my 2 cents

Some good news for Newspapers

 

While many newspapers are still bleeding red ink financially, the latest numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulation shows verified readership is increasing at some of the biggest dailies.

The reason, perhaps somewhat ironically, is the internet, which for years has been seen as the cause of the impending demise of newspapers. 

The ABC says the average daily circulation of the 618 papers it monitors went up .7 percent -- a very small gain, but significant in the face of years of circulation declines papers have been showing.  The 532 Sunday papers have gone up 5 percent -- which is a significant and encouraging jump.

ABC is now including digital circulation, which on average accounted for 14 percent of total newspaper circulation.  A year ago, digital comprised 8.7 percent of total circ.  Digital includes not only hits directly on newspaper websites, but also viewership on tablets, smartphones and e-readers.  They're not paper and ink, but the content is newspaper all the way.

The New York Times, which began its paywall about a year ago, was the biggest gainer, with a total circulation jump of 73 percent.  Its 1.6 million daily circ is 807,000 digital and 779,000 print.  

The Wall Street Journal remains the biggest daily circulation paper, with 2.1 million, followed by USA Today, with total digital and print circ of 1.7 million.  The Times is at #3 overall.

I've been seeing reports that the paywall is starting to pay off for The Times financially, which is a good sign.  The problem for newspaper publishers is still the difference in rates they can get for digital ads vs. print ads.  Digital still doesn't come close, but maybe the paywall concept will eventually offset that difference and help keep papers alive.

Gannett's Journal News, serving Westchester and the northern suburbs of New York City, has just put up a paywall this week.  They're trying to entice readers to subscribe for extras online that include additional reporting and analysis, photos and video.  The problem with The Journal News, however, is their local news reporting leaves a lot to be desired.  For many readers who recall when each town had its own local paper that really covered local happenings, the homogenized county-wide Journal News misses a lot of local news, mainly because they are seriously short-staffed.  I'm not sure their "extra" coverage online will really fill the gap, but time will tell.  And Gannett has deep pockets, even if they don't spend their money on newsroom employees. But they can aford to wait to see how the paywall experiemnt works out financially.

PR is so much more than "stunts"

Today's Wall Street Journal has a story about some fairly new PR agencies who specialize in digital stunts to try to gain visibility for their clients.  Thank goodness it is only in the "New York Report," a regional section that doesn't go out nationally.  Hopefully, it will do minimal damage to PR's already fragile reputation as a legitimate profession that's a viable component of marketing and communications.

The WSJ story tells of an agency, run by a 24- and a 25-year old, that tried a stunt to try to "go viral" for a client.  The story doesn't say if it succeeded or not; it was more about the stunt than the results.  It also tells of a firm whose owners have tried to make a name for themselves as online celebrities, and how they are using their supposed celebrity to get people to participate in events they plan for clients. 

The article headline calls this "a PR throwback to showmanship."  (Read "hucksterism.")

The story does quote a PR agency head (herself a bit of a question mark in my eyes, because of her TV reality show persona that doesn't portray us in a great light) who says stunts-only is a weak business model.  "An online stunt," she says, "is like an amazing first date... but that's not a relationship."

Stunts, gimmicks, parties.  I am sure our friends at The Journal know public relations is a lot more than that.  I wish they'd write about it.

You can't always believe the headlines

 

"Social Falls Short on Customer Loyalty; Traditional Methods Encouraged"

That headline in a MediaPost story this week caught my eye.  It flies in the face of all the hype we've been hearing about the wonders of social media.

The study, which surveyed 5,000 people in the U.S. and western Europe, found that only 18 percent of the respondents felt that their interaction with a large company or its brands via social media would encourage them to buy from that company again.  The number slipped down to 15 percent for social media interaction with smaller businesses like local retailers. 

The report says social media appears to be one of the least effective means of encouraging customer loyalty and other techniques that are more likely to resonate with consumers should get priority attention and budgeting from marketers and retailers.  The other techniques mentioned include a home delivery option, control of channels and frequency of communications received from a company, and a choice of ways to contact the company with questions or problems.

With all the talk about how impactful social media can be when connecting consumers with a company or brand, the survey begs a few questions.  

First, could the survey simply be wrong?  Might the questions asked have been leading, tilting toward desired responses?  The other question is who commissioned the survey and what might they have to gain from a particular set of findings?

Aha!  That might be the problem with this survey.  It was done for Pitney Bowes, whose mailing equipment products like postage meters are threatened by a reduction in pieces going via the U.S, mail as more promotional pieces and even billing is done electronically via email and other digital platforms.

"Sophisticated social media and Web interaction can be time-consuming and expensive and outcomes are difficult to measure," says the report. 

So would our friends at Pitney Bowes have us stay locked into our old methods of interaction, and ignore or avoid new technology?  

I think many marketers and their agencies are getting it right as they experiment with social media and other forms of digital communication, while looking for ways to measure and determine the ROI on the new opportunities that the Web afford us.

We also need to show a healthy skepticism when we see surveys, asking who conducted or who paid for the research, and what might they have to lose or gain by its findings?

Are PR Pros not being social about Social Media?

A survey recently reported in PR News shows that only 59 percent of corporate PR or Communications directors regularly review what is being said about their company or brand in various social media channels.  That figure is down from 2010, when the survey showed 73 percent monitored social media.

So that means that 41 percent of PR and Corporate Communications directors aren't fully doing their job. 

More consumers are tweeting and posting on Facebook and blogs, covering virtually every subject you can imagine -- including praise, complaints, suggestions about your products, your customer service and your employees.  For a PR pro not to have someone in his organization monitoring social media would be like not keeping an eye on what's being said about your company in the nation's newspapers and on TV and radio.  I'd call it a dereliction of duty.

Social media is a two-way street, providing organizations an opportunity unparalleled in the history of PR and advertising to hear and to be heard directly by the people you sell to or want to sell to.  But you can't be passive and jump in only when you have a sales message or when a crisis erupts.  Social media is an ongoing stream of information and conversation, and you won't be heard kindly if you're there only when you need the social media audience.

It's easy enough to monitor thanks to free tools like Google Alerts and others.   And it should not be difficult for companies to have a genuine presence on some social media platforms, offering information, advice, news and responding to what others are saying or asking about you.  You don't have to be tweeting 25 times a day or posting on Facebook or a blog constantly.  But try to set some sort of schedule for sharing information regularly so your social media presence is fairly fresh.

Social media is here to stay, even as various platforms evolve  and new ones come into favor.  It is simply too big for PR pros to ignore.

Some questions about Online Ads

Digital ads have been touted for years as "the next best thing."  Proponents say the ads can be extremely tightly targeted, based  on tracking consumers' online behavior.

It sounds great, but I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be... at least, not yet. There seem to be two major weaknesses with digital advertising.

The first question is: How accurate is behavioral targeting?  If you believe the hype, every click and keystroke we make online is tracked and analyzed so marketers can send ads our way that relate to our interests and purchasing behavior.  There's very little waste. It sounds too good to be true. 

But does it really work that way?  Not at all, according to Advertising Age reporter Matthew Creamer, who writes in this week's special Digital Issue about two full days he spent surfing the web and tracking every online ad that came onto his screen. 

"After two days of watching what ads I got while wandering around the web," he writes, "I concluded that advertisers don't really know that much about me...There's a big gulf between how online advertising is talked about and how it's experienced."

He went on to write he was "served course and after course of ads that felt generally irrelevant and untargeted, and not only did nothing to stoke consumer demand, but possibly smothered it."   He added that he didn't feel "the (marketing) crosshairs on me any more than when I watch an average primetime TV commercial break."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for behavioral marketing online.

The second key question about online advertising is: What impact do online ads really have?

Writing about his two days of online surfing, Creamer says, "All but the most garrish, interruptive online ads probably fly right by you.  Odds are you don't click on them or notice them or share them or talk about them around the watercooler."

His take mirrors my own experience with online ads, and many friends I've spoken with say the same thing.  The ads on the computer screen become just part of the background clutter, hardly noticed and very rarely clicked.  Pop-ups become an annoyance that you quickly click away, much like you'd swat away a pesky fly.

Digital is too big for marketers to ignore; that's for sure.  But we haven't yet found the formula for making online ads impactful and memorable, and there's still a lot more work to be done on the effectiveness of behavioral targeting. 

I'm sure the industry will get there, but we're not there yet.

 

 

Is there a future for email?

We all know how essential email has become for business.  Whether for good or bad, it enables us to be connected to work 24/7.  9 to 5 office hours, in most cases, are a thing of the past.

But is email itself destined to become obsolete as a person-to-person communication tool?  Facebook and other sites have instant messaging. Texting is the tool of choice for teens and 20-somethings.  For them, it seems, email just isn't fast enough. And other social media platforms like LinkedIn have their own messaging tools.

A recent survey of high school and college students showed 44 percent think email has a place and will remain a viable tool.  Many of them are now primarily texters, but they seem to recognize that email is the more commonly-used communication tool for business -- the world they know they will be entering within a few years.

Even teens do check their email, even if they rarely use it for outgoing messages.  The study shows 95 percent who follow a brand on Facebook frequently check their email for messages or coupons and other special offers from the brands they follow.

So it looks like email is not on its way to becoming the fax or snail mail of tomorrow.  Not for a while, anyway.

Being first to try new technology has its risks

Technology is fantastic, opening so many new vistas for business and personal use.  This is especially true when you look at how we access and enjoy entertainment.  But the ever-advancing march of technology can be costly and frustrating.

The latest example is brought to light by a report cited in ADWEEK that shows how DVDs, once the shining new "next best thing" that made VHS tapes obsolete, are being eclipsed by online delivery of movies, TV programming and other video content.

Research shows that the DVD retail market slid by 44 percent in 2010, to $4.5 billion, down from $8 billion the year before.  In 2007, the DVD market was worth more than $10 billion.  ADWEEK says the number of units shipped in 2010 was 225 million, compared to more than 400 million in 2009 and 517 million in 2007.

What happened?

Technology happened.  More of us are downloading films online, whether via Netflix, Hulu or other online delivery systems.  Or we DVR TV programs we want to watch at our own convenience, while the old VHS player -- if it's still even hooked up -- sits idle, blinking away at 12:00...12:00...12:00.  And as the new generation of internet-ready HD TV sets find its way into our homes, even more of us will get our video directly online -- bypassing those VHS, DVD and even the new BluRay players we so quickly invested in.

As our old technology becomes obsolete, it means a surge in business for the manufacturers and retailers as we stock up on our large-screen HD TVs, surround-sound systems and -- maybe -- 3D TVs. And the old VHS, DVD and BluRay machines end up going to the attic, to gather dust alongside our turntables, tape cassette players and all the other hi-tech gear we so eagerly bought years ago.

I'm glad I am not an "early adopter."  They're the people who have to have the latest gadget as soon as it comes onto the market, paying top dollar so they can be first on the block to own one.  And now the HD TV they paid $2,500 for can now be bought for a fraction of that amount.

I'm perfectly content to wait on the sidelines.  Let others pay the crazy prices for stuff that still needs to get the bugs worked out. 

At least I can be pretty certain that by waiting I won't get stuck with something that becomes a laughingstock -- like the 8-track tape players of the 1970s.  Thankfully, I never bought one.  I also never bought a Nehru jacket or a leisure suit.

Who "owns" social media?

 

Since even before Facebook and Twitter, when YouTube and blogs were new on the scene, there's been discussion and, at times, bickering about which marketing discipline should be responsible for the social media presence of a brand or organization.  Should it fall under the purview of the marketing department, the PR department or an outside PR or advertising agency?

Keith Trivitt, associate director of PR at the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), writes about the ongoing debate over ownership of social media in the PR Breakfast Club blog.  He says, in short, Enough fighting!  "We must come to the realization that a concept that once seemed preposterous -- collaboration with competitors -- is fast becoming the norm for modern PR, marketing and advertising initiatives."  The different disciplines shouldn't be fighting over territory, in other words. 

I've weighed in on this issue a few times, saying in most cases social media should be a shared effort.  Parameters for messaging should be determined by the marketing folks, in close coordination with the ad and PR people and possibly even top management.  Day-to-day implimentation should be handled, in most cases, by the PR people, since they are supposed to be the experts in communications.  But all the marketing disciplines must have regular involvement.

I think it's also essential to have good, clear lines of communication established among all the players, so all are able to have a voice if an issue, event or online discussion goes beyond the predetermined paramets, whatever those might be for a particular brand or company.

Just as in so many other areas of business and organizational life, a lot of success in handling social media is based on planning ahead.

"Competition is indeed a great thing," Keith Trivitt says, "but so is a collaborative sense that helps build many industries' overall valkue to consumers and brands." 

Or, in the case of those of us in PR and advertising, collaboration can build value for our clients and/or bosses.

In Print: Sad News & Encouraging News

 

Although not surprising, it was still sad to see the last issues of Mediaweek and Brandweek yesterday.  Beginning next week, the two trade pubs will be folded into the parent Adweek masthead, which will continue online and in print.  A memo from the publisher says the magazine's website will be upgraded.

Stuart Elliott, in yesterday's New York Times Media Decoder column, gives a good overview of Adweek's 10-year history and the rationale behind splitting it into distinct books covering specific niches within the marketing business.  It made sense then, but doesn't anymore for a number of reasons, which Stuart discusses.

I've been reading Adweek and its spin-offs from the beginning.  They were, for me at least, a viable alternative or supplement to Advertising Age, which had dominated coverage of the ad business for decades.  Over time, it became my primary trade read, until Joe Mandese's MediaPost came along.  At first, MediaPost was seen by many as just an online repeat of what they'd already seen in Ad Age and Adweek.  But over the years, it's become a very strong contender, with great coverage and analysis -- all online a few times a day.

Adweek says they're planning to make changes to their website. I hope so, because right now it's dull.  The site gives simple headlines, but nothing else.  Compare it to the sites of Ad Age and MediaPost.  Rather than listing just story headlines, Ad Age and MediaPost give a sentence or two below each headline, to tell you more about the story and allow you to make a more informed decision about whether or not to click that story open.  MediaPost sometimes teases the reader with its summary, giving you an enticing blurb without revealing a key piece of information.  Typical would be a headline like this: Agency head to leave shop.  The blurb below would read something like:  The longtime head of a major agency has announced plans to leave.  Click to Read more. 

Who?  Which agency?  You have to click through.  They play games sometimes, but the content is there.

Adweek has already undergone many staff changes, and some of the familiar names aren't on the masthead anymore.  Not all have been replaced, which probably means coverage will suffer.  It's the same sad story that we're seeing at many magazines. 

On the flip side, there is some encouraging news on the magazine publishing front.  MediaPost's Media Daily News reports on a survey that shows 54 new magazines launched in the 1st quarter of 2011 -- more than the double the 25 launches in 1Q of 2010.  While it's true that 24 titles shut down in 1Q of this year, it's still encouraging to see new titles in print with a focus on regional interest, food and women's interest.

And the Publishers Information Bureau says total ad pages this past quarter were 35,755, with ad revenues posting a 6.1 percent gain over the same period last year.  Magazine ad revenue and pages have increased four quarters in row, ever since the second quarter of 2010, PIB says.

There is hope.

 

 

Am I Addicted?

I think I'm an addict.  I never thought I'd end up like this.

I can't put my damn smartphone down.

I resisted for a couple of years, as friends and colleagues around me got Blackberries, and then iPhones and Droids.  For years, I stood on the sidelines saying all I need is a phone to make and receive calls when I'm out of the office or house.  Simple as that.

But that's all changed.  I bought an Android smartphone in November, and now I'm hooked.  It's like crack... I keep coming back to it.

I'm not using any apps yet.  I've used the camera on this phone more than I did with my old vanilla cellphone.  But the real addiction is the constant access to email.  That's my Achille's heel.

Better access to email when traveling was a key reason I bought the new phone.  It's been a great convenience on a recent business trip, when I was stranded for seven hours in San Francisco, waiting for a delayed flight to Honolulu.  And it was a lifesaver on the way home, when I was delayed for a few hours in Minneapolis, where the airport doesn't have free wifi.

But here's how it's become a sickness...

I find myself checking email as I wait for the elevator, or on a street corner as I wait for the light to turn green.  Waiting on line for coffee at the deli, I quickly check my email.  I even took it into the bathroom stall the other day.  It seems that almost anytime I'm standing still or waiting for something, I pull out the phone and start to zip through the emails.

I'm not sure having constant access to email has improved my productivity.  I suppose I save myself some time by going through my email on the train in the morning, so I don't have to do it on the computer as soon as I get into the office.  But on the other hand, I've come close to walking head-on into people as I look down at my phone as I'm walking to a meeting a few blocks away.

Well, at least I'm not using my new toy to waste time playing games.  Not yet, anyway.

 

Photo: Phonedog.com

.