElectionExpress and @Reuters_Trail08).
With the credit crunch really making waves this week, FT.com must be hoping that the bad news continues to roll in after revealing that page views on Thursday were up a staggering 300% on this time last year, and unique users up 250%.
FT.com’s MD, Rob Grimshaw was careful in his response:
“It’s very, very gratifying to us that although a lot of things going on in the financial market are very worrying, people turn to the FT brand when they really need to know what’s happening in the global economy.”
Going through my feedreader looking at posts I had missed whilst away on holiday for the last few weeks, I came across a post by Techcrunch UK’s Mike Butcher in which he reveals the top 15 ways to get covered by him on TCUK. It’s important reading for anyone involved in the startup space and for PRs.
Mike freely admits that the inspiration for his post was Jason Calacanis and a recent scribe on his (now infamous) email list. Following Mike’s original post, French entrepreneur Loïc Le Meur also posted a follow-up, which too is worth reading.
Mike, Jason and Loïc are all obviously approaching this theme from a certain standpoint. But, despite this, there are some really interesting issues raised in the three posts that I wanted to pull out and discuss.
Journalists are “self-serving” - an obvious point from Mike but one that is often neglected by PRs and clients/vendors/startups. Journalists are part of a business like everyone else (a business that is getting more competitive every day). Give them something that makes them look good and gives them competitive advantage.
Go for the niche - This is one of Jason’s comments: “embrace small media outlets”. Too many PRs and clients get caught up chasing that elusive double page in the FT that is 99.9% of the time never going to happen. Often this is a waste of time, money and effort on all parts. Much better to target smaller publications or outlets that have a smaller but dedicated and targeted readership.
Start a conversation - This is a theme that is picked up on each post. Try and have meaningful conversations with journalists and influencers (bloggers included). This is easier said than done and I would also point out that a two-way conversation is just that. If some ‘influencers’ put more effort into communicating rather than moaning about PRs, both industries would possibly work better as a result. But as Mike states, the reverse is also true - companies (and PRs) that don’t read, listen or communicate (i.e. only ’send’) will have a hard time being heard: “Yes, Kevin Rose lives for Digg and Loic Le Meur goes on and on about Seesmic. But they also put real content into the marketplace as well. They are active commentators.” PRs that do not read and understand what individual writers or publications are interested in/focused on, cannot complain when journalists or bloggers get fed up or annoyed by their poorly targeted pitching.
The Purple Cow - Having just read Seth Godin’s book (I will blog on it soon), this is a fundamental point. The best PR in the world is only ever going to be as good as the story he/she has to work with. Having something interesting and ‘news-worthy’ to say to your target audience is vital. [The bit in italics is important as a story that is news-worthy to one journalist or outlet or blog will not be to another.]
So what does all this mean for the PR industry? For me, Mike hits the nail on the head:
“The best PRs behave like the best contacts - they keep in contact, float ideas, check if something is of interest before bothering to send you a full-blown release, etc etc.”
I have been meaning to blog about a recent survey that caught my eye. It looks at the attitudes of PRs to the online v offline coverage debate (I mentioned it briefly in a previous post).
Gordon Macmillan brought the survey to my attention and since then others have contributed (including here if my Vietnamese is up to scratch…). Andrew makes a great point about perception versus reality in terms of media consumption.
I don’t have much to add in all honesty, but do strongly feel that this is (unfortunately) a poor reflection on our industry if these survey results are indeed to be believed.
There is no doubt that client opinions have much to do with this print-is-everything mindset, but that is no excuse, as we are supposed to be the so-called ‘experts’. Any agency that does not at the very least have an understanding of the complex nature of ‘online’ (or digital or 2.0 or whatever you want to call it) needs to tread very carefully indeed. SEO, social media and the like are no longer dots on the horizon. These aren’t terms that can be sprinkled in new business pitches without any true ‘understanding’.
So, that’s it. As predicted last week, IT Week is to cease publication and merge with Computing with the Computing website handling breaking news and the ‘new look’ magazine containing a news round-up alongside more in-depth comment and analysis.
This comes as no surprise seeing the congestion of having two very similar weekly publications in the Incisive Media stable. IT Week was a good magazine with some good writers and the (much needed) redesign suggested that it was still evolving and moving forwards.
And yet, money makes the world go round and the media is dependent on those advertising pounds. Tim Weller, group chief executive of Incisive Media:
Our advertisers want the demand-generation benefits of online, yet the reassurance of print. Delivering the right content in the right medium increases its chances of being read, offering advertisers greater opportunities to interact with audiences.
This brings about an interesting question about the sustainability of print publications, especially in the trade press. This is not a new debate with, for example, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer recently suggesting that in 10 years there “will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form.”
Interesting too that this comes within a month of IT Pro’s editor, Chris Green, disclosing that every few months he runs a contributor/traffic analysis to measure the site’s “page impressions (PIs) and unique user visits (UUs) generated by author, rather than by article type or section.”
Chris adds: “The end result is that we have the traffic generated by an author alongside how much we’ve spent with them over the given period.”
Traffic, popularity and page impressions is where it’s at!
Time will tell just how this one plays out and too much forward-looking analysis is perhaps dangerous (even headline-grabbing statements from Microsoft CEOs). It will be interesting to see how Computing evolves and manages the print v. online conundrum and also how PR evolves as a result.
This debate still has legs. I wonder who will be next…
I must say, I’m impressed.
Tomorrow the FT will launch a new homepage on its 
