REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Cover Story

It used to be an unwritten journalistic rule -- the front cover is not for sale.  But that's changed as USA Today started putting ads on the front page, and many other papers followed suit.  (I'm not counting, in this discussion, the small reader ads that look like classifieds that you sometimes see at the bottom of the front page of The New York Times.)

Some newspapers, especially the New York tabloids, sell their cover in the form of a wrap, which is usually the front and back pages.  Those papers carry the paper's masthead, but the rest of the page is an ad.   Those wrap papers are generally distributed free.

New York created a stir in magazine publishing circles by having a paid wrap for a museum, incorporating the magazine's logo in the ad.  Inside was also an article about the museum.  (I'm not sure if the article was a value-added deal in exchange for the paid cover, which would cause me to question the magazine's ethical standards.  If the article was clearly labeled as an advertisement, then I'm ok with it.)

The wrap version of the magazine was distributed free to about 10,000 people, according to a story in Portfolio.com.  The American Society of Magazine Editors has a rule specifically warning editors not to use their covers for ad purposes.  But there seems to be some wiggle room if it's not the entire, or even a major portion, of the magazine's run.

I don't see the big deal if the special cover was, in fact, used only for a limited promotional run.  Like newspapers, magazines are struggling to stay relevant, hold readers and grow their ad pages.  It's seems like a fair and smart way to bring in some extra ad revenues.

Not all agree, however.  Comments at Portfolio.com seem to sway against New York's move.  Doesn't matter much to me, personally -- I'm not a big fan of New York Magazine.

One final note:  The head of the agency that created the promotion is quoted as saying the special copies were sent to a select list of 10,000 of the city's "culturati."  "So if you don't get a copy, you're not somebody," he said.  What an arrogant and stupid thing to say publicly.  Nothing like turning off the city's other 7,990,000 people -- many of whom could be potential visitors or members of the new museum.  Snobbery can backfire, my friend.
 

Bloggers running out of steam?

Are bloggers running out of steam? 

If you look around the marketing blogosphere, you'll see seemingly more blogs sitting stagnant or not updated as frequently (my own, as well, sometimes) and with a bit less commenting activity.  The supposed slowdown has had some online and offline discussion, so I know it's not just me.

I explore the question at Drew's Marketing Minute, where I'm a guest writer while Drew and his family are enjoying Mickey Mouse in Orlando. 

Check it out, before you run out of steam.

Good news - bad news

The newspaper industry got some good news and some bad news last week. Advertisers spent some $773 million on newspaper websites during the third quarter of this year, up 21 percent from the same period a year ago.  Newspapers are getting their piece of the online advertising pie.

At the same time, though, print advertising in newspapers dropped by 9 percent, to $10.1 billion.  Total newspaper advertising -- online and in print -- was down more than 7 percent for the quarter.

Two newspapers are reacting in very different ways. 

Gannett's USA Today, the nation's second biggest daily, announced it will cut almost 9 percent of its news staff.  Does that mean the paper will rely more on wire and syndicated material, or will it do less investigative journalism?  Will cutting back on news staff hurt the volume or quality of its content impact, and how will that, in turn, impact readership?

Time will tell.

Across the country, the San Jose Mercury News is trying a very different tactic in order to boost readership and attract more advertising.  A lengthy story in The Washington Post describes what it calls "slicing and dicing" of a newspaper.  The Mercury News is totally reorganizing its newsroom, shifting two-thirds of its reporting staff to the paper's online editions.  Before the change takes place in February, roughly 10 percent of the paper's newsroom staff had been devoted to the web edition.

With the change in newsroom staff allocation, the Mercury News will also trim its print edition, using less newsprint.  One possible scenario calls for the paper to have three sections --Live, Play and Innovate. Things like sports and TV and film would all be lumped together in Play.  Business and technology would go in Innovate.  Live would include health, parenting and family.  I'm not clear where hard news would fall.

A second scenario being discussed is to dump almost everything except Silicon Valley business news.

Matt Mansfield, the paper's former business editor who is heading the change, admits he is not certain about the changes.  "I'm skeptical, and I'm running the process," he said. 

Newspapers certainly need to take a hard look at themselves to see what their readers want and how best to serve them, while remaining economically viable.  I'm not sure if The Mercury News is taking the right  direction, but at least they're making changes.  They and other papers will learn from the results and hopefully they'll find a model that works for readers, advertisers and the publishers.

We shall see.

Happy Thankgiving from NY City

Book Tag

For the past several weeks my blogging activity slowed down, as things got busy at work and at home.  (I'll have more to say about that soon.)

As I'm trying catch up with my blog reading, I see that I've been tagged three times (that I know of).  Today's post is an attempt to begin to catch up.

Transmission Marketing's Mark Goren in Montreal tagged me about books.  He asks five questions. (I'm used to Four Questions, Mark.)
   

1.  How many books do you own?
2.  What was the last book you read?
3.  What was the last book you purchased?
4.  What five books are most meaningful to you?
5.  What is your favorite obscure book?


How many books do I own?
I would guess a few hundred.  The question makes me think of a Seinfeld riff where he asks why we tend to keep and display books after we've read them.  Are they trophies of our intelligence, he wonders? 

I have some books that are important to me in a breakfront in our living room.  A few titles are Exodus (Leon Uris), The Gifts of the Jews (Thomas Cahill), The Encyclopedia of Jazz (Leonard Feather), In Love (Gordon Parks), In Search of Excellence (Thomas Peters/Robert Waterman), and Oh, the Places You'll Go (Dr. Seuss).

There are always a few books stacked on my night table.  Eventually, I get around to reading them...usually.

I have stacks of books up in the attic.  When my wife goes on a cleaning binge, I try to placate her by taking a dozen and putting them in the car.  On our frequent trips to see our daughter up in Maine, we pass a quaint diner along I-84 on the Conn./Mass. line that trades books.  They invite you to have a meal and help yourself to a few free books.  And they accept books too.  Of course, when I drop off a dozen books, I may end up taking two or three others to add to the stacks in my home office, my night table or eventually in the attic.

The last book I read, not counting MarketingProfs Book Club selections, was Giving, by Bill Clinton.  I wrote about it here.

The last book I purchased was Giving.  I bought it as a gift for my friend Guy, but I ended up reading it in the four days I had till we saw him for his birthday.  I was careful not to fold back any corners or spill coffee on any pages.

The five books most meaningful to me?  This is a really tough one, and those that I pick now could change.  This list excludes The Five Books of Moses, or The Old Testament as many call it.

Lin Yu Tang's Moment in Peking is meaningful to me because it was one of my fathers favorite books.   I read it as an adult, to read the same words my dad had read as a young man.  It's in the breakfront in my living room.

Gone with the Wind was a spectacular book and, for the longest time, I refused to watch the movie version because I was afraid I would be disappointed.  When I finally did see the movie on TV, I wasn't.

Two books I read recently (and write about here) have meaning.  A little book by Fred Rogers (Mister Rogers) called Many Ways to Say I Love You, and Ishmael Beah's eye-opening book A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier made an impact on me.

The Kite Runner was a beautiful story that put a face to people we hardly know here in the U.S.  I was just given Khaled Hosseini's new book A Thousand Splendid Suns, which I hope to start reading very soon. 

One more... I'll Always Love You, by Hans Wilhelm.  It's really a children's book about love and loss.  My sister gave it to me after my first dog died, and I still get teary when I read it.

Obscure books?   I'm not sure how obscure they are.  Maybe offbeat is a better word.  The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Richard Adams was fun.  And in the days after college, I breezed through all the books by Richard Brautigan, starting with Trout Fishing in America.  (I don't fish -- it's not an outdoorsman's guide.)  It's cool that my son, 26, now likes those books.

So now, since this is tag, I get to pass these questions along.  I'm tagging  new blogger Gene DeWitt of The Media Age.

New math for Newspapers

Newspapers continue to suffer from reports of slipping circulation compounded by ongoing talk in the media of their demise.

But papers are reaching out in new ways via websites, blogs, streaming video and audio, and tie-ins with local TV and cable newscasts.  At least half of America still reads them, whether on newsprint or online.

Newspapers just got a boost from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which earlier this week introduced new methodology for reporting newspaper circulation.  Now included in the ABC's reported circ will be previously uncounted copies sold at discount (ie., The New York Times sells copies in the afternoon for 75 cents vs. the usual $1.25) bulk copies distributed free or at a discount at schools, and copies distributed free through advertiser-sponsored campaigns.

These changes may boost newspapers' numbers a bit.  They're not new readers, necessarily; they've been there all along, but not officially counted until now.

Hopefully this will help publishers convince more advertisers that newspapers are still a viable marketing vehicle.

TV Strike may help newspapers and radio

The writers strike that has shut down production of scripted programs on TV may benefit other media that have been having a tough time recently.

Advertisers and media buyers are searching for ways to reach large audiences, especially as the critical season approaches for retailers, Hollywood films and makers of just about anything that can be marketed as a Christmas gift.  For some, it's a do-or-die situation where they absolutely MUST reach the masses with their sales messages.

In his new blog The Media Age, media guru Gene DeWitt says newspapers and radio -- the long-suffering "other" mass media -- should be getting a closer look by advertisers who are faced with higher ad prices, fewer ad positions available and greater difficulty in reaching a broad spectrum of customers with TV sales messages.

Newspapers and radio, he says, offer relatively low production costs and quick turnaround.  Newspapers, especially, can offer attractive ad rates in order to get the business.

Is the internet also an option for TV-deficient advertisers, Gene asks.  Yes, but big  reach on the internet is costly and not always easy to get, he notes.  Radio and newspapers, on the other hand, offer an opportunity to reach half or more of America in a morning.  That's a fact that too often gets overlooked in the midst of all the gloom & doom talk about newspapers.

 

Ads Getting Social

The big news in advertising and media circles this week is that two major social networks -- MySpace and Facebook -- announced plans to offer new advertising platforms they claim will "revolutionize" online advertising in an advertiser-friendly way.

Facebook's 23-year old founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims his "completely new way of thinking about online" signals the end of advertising via mass communications."  ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC -- beware!

The idea is for advertisers to be able to tap into the personal information and preferences that users of Facebook and MySpace  submit when they register as a member.  The online service will be able to provide information on users' preferences so a marketer like, let's say, a new horror flick can send emails, pop-ups or some form of ad to any Facebook user who's personal profile indicates he or she might be interested in knowing about that the newest Wes Craven film open this weekend.  In addition to targeting specific users, ads could also be aimed at online "friends" of those users.

In theory, it's very smart.  Talk about targeted advertising!

But let's look beyond theory.

The idea is getting mixed reviews.  Many ad agency buyers are cheering because it enables them to place highly targeted ads.  Many users are looking at it a bit differently -- more spam.

One buyer wondered in Mediaweek if users will tolerate a string of endorsements from friends, especially as those circles of friends expands to include professional contacts and even friends of "friends."

Fellow blogger David Armano, who besides penning Logic & Emotion online, is a VP at digital agency Critical Mass, was quoted in Mediaweek.  "I see a huge value for affinity brands, but there is risk for low-interest brands.  The ad industry needs to be careful here."

Another ad buyer adds that using these ad platforms will need to be done with some intelligence, or it could definitely be abused.  Brands need to avoid forcing their way into social conversations.

I couldn't agree more.  I'm sure we'll see some poorly thought-out executions that will waste people's time and annoy some.  Hopefully, marketers will learn quickly from the inevitable missteps, so social network users will be spared new forms of spam-like intrusions.

I wonder what will happen to those users -- like myself -- who don't give any personal information at all when we register.  Will we be spared, since we've shown no preferences that can be targeted?  Or might we end up getting it all, by default?

What do you think?  Do Facebook and MySpace have a good idea or not?

                                             --  --  --

----  Book Club over at MarketingProfs started yesterday, talking about the latest selection Robin Hood Marketing.  Even if you haven't read the book, you can join in on some interesting discussions.  Hop on over there.

The Color Green

"It's not easy being green," lamented Kermit the Frog on Sesame Street.

But things have changed dramatically in the 37 years since Kermit sang the now classic Joe Raposo song.  It's not only easier to be green, but for many marketers, it's becoming demanded that they be green.

You don't have to look far to find green as a theme in ad campaigns.  Automakers are pumping up their gas mileage numbers, and "green" cars like the Toyota Prius hybrid are zooming off the showroom floor.  Home Depot, in a new campaign it calls EcoOptions, is touting energy-efficient appliances and hundreds of other items that can help save energy.  Wal-Mart announced a few months ago a program to find ways for suppliers to reduce the amount of energy used to make and distribute products they sell.  Industrial giant Siemens has a 4-page ad in today's New York Times talking about its role in developing solutions for environmentally efficient energy.

Yesterday's New York Times had a special section called "The Business of Green" that examines a variety of issues impacting the environment.   One of the articles, by respected business writer Claudia Deutsch, tells how companies are starting to respond to the market telling them "go green or goodbye."   

It's no longer just the tree huggers calling for change. Al Gore, clutching his Oscar, should be proud. Business is finally starting to act, and it has the clout to make real strides in the effort to fight climate change.

So now, green is in.

For some marketers, the popularity of green will look like an easy bandwagon to hop on as a way to connect with consumers.  But that's where a note of caution seems appropriate.  If you plan to go green in your marketing efforts, be sure it's real.  Mere green slogans won't cut it.  You'll be found out and called out.

This battle is far too serious to be exploited for marketing purposes.  If you're green, go ahead and talk about it.  But like anything a marketer does, remember -- keep it real.   

 

Update

After I posted this, I received my daily Brandweek email letter and there's a story about a study just released that shows the benefit to companies of going green.  But, as I cautioned above, "Just claiming to be green in a tagline or company brochure doesn’t work anymore. Educated consumers are looking for companies that mirror their socially conscious values, per a study just released..."  Read it here.

Creating Spam

"Hacks vs Flacks" is what The New York Times yesterday called Wired editor Chris Anderson's war on p.r. people who send spam pitches.

Frustrated by constantly receiving pitches from p.r. people who obviously have not read his magazine, Anderson, on his blog "The Long Tail", posted the email addresses of 329 p.r. people who sent him unsolicited pitches that were way off target. 

I must admit, before writing this, I quickly checked to be sure my name wasn't on that list, since I had sent Chris a pitch a while back about The Age of Conversation book many bloggers helped write.

I've been in the p.r. business for 35 years, and I was fortunate to learn from real pros about pitching media.  It has to be not about you and your client, but about the editor or producer and his or her readers or viewers.  You may be pitching the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if the reporter you're pitching doesn't cover bread or food or slicers, why would he be interested and why would you bother him?

That's a question not enough p.r. people ask before pitching.  Our business is hard -- and it's getting harder by the day as there's such an expanding universe of media.  And with blogs and other social media now as legitimate p.r. targets, it's more difficult than ever to really know every single media outlet.

But if a professional and effective p.r. job is to be done, a crucial part of a p.r. campaign is research -- not only compiling target lists, but carefully weeding out media or editors who are not appropriate for what you're selling.

It's time consuming, for sure.  For agencies trying to manage their bottom line, a tempting shortcut is to simply get lists from the media directories and then blast out the pitches to everyone.  And I feel bad for the kids just out of college and working at many p.r. agencies where their boss gives little direction other than call the editor and see if they got our release, and ask if they're going to use it. Oh, editors just love those kind of calls.

So I understand Chris Anderson's annoyance with many in the p.r. industry -- the ones who just don't do their homework and then do amateurish things like calling or emailing constantly to hound editors.  It makes it harder for those of us who try to work professionally.

Back to basics here: 

To succeed in publicity, you must try to think like an editor.  What is it about your product or service that would be of interest to an editor's audience?  If you can't come up with any good answer to that question, chances are you should not be pitching that editor. 

Be considerate. Don't badger editors with follow-up calls and emails.

If an editor says no, then it's no.  Move on to the next editor.  Pleading, cajoling, threatening doesn't work.

Just a few simple, common-sense "rules" can keep you off the spam-block lists of Chris Anderson and other editors.