• by Tom Hespos , March 16, 2004

David Cohen's guest Spin on Friday made some valid points, but I think a merger of the online and traditional media editions of Media Magazine doesn't make sense. At least it doesn't right now.

There seems to be a widely held opinion in the online and integrated marketing industries that any separation between online and offline media is bad for the online industry. I think this stems from the opinion, often championed by folks like Doug Weaver, that the online media industry is talking to itself - that we're not involving enough traditional marketers in the shaping of our industry. While I agree that this opinion has a lot of validity, I wouldn't use it to justify the notion that the traditional and online versions of Media should be merged.

In his column, Mr. Cohen refers to "the rapidly changing interactive landscape" and media professionals who are looking for resources to help them stay on top of it. He also mentions the lack of coverage that other industry trades like Advertising Age and Adweek give to interactive media. Herein is where the problem lies with respect to print publications that want to cover both industries.

The truth of the matter is that the interactive industry evolves much more quickly than the traditional media industry. There is a lot more to stay on top of, more companies to track, more new technologies to evaluate and much more innovation. A publication that wanted to cover both industries effectively would look very strange, with an editorial balance that would be tipped heavily in interactive's favor. Media planners that count interactive among their specialties simply need more information to keep tabs on the important developments in the industry.

To do an effective job, in my opinion, a magazine would need to put at least 75% of its editorial focus on interactive, just to keep pace with the important developments. How many traditional planners do we know that would want to wade through all this interactive stuff? Furthermore, how long would they stick with a publication that devotes such a small percentage of its editorial to television, radio, print and other "traditional" media?

Here's the crux of the issue: The traditional advertising and interactive advertising industries move at very different paces. It currently doesn't make sense to have one book that covers both industries, given this difference. If you still think so, you probably haven't thought too much about what the final editorial product would look like.

Consider the two publications that Cohen cited: Advertising Age and Adweek. Both publications moved away from giving the interactive industry the coverage it needs and deserves - even before the dot com bubble burst. If they had stuck with it, their books would be very interactive-heavy and readership would suffer on the traditional side.

Sure, there's plenty to be said for putting a lot of this interactive coverage in front of traditional planners, VPs of marketing and brand managers. Interactive definitely needs to talk to these people. But merging the traditional and online editions of Media isn't the answer. Cross-pollination of the content in these books makes sense, and MediaPost has done that to an extent. But the fact remains - the two industries plow forward at much different paces.

Will this always be the case? Hopefully not. There's been a lot of talk about bringing accountability to the traditional advertising world - to the extent that it has been expected of interactive. If this movement gains any serious steam, the pace of the traditional and integrated marketing industries will pick up. And with that will come an opportunity to merge the two books. But right now, merging them would either short-change interactive or overload traditional.

I say leave things the way they are for the time being, and re-evaluate in a year or so.