my 2 cents

Newspapers North (or South) of the Border

Mark Goren in Montreal sent me a story from Thursday's Montreal Gazette.  It reports on a study just released that shows that The Gazette, as well as other Canadian newspapers, are in reasonably good shape and, unlike their south-of-the-border cousins, are actually gaining readers.

The article explains how The Gazette has beefed up its online offerings and put greater emphasis on coverage of important local issues.

That doesn't sound much different from what papers in the U.S. are doing, so why, I wonder, are U.S. papers struggling while Canadians papers are growing?

Perhaps a key reason lies in the difference in readership habits in the two countries.  A new study by NADbank, which tracks Canadian newspaper readership, shows 73% of Canadians 18 and up read a newspaper at least once a week.  The number in the U.S. is alarmingly closer to 50%.

Here's my guess as to why the difference, and I'd welcome input from any of my Canadian readers who are more familiar with the local media marketplace than I am.

In the U.S., we are saturated with news available to us 24/7 -- from CNN to cable news channels like FOX and CNBC, to local all-news channels on cable in most major markets and many smaller ones.  And many markets also have local news sites online.

So, unfortunately, we in the States have an overload of options for news -- international, national and local -- as it happens.  People don't wait for the newspaper or for the evening network news.

Maybe there aren't so many options in Canada, which may explain why papers there are still holding their own... for now. 

Just my hunch.  Am I right or wrong?

Media in the News -- My Take

Jay Leno and Non-profit Newspapers

The media IS the news in two stories making the rounds.

The TV and ad trades reported that Jay Leno, in his new 10 p.m. incarnation this fall, will focus on one guest per show, with guests coming more from the world of politics and current events than from entertainment.

Depending which media pundit you listen to, reviews are mixed as to how good an idea this is.

I think it's brilliant, as long as Leno's bookers can get interesting guests.  Good, lengthy chats with newsworthy people will draw an audience, whether they watch it live or later on DVR or VCR (yes, people still tape shows).  I think that type of format can do better than a primetime version of what Leno's been doing since Johnny Carson retired.  The standard late nite talk shows with the same corral of celebrities pushing their latest show or movie or book will get tired very quickly at 10 p.m.

Talk with interesting, relevant people will get people to watch, live or later.  NBC wins either way.

---

Another story in the news is the proposal, which began as a joke but now is picking up steam, made by Maryland Senator Benjamin Cardin suggesting that newspapers function as nonprofit businesses as a way to remain alive.

I wrote about another version of this idea, just about a month ago.  In my post "The Next Bailout," I suggested newspapers might turn to philanthropic sources for much-needed capital.  I cited examples like PBS and NPR, who rely largely on support from philanthropic foundations as well as from the public and the government.

Sen Cardin takes the idea to the next step and, to me, it makes a lot of sense.  Let newspapers have the option of organizing as "low profit limited liabilty companies," which would exempt them from the burden of taxes and permit them to take money (Sen. Cardin calls it "investment") from nonprofit organizations and, possibly, from the government.  It would also place limitations on whether they could accept advertising and, if so, what type of ads.  For instance, ads for liquor or tobacco products or political candidates or political issues might be forbidden.

Sen. Cardin, as reported in Media Daily News, said the measure "is targeted to preserve newspapers serving communities and not large newspaper conglomerates.  It may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains, but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat."

I've said it here many times.  Newspapers are a vital part of our democracy.  Any idea that can keep them alive and doing their job sounds good to me.

Editorial Integrity: A Growing Challenge in the Digital World

Editors and publishers have faced this challenge for decades -- how to maintain the line between editorial content and advertising.  The vast majority of print publications have managed to maintain those boundaries by clearly labeling advertorials and putting distance between editorial material and advertising that might relate to that content.

But as digital media (including blogs) multiply exponentially and most print media expand to digital platforms, journalists are having difficulty adapting to and accepting the new forms of advertising that online advertisers want.

Contextual advertising is what it's called and it can take several different forms.  Digital ad tools can now place online ads adjacent to articles that are relevant to what's being advertised.  Going a giant step farther are in-text ads, which pop up if you place your cursor on a particular word in an article.  Touch the words "foreclosure," for example, and you might then see a box with an ad or link to an ad for a debt consolidation company.

For marketers, it's like finding the holy grail. Contextual advertising claims to cut out the waste with highly fine-tuned targeting.

For publishers and readers, it's more problematic.

While it's true that publishers can realize new and much-needed revenue from contextual ads, their editors may balk at the blurred line between editorial and advertising.  The American Society of Business Publication Editors lays out precise guidelines regarding the proximity of ads to relevant editorial content, basically saying the two should not be mixed.

For readers, it's also a mixed bag.  We get the convenience of seeing ads that relate to what we're reading. while there's also the added intrusion of those ads.  More astute readers might also wonder if the content they're reading has been influenced by those contextual ads.

There's the rub.  Might those ads negatively impact the credibility of the publication?

My guess is that this type of advertising online will become more commonplace and more accepted.  I'm old school.  I respect the line between editorial and advertising and when I see media blurring it, I become suspicious of the accuracy or validity of the editorial content.

But that's me, and I suspect I'm in the minority, especially with all the young media consumers who've grown up without awareness of that "sacred" line that separates editorial and advertising -- those same viewers who sit through product placement in American Idol, The Apprentice and so many other reality shows without blinking an eye.

The March issue of EContent has has a cover story that does a good job examining this subject.  

Other Voices: Au Revoir (until we meet again) to Printed Magazines

We give this space over periodically to marketers who are not bloggers, in order to bring other voices into the mix and possibly encourage the guest writers to participate in the blogosphere.

Our Other Voice today, Jeanne Byington, recently began blogging at  The Importance of Earnest Service.  She's one of the top p.r. pros in the home furnishings biz, having worked for some of the leading wallcoverings makers as well as giants like 3M.

When she told me what she heard from young people about their career ambitions, I thought it was worth sharing.

Au Revoir (until we meet again) to Printed Magazines

Who can miss news of the burgeoning list of folded magazines? Industry sources estimate that we lost some 300 in the last year and we know of more that haven’t yet been announced or are teetering. Advertising Age’s “Last Page” column, illustrates every category. Some of the most recent: Best Life, Teen, Country Home and Hallmark Magazine to Domino, Wondertime, Plenty, Electronic Gaming Monthly and Atlanta Peach.

But wait a minute. Just as the Arts & Crafts Movement pushed back against the industrial revolution, what do most of the best and brightest communications students have to say about this magazine slaughter?

I sit on the selection committee for a major 2009 communications foundation scholarship competition.  I was surprised to hear the majority of the 31 finalists we met with rhapsodize about their relationship with the printed word and image. There’s no mistake. Many of these high school seniors through graduate students have interned at top brands and/or have edited or designed their school magazines and attend, or are about to attend, the country’s best-regarded communications programs.  And many said their goal is to work at a print (yes, print) magazine. 

One said she considers her participation in Facebook and other social networks to be, well -- work.  When she relaxes with a magazine, she's entranced.

So it’s not just boomer fogies [no advertiser wants their dollars—right?] who unwind with a much-loved magazine, clip and file favorite articles, admire layouts, devour captions, style tips and tidbits. There seems to be a chunk of interest bubbling up from advertisers’ favorite demographic. Think this is a valid trend, that there’s a future for print, that the young editors will discover a profitable formula while there’s still time.

Or will magazines become charming collectibles?

-- Jeanne Byington

Other Voices: A new Generation Gap

We give this space over periodically to marketers who are not bloggers, in order to bring other voices into the mix and possibly encourage the guest writers to participate in the blogosphere.

Today's guest blogger is Hank Goldman, whose Goldman Advertising in New York serves a variety of retail clients.  Hank is not against or fearful of new technology; he's been a ham radio buff for more than 40 years.

A new Generation Gap

Back in "my day", the Sixties, we young folks baffled the existing "establishment," which included our parents, by listening to music 'they' didn't understand, wearing tie-dye tops and bell bottom jeans and ingesting chemical substances that did more than cure a headache.

I imagine this "Gap" has been going on from generation to generation, for as long as Homo Sapiens have inhabited the planet Earth.

For the current Technology Age, we 'Baby Boomers' were a BRIDGE generation.
Our parents' generation witnessed the advent of air travel (Wright Brothers first flight 1903, the creation of the automobile (Henry Ford's Model 'T', 1908), and a new communications device, the telephone (turn of the last century).

It took 40 or so years for these to come into their own in the modern era...  easy enough to be accessible to the average person.  Even then, a "long distance" call meant silence in the household while it took place.  In the early days of trans-continental flight, men wore jackets and ties and women wore their best to fly.  It was special.

So what is happening now? Cell phones and other devices allow easy access to the world in the Palm of your hand--- Literally! The biggest slow-down to jet travel (besides the weather) is the security line at the airport ---and getting there to begin with!

We have come a LONG way!

So how is this blazingly fast and increasingly reliable service being used by our sophisticated contemporary civilization?

That's the point of my rant.   ALL that technological know-how, all that potential for connectivity. Where has it led us?  I'll tell you my version.

Its being taken advantage of. From my perspective in New York's midtown business area I see people of every economic and social stripe using hand-held devices while walking, crossing against the red, blocking crosswalks while lost in their thoughts; driving a car; working out at the gym (which is frowned at at most gyms); in the office, roaming the office building halls, in the men's room (and I'm sure women's as well!)!

In fact the folks who go out of their office buildings to smoke (a whole other oddity; clean air INDOORS, and smoke OUTDOORS!) and use cell phones are often seen waving their arms to express themselves while chatting...  Who is seeing the gesticulating hand gestures? If the phone is held to the ear of the gesticulator, I assume its merely for their own benefit.

So there you have it.

My Current Blog Complaint is: The new technology allows one to do SO MUCH! Why misuse it by texting or talking while driving or walking, talking so loudly on the commuter train (METRO NORTH riders be aware!) and revealing PUBLICLY your friends' phone numbers? And your bank password? And your once-private secrets?

If I were a "phisher" I'd love to steal your data--- but please remember;  You are NOT Talking in a Vacuum!

-- Hank Goldman

What's in a name?

How many of you can remember when stadiums and arenas were named for the team that played there or the location or perhaps a local hero?  Places like Giants Stadium or Candlestick Park or Shea Stadium.  (Who is (or was) Mr. Shea anyway?)

That all started to change some 20 years ago, when venue owners realized they could get huge sums for naming their ballparks or arenas for companies or brands.  Along came places like Qualcomm Park in California, and New Jersey's Continental Airlines Arena and The PNC Bank Arts Center.

OK, there are buildings that have company names, but that's because those companies are the major tenants or the owners, like the Pan Am Building -- oops, I mean, The Met Life Building straddling Park Avenue behind Grand Central in Manhattan.

So I find it amusing that, after paying $400 million (at $20 million a year for 20 years)  for naming rights at the new Shea Stadium, CitiBank will not have the Citi name anywhere on the subway stop at the new Shea -- oops, I mean, Citi Field.

The MTA, which runs all the subways, buses and trains in New York, was hoping to get a piece of Citibank's largesse.  The Mets, however, refused to share any of the bank's money.  

The MTA, which is financially strapped and is threatening to raise transit fares (a $2 ride on the subway could go up to $2.50 or $3), has realized the value of its real estate.  It is looking for ways to get money from advertising, including naming rights for subway stops.

So the MTA is refusing to name the newly refurbished (at a cost of $18 million) subway stop at the new stadium Citi Field.  Instead, it will be identified by the neighborhood in Queens where it's located, Willets Point, and also the team that plays there, rather than the name of the stadium.  Willets Point/Mets is the newest subway stop in New York.

Now if I were marketing director at Chase or Bank of America and I wanted to do some ambush marketing, I'd talk to the MTA about naming rights for the new station.  Imagine all those Mets fans taking the subway to Citi Field, and getting off at Bank of America/Willets Point station.  It might be fun to put some ATMs or even a branch there, just to rub it in.

This is what they pay Big Bucks for?

MediaPost's Marketing Daily had a report yesterday from the 4A's conference in New Orleans.  It reports on a keynote speech by the CEO of one of the giant media agencies.

She counseled attendees that marketing efforts that use social media sites are most effective when they're part of a wider campaign with other media, rather than just as a standalone.

Duh!

Isn't that just common sense?

Social media, while vastly different from "traditional" media, are still just another platform for reaching out to the public.  Of course, there are other benefits, since it's often a two-way platform.  But why wouldn't a marketer use consistent positioning and messaging through all its marketing efforts?

Marketing 101.  And to think people flew to New Orleans for that.  I hope they at least got to enjoy the great restuarants in The Big Easy.

The $64,000 Question

What value social media?

That's the question my friend Lewis Green posed at his Bizsolutionsplus blog the other day.  He did some checking of various corporate social media sites and concludes that social media hasn't shown much of an ROI for big businesses like Dell or Ford.

It can have value for small businesses like consultants, as long as a strategic approach is followed, Lewis notes.  I agree, since I know firsthand it's had real value for my small business.

I haven't analyzed how big companies are using social media, but I'll accept Lewis' assessment.  But if social media hasn't been effective, I wouldn't blame it on the medium.  I'd say marketers just haven't figured out a way to utilize it so far.

Maybe we also need to stop looking at social media in traditional marketing terms.  Perhaps we can't quantify the ROI in terms of how many sales it produces.

Working with social media might be more akin to marketing public relations than to advertising.  I think using social media for marketing purposes can help get messages out, directly or indirectly supporting advertising.  It can also help impact opinions in a way that can be less blatant or perhaps softer or more subtle than ads.  It can also provide essential feedback.

Notice that I've used the word "can" in the paragraph above.  Social media can do all those things and more.  Those of us in this space know it. 

If, as Lewis suggests, it's not doing all those things, then I'd say we need to look at how we're using social media and see what we're doing wrong.  And what's wrong may not be the same for everyone.  Some music companies have found good results with MySpace, while others find it a total waste.  Skittles' recent foray into social media ran into problems, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't try again.  What might work very well for one company may totally backfire for another. 

That's the interesting thing about social media.  It opens so many possibilities for marketers, but because it's so new and uncharted, there don't yet seem to be any automatic how-to's.   Maybe there shouldn't be any standard ways to use it. 

Social media is unlike anything we've ever encountered, since it's two-way, virtually instantaneous, egalitarian and both highly targeted and totally untargeted.  It's not your father's network TV, to borrow from an ad slogan.  Because it's so different, it won't be as simple as creating and buying a 30-second spot.

Social media is too big and too powerful for companies to ignore.  We may not see a flood of companies moving into the space in the coming year, but it's not for lack of interest.  The recession is causing many to rethink their marketing expenditures and trim where they can.  In many cases, new initiatives such as use of social media have been put on hold.

But it will happen. 

They will come and they will experiment.  And somewhere along the way, they'll see a justifiable ROI.  Or they may find some other measurement that, for social media at least, makes ROI irrelevant.

If I knew the answers, I could write a business best-seller and become a rich man.  Unfortunately, I don't.  But it will be fun and interesting to see what develops. 

.







  

To gift or not to gift?

How do journalists feel about taking gifts and freebies from public relations people?

The p.r. newsletter Bulldog Reporter recently reported the results of a survey of journalists on the subject.  Most frown on gifts from public relations people and say it would have no bearing on whether they do a story on that p.r. person's client.

That marks a nearly 180-degree turnaround from what I used to see way back when I began in this business some 35 years ago.  Those were the days of taking editors to lunch, which often involved a pricey restaurant and a number of alcoholic drinks.  Rarely, if ever, did the journalist offer to split the check.  It was pretty much expected.

On rare occasions, we might give a reporter tickets to a game or a show, but nothing was ever expected in return.  The best we could hope for was at least having access to the reporter when we wanted to discuss a story idea.

Product samples could sometimes be a tricky area.  In some cases, it was a no-brainer.  No big deal to give a fashion or accessories reporter a few pairs of $1.39 L'eggs pantyhose. If she liked the way they looked and felt, she might include them in a photo shoot.

Some editors years ago were not embarrassed to ask for more samples.  For an inexpensive item like pantyhose or Jeno's frozen pizza, I usually complied.

But what about when the product is a $40,000+ Jaguar car.  (This was back in the mid-1980s.)  Jaguar, like all the auto companies, had a press fleet so they could loan cars to writers for test drives, in hopes they'd enjoy the ride and write a positive story.  Writers would get a press car for a few days, a weekend or sometimes several days.  There were a few who tried to take advantage.  One senior editor from Forbes (long retired) used to ask for cars almost monthly.  If we had an extra car available, we'd usually let him take it even though we knew he was taking us.

Some editors, especially at the women's magazines, seemed to look at public relations people as Santa Claus.  The cosmetics companies used to lay it on really thick with loads of samples, in elaborate packages that themselves were nice gifts.  But it made some editors behave like pigs. 

I remember loaning an expensive custom-made item for a photo shoot, with the clear understanding the item was to be returned after the shoot.  The editor, also long retired (from Woman's Day), told me the item had been lost.  I wasn't thrilled, but what could I do?  Months later, I was visiting her office to discuss her needs for another photo shoot and I saw the "missing" item on her window sill.  I walked over and looked at it, as the editor sat there clearly flustered.  But I didn't say a word about it.  And I didn't loan her anything of real value ever again.

Today it's very different... for the better, in my opinion.  Many media now have clear policies about accepting anything.  If it's returnable, editors generally have to give it back after they've tested it or photographed it.  Some media people can't even take a meal from a p.r. person.  If you have breakfast or lunch with a New York Times reporter, he or she won't let you even pay for their cup of coffee.

One exception I see is in the beauty field.  Many p.r. people who represent beauty products still are lavish with their product samples and ridiculously extravagant packaging.  And most of it goes to waste.  And it makes no difference in the type of coverage the editor gives.  All it really does is add to the waste stream and jack up the invoices the p.r. agency sends to its beauty client.

One journalist who was quoted in the Bulldog Reporter story put it nicely.  Excessive packaging and gifts "are pointless, let alone unethical.  Just give us the information we need to get our stories in.  We're journalists, not whores."

Yes.  Listen up, my fellow p.r. people.