11 responses so far ↓

• 1 rksmith // Aug 25, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  Isn’t publishing really all about data generation? Despite their current woes, trade publishers realised a long time ago that you can “bribe” a subscriber to hand over valuable data by providing relevant and useful content. They then went on to make plenty of money out of that data. I know many a trade magazine that, as a magazine, is a flop but as a list is a goldmine. The question is whether consumer publishers (particularly in the UK where they are way too dependent on the retail channel) are ready to imitate this model. They have already put aside editorial preciousness to give away some of the content online but most are making a hash of persuading the individual to part with their valuable data in return.

  Rosemary Smith, Opt-4

• 2 dflower // Aug 26, 2009 at 11:09 am

  I agree with Rosemary’s comment on data and also know of several titles that attract very little revenue, but are still the best way of promoting the ‘brand’. They are the best means to launch other initiatives and maintain the attention of their audience, promoting the introduction of industry-focused events (awards, etc) and a variety of online options that have the potential to attract revenue and make the operational profitable. Too many magazines have been withdrawn from circulation without exploring the various additional options available.

  Dennis Flower, Service Management

• 3 markroy // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:48 am

  I love magazines. Call me old fashioned, but no amount of fancy rich media-ing and e-bookery will ever replace the feel of having the printed page in one’s hands. That said, a lot of mags have gone to the wall of late. Lack of advertising’s the oft-quoted cause, but many were just plain out-of-touch, dull and/or working to financially unviable business plans. Are they missed? By and large, no.

  Content delivery speed and ’stickiness’ are the secrets to both online and offline publishing success nowadays, in my opinion. Like many a multi-channel marketing campaign, publishers must have the channel mix right: online can satisfy delivery speed and interactivity requirements; while having cross-platform topical, interesting content is always going to have readers coming back for more. Right content, right channel, right reader, right time - publishing’s got to get back-to-basics like everyone else as we (hopefully) ride out this recession.’

  Mark Roy, CEO, The REaD Group plc

• 4 stephand2m // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  In times of social media, twitter etc. news are spread and available instantly online. Even the results of elections to German state parliaments have been available before the first official computer predictions have been published on TV. But new media often lack of detailed information, backgrounds and depth. So all new media could be described as the “fast-food” version, whereas (paid) print publications should supply a “full menu” of high quality. Then people are willing to pay for them.
  But too often publishers tried to imitate the way news are presented in the popular new media instead of differing themselves and focusing on their strengths - quality and accuracy.
  This would bring readers back and advertisers would follow then.
  My personal experience - as a person being online around half of my day - confirms this: Many “news” are not really new to me anymore, when I read them on printed paper. I have been aware of them already via other channels. But I am still reading relevant papers and magazines because I am interested in backgrounds and - call me old fashioned as well - am not willing to scroll down on my PC forever.
  Publishers will get paid for relevance and quality. Online should not be the blamed for everything. Instead it should be part of an integrated approach with a focus on the strengths of each “world”.

  Stephan Merz, Founder & Owner, d2m direct marketing merz

• 5 dsacks // Sep 16, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  Mark R. & Stephen M are correct. Content(quality) is King. If you give people what they want, they will buy. Buyers mean more advertisers. Even the youthful Twitterers and Facebook Faithful have to grow up eventually and see that “all the news fit to print” are the same stories just distributed over 14 different channels. The news story I see on MSN.com is on my local TV news that evening (twice) and in the Wall Street Journal and my local newspaper the next day. And the stories are drivel. Info-tainment, not news or commentary. But if publications fire their journalists all they can do is poach this type of crap and the cycle contnues to spiral toward oblivion. They are killing themselves by underestimating their readership, assuming they are all stupid. Pare down, create specialty publications and thrive. Certainly the major news weeklies are history. But there is plenty of room for healthy growth among niche publications. Reader’s Digest troubles were that the average age of their subscriber base was 97 ten years ago. Where are they all today, I wonder.

  Doug Sacks

• 6 markbridges // Sep 16, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  All great comments here I think. A combination of high-quality audience data and targeting of the appropriate content via the appropriate channel is essential. I don’t believe that “free” content of any worthwhile substance will endure unless it is profitably paid for by advertisers, or reverts to charging the user-certainly not to the extent that this alone will provide a publisher with a valid excuse for failing.

  Mark Bridges MB Direct International

• 7 jorgen // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:44 am

  First of all I really hope many publishers read this! Really good comments from all!
  First of all I think the publishers did a monumental mistake when they launched their websites. In the process of catching up with the rest of the .com boomers, they lost touch with the whole business idea of the whole process. It all had to be free! So here they are – in the shit (excuse my French). So how to get out of it? The fundamental idea is always to ask yourself “what makes my services different?” “What do I offer that my competitors don’t?” And once you’ve found that out – the multimillion question is: how can I charge for it?
  I mostly read news online, and as Stephan, once the paper copy comes out, it is not news anymore. However, I also subscribe to the Economist and as part of it I also have access to their online portal; which I have never used! Why, because I like sitting at home on Saturday morning reading in-depth articles about what is going on in the world. So to me the Economist could have saved themselves the investment of a huge website, and simply made it as a subscription tool (I prefer subscribing online, as a result of an email, rather than sending my credit card details by mail).
  I have actually tried to pay for an article online, but the process was too long and old fashioned that I simply gave up. Perhaps some of the publishers need some training on how to tackle the 21st century consumer behavior? Have they ever asked you if you would be interested in paying for their content? They’ve never asked me!

• 8 huwneill68 // Sep 17, 2009 at 10:39 am

  In my experience, too many publishing companies are using outdated methods of marketing to their potential customers, particularly in the b2C arena. The content you find in traditional consumer magazines is more readily available online from a myriad of sources and the publishers themselves haven’t been behind the curve in ensuring not only that they are also online with their editorial content, but that they can offer added-value with it. The problem is how to add value to consumer content – audience interactivity in the form of blogs? Offering news and views that can’t be found elsewhere? The problem with the consumer market is the kind of content they offer is generally always available elsewhere. Historically, the vast majority of the readers of consumer magazines have always bought via the trade rather than directly through subscription, which means they know who their customers are only in terms of more market segments rather than in-depth profiles. Hence, mass marketing and promotion rather than direct-marketing has been the way forward. Now however, with the dual print/online channels, they have a greater opportunity than ever to get information about the non-subscription readership by acquiring their data online and getting permission to use it. The problem is that too few publishers are thinking in these terms and still want to go down a more traditional route.

  This is why b2b publishers are at an advantage – despite falling sales of their print versions and freefalling advertising revenue, what they do have is 1) content that can’t be easily found elsewhere (particularly in niche markets) and 2) a far greater understanding of who exactly their customers are and where to find them. Until consumer publishing companies fully buy into this, they are always going to be at a disadvantage. Business models have to change in terms of content delivery, but also more direct marketing expertise has to be brought to bear rather than more traditional mass-marketing methods that some of those going to the wall seem to still be plying.

  That said, even b2b publishers are prone to inertia and doing things the way they’ve always done them, paying only lip-service to anything ‘online/social media’ related, or investigating direct-marketing methods over their traditional approach.

• 9 jelliott // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  This is a good example of a situation where the recession is a catalyst, and not a cause. If the press are struggling to keep afloat now, the problem will be compounded in 10-15 years time, when a generation who take the abundance of free information available to them for granted, replace the majority of the buying public. It’s more than just a shift in preference, it’s a culture change. The question that publishers need to be asking is, if they are going to print a tangible publication, how will this fit in and around the users online reading habits? It’ll take a lot of research and trial-and-error to work out the answer, but I suspect it’ll be.. not at all.

• 10 rksmith // Sep 23, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  For an interesting (if somewhat cynical) analysis of the problems publishers face with micro payments check out this link http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/micropayments-for-news-the-holy-grail-or-just-a-dangerous-delusion

  Rosemary Smith - Opt-4

• 11 garydold1 // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  This is a great forum for communication and sharing expertise in the direct marketing industry. All of the comments made here are well outside the black box of the past, and in my estimate show the direction and how to for the future of publishing. If marketing organizations would read and listen to what is being said by all of these experienced people, then the publishing industry and direct marketers in general will find themselves in a healthy position in the near future.

  Gary Dolderer
  Brokers Worldwide

You must log in to post a comment.