| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSMarshall McLuhan observed that the content of any new medium is the previous medium. Thus the printing press saw the typesetting and publication of oral histories, cinema led to films of books, and films became early content on television. So of course when the Internet came around, "old" media became Internet content -- including newspapers, magazines, radio programming, TV programming, even the medium of retail.
Still, online we assumed that there was some value to branded, professional, differentiated quality content. Say what you will about the death of the newspaper, you go to the Web site of the New York Times and you know what you're getting, thanks to 158 years of brand equity.
But there appears to be a movement afoot in the digital metrics space to attempt to deliver the audience of a specific publisher site -- let's say the Wall Street Journal -- by finding the people comprising that entity's audience across a myriad of other, long-tail, far-cheaper sites. In a recent article entitled "A Pricing Revolution Looms in Online Advertising," Business Week notes, "WSJ.com, for example, charges advertisers as much as $64.60 to show a banner ad to 1,000 viewers... But what if marketers could find new ways to reach the same audience-with ads on sites that won't charge nearly as much? What if those other ads cost as much as 95% less?"
What indeed? What happens if the business of advertising becomes so commoditized that it no longer matters where or how you reach an audience, only that you reach them as cheaply as possible? Suddenly, the vehicle becomes irrelevant. Invariably, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, much of the money that has funded the creation of content for the last 150 years will dry up. If it stops being economically feasible to BE the Wall Street Journal online, then there will be no Wall Street Journal audience to reach elsewhere.
In this age of Web 2.0, where content is portable and everyone is blogging, vlogging, friending and tweeting, it is important to remember that much of the content that comprises Web 2.0 is in fact good old branded content -- forwarded, linked, posted or retweeted. In fact, I just checked TwitterFon to see how many of the latest tweets from people I follow are references to traditional media. I can't help but note the first one I see is from our chairman Gian Fulgoni, and it says "Advertisers pay more to reach consumers." Turns out it is a MediaPost article that was posted on Facebook, and then tweeted by Gian. I see tweets referring me to PR Week, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and an online radio station -- and I only follow 36 people. The point being, pull the rug out from all that traditional branded content, and you've really pulled the rug out from most of the Web.
Does content matter? I'm convinced that it does. I've asked this question for years, and it is a simple one: If I reach the same person with the same ad in two different vehicles, does the ad perform differently depending on the vehicle? This is a fertile ground for testing, and I hope to be able to do some work in this area soon. And if you've done any research in this area -- the impact of vehicle on ad effectiveness - please let me know about it.
Consumers have relationships with marketer brands, but also relationships with branded media content. The value of these relationships is embodied in the concept of vehicle engagement (as distinct from ad engagement.) The premise of vehicle engagement is that the job of the media vehicle is not just to attract an audience -- like a watermelon attracts flies on a summer day -- but also to engage that audience in a way that adds value, providing a halo effect to the advertisers reaching the audience within that content. If I am a loyal Wall Street Journal reader (or visitor to wsj.com), exposure to your ad in the Journal or on the digital version makes a difference in how that ad works on me.
I worry that we might be in danger of moving from "content is king" to "content is irrelevant" in 10 short years. This is not a trip any of us should be anxious to take. The consumer relationship with branded content is an important part of the media planning, buying and selling equation. Marketers are extremely careful in selecting marketing partners in every other part of the marketing equation -- in sponsorships, co-branding, trade deals and so on. The media brands that you choose to partner with are every bit as important.
8 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
Newspaper profitability
Josh,
The issue is profitability. Existing levels of profitability in the newspaper industry are unsustainable when the industry can no longer dominate mass media. New media has an entirely different cost structure, and the ease of creating content online means that competition is prolific. I wonder if there also has to be a reality check when it comes to newspaper profitability for public companies? If those public companies were used to providing over 20% in profits. When Wal-mart receives 6% it may be a matter of investors adjusting their expectations because of the restructuring in the industry due to the web. (source PEW State of New Media)
Josh, you asked if content matters. If newspapers are cutting costs by firing writers, and quality reduces what affect does the loss of writers have on quality? Will readership further decline if quality lowers? And ad revenue fall further? Or does quality not matter?
In a study of 1,044 articles in 30 newspapers the type of content had little effect on how much readers trusted newspapers. One factor that did influence trust were adding "go and do" information in articles.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/6/1/7/p116178_index.html
Your point about new online news sites aggregating content from legacy media outlets makes a lot of sense. The PEW's State of the New Media 2009 report indicates just that, most of the new traffic online is going to aggregated news sites.
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_overview_keyindicators.php?media=1&cat=2
I recently heard that the WSJ is thinking of partnering with Google. Maybe the answer for old media is to do a deal with the devil and make sure there is revenue share and traffic fully coming their way.
I could go on and on on this but one classic example may suffice to demonstrate the trap that snares some advertisers if they go too far in this direction. Years ago, it dawned on movie advertisers that more people go the theaters on Fridays and Saturdays than on other nights. So, logically, it made sense to place more of their TV network ad dollars on Thursdays and Fridays to stimulate more next night "traffic". So far, so good. However once this concept was sold in to the theater chains, who rely on such ads to promote ticket and other sales, the insistence on Thursday and, to a lesser extent, Friday night schedules, by movie company time buyers allowed the networks to create special "movie rates" which were substantially higher than those paid by other marketers whose ads ran on the same shows on those two nights. Result: any advantage that movie advertisers gained by airing their spots the day before people went to the theaters was negated by higher CPMs. But now it was too late to to back and explain this to the theater chains, who had come to expect this kind of proximity or "timing" support, so the practice remains in force and the TV networks are the primary beneficiaries.
I'm not saying that editorial content should be disregarded. However, too many advertisers lock premium priced but "compatible" media into their ad budgets as "must buys"without considering the trade-offs or clearly defining the values of proximity to or association with "enhancing" media environments.
Why do I believe that "content is king" and share Josh's concern that we may be killing content in a few short years? Because people do NOT read/view/listen to the Internet. They read/view/listen to the CONTENT on the Internet. The Internet is the distribution vehicle. So when people say "don't shoot the messenger" they should also say "don't worship at the feet of false gods - especially Mammon".
Keep up the great work Josh!
I'm also wondering the business model behind old media, about a century old, is built on a DR-ROI model of audience saturation and marketers telling stories with statistics that become to brand marketers an collectively agreed on perception of effectiveness. We could do this while the consumer was inspired by the magic of marketing and ads. For today increasingly tech savvy people, media channels have no answer to with this audience refusal to allow any interruption to their goals online. The expectations are free and value. This is not lost on the brand marketers.
Lastly, I'm wondering as people become more informed, the creation of media loses the magic and all one sees is the creators. That more informed user, the analytics of their habits have spawn an entire industry itself, sees the ad before the message and the copy points.
Hope that helps.
To Paul VW: Hey mate, not really sporting to out-write me at my own column! Well said.
To Toby: Thanks. I wonder how many Mediapost readers know you as one of the two funniest members of the GW Hewlett High graduating class of '76?
To Sandra: I'm not suggesting that new forms of content aren't valuable; in fact, these new forms-- let's say for example the Drudge Report or Huffington Post-- become branded content on their own. Content needn't be old media to be branded qualilty content. My beef is with the ad sales model of disintermediatiing content altogether, and using, say, cookies and microtargeting to deliberately reach a vehicle's audience without using the vehicle, providing (let's call it) a generic or non-differentiated or even negative environment for ads to live, sold on the cheap. In Google's pitch for Ad Planner, they talked about aggregatiing long tail entities (who just happened to be in the Google Ad network) to let advertisers reach the ESPN audience, without having to use ESPN. How should ESPN feel about that? How should agencies feel about a systtem that takes strategy and art out of media planning and buying? At worst, to me this model borders on piracy. I know that's a controversial position-- which is why I didn't state it like that in the article. But my point is that there is such a thing as vehicle engagement, and using these established media brands (even newly established ones) carries value tat advertisers abandon at their own peril.
If your audiences are shifting to other news sources, it is not for us as advertisers to judge wrong or right – but we must ADAPT - as should the mainstream media sites. Any publisher out there without a blog presence is just plain stupid. And, I agree with @rena_bernstein in that those new content creators can also provide a new way to extend and gain new audiences. Rather than be afraid of what’s already happening, publishers need to establish relationships with bloggers, engage with their audiences in new ways and determine where their audience now goes and establish a presence, whether it’s blogs, Twitter or Facebook.
Advertising has real power to start a discussion, but it’s the opinions, friendships, tweets and connections of people that will ultimately help complete a marketing journey.
I think what you actually begin to suggest is that "context", tho perhaps not precisely fit to be our new king, essentially trumps placement, vehicle, unit etc in the mix.
You could almost argue that I am more likely to "see" an ad (the identical ad) in a 2nd or 3rd tier publishing environment than I am on WSJ or NYT.com since it either
a. stands out more, alone amongst lesser brands or
b. i am less blinded by the theoretically higher quality content that surrounds the ad.
This juxtaposition of content and marketing message - its context - is what makes me, the same audience on multiple publisher sites, more or less likely to click on an ad in one or the other. Or neither---let's not forget neither...
So we marketers have to sort out what relative context means to efficient CPM pricing across platforms for the same brand targeting similar, same (BT) or proxy audiences.
And while we're at it, we might want to take a look at the vanishing point fast approaching for what we've come to produce and serve as "online ad units".
Snap poll: when was the last time you clicked?...
Branded content still holds significant power over non-branded content because so much of what is available is not reliable. I would sooner trust information I read at the Wall Street Journal for example, than I would from some unknown blog and I think that sense of trust would reflect on the advertisers as well.
Of course there are sites that lift content, but do they really out number the new found viewers that clicked from Twitter, Digg, blogs or wherever to the original article?
A perfect example is this article. I would not have seen it had it not been referenced elsewhere. An excellent article. Mind if I link to it?
2. Content was and will always be king. Keep in mind, there is more than one country and more than one king. Different content for different audiences with various perspectives.
3. There is always a fluke where a particular video or such will blow the number of viewers out of the water for an amateur production. If you are planning to earn a living in content production by that standard, make sure you invest in plan B. 5000 people viewing what you did on line is only impressive to you.
The problem is quantifying the difference. If high value content is worth a $15 CPM, and I can use behavioral targeting to hit a similar demographic at a $2 CPM, where is the better value. Ultimately we need to look at research like this, and the research from McPheter's along with good metrics to make informed and supportable decisions about media mixes for advertising.
The success of search shows just the opposite: people want to control and direct their information flow. Why context-related advertising has been a successful model is that the ad agency knows "this is the ad that the WSJournal reader or American Idol viewer will see."
Otherwise, like Twitter or screaming a Tide advertisement out your apartment window, it's just random noise. And what marketer will pay for that?
more: http://www.mcpheters.com/news/TVMagazineAdsMoreEffectiveThanInternetAds.htm
I do online restaurant marketing, websites, email, etc, and was sent to a classy looking site that a new client wanted to replicate for a new restaurant they were opening.
The site consisted of page after page of recycled, repurposed, regurgitated dead-tree "words" (for lack of a better one-word description of unreadable symbols) reproduced in dark machine typefaces over very dark backgrounds of out-of-focus lamb shanks, qumquats, and assorted leafy greens. Content....Yummm!
Any experiential content that I might have found useful to influencing my decision to dine at the place, ie, pretty pictures of food or the restaurant interior, videos of people having fun at the bar, etc., were relegated to tiny icons below the fold on the very bottom of the page, which summoned up flash template slides of delicate little peicutres that were as precious as illustrations in a Sotheby's catalog.
Although the site was newly done, it reeked of, and neatly illustrated web 1.0's slavish respect of and belief in the mojo of old media.
Face facts, everyone in web2.0ville wants to be SEDUCED by media! Quick hot flashes that tantalize, amuse, entertain. No attention span, no desire for anything other than a good 5 second experience.
Nothing could be further from the thoughtful reading and interpretation of print media, no matter how important, erudite, witty or linguistically calisthenic. (apologies to David Foster Wallace, as we are totally missing the "vague urge to be avant garde" section of the quote).
Web2.0 is a visual medium. Web1.0 is well served and perfectly preserved by online publications that sell words, not experiential happenings.
"Content" is complex. Try explaining why something is funny, or why something moved you to behave or act in a different way. Versus explaining the business case for why something can and should be produced for 50% less.
A relentless, simple-minded and myopic 20-year manic pursuit for "shareholder value" -- PROFIT, to a limited few -- over everything else, and at the expense of everything else, including people -- has toppled the pyramid. "Quality"? We can't even describe that -- we have preferred mass "quantity". Which is controllable.
We now reside in a world largely run by relentless deconstructors -- technicians, analysts, lawyers and accountants. Art? Film? Literature? It's only "content" -- regardless of its cultural and societal(and financial) value. Value = the earnings reports.
McLuhan's theory was that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role -- not by the content delivered over the medium -- but by the characteristics of the medium itself. And: that each medium produces a different "massage" or "effect" on the human sensorium.
We may want to expand our view of value -- and 'content' -- as they relate to a longer tail than just next quarter's reports.
Something expected but still interesting to look at: go to Google Zeitgeist and compare the 2-year traffic for nytimes.com vs facebook.com. NY Times traffic has plateaued or possibly fallen while Facebook traffic has constantly increased.