As former media buyer, it wasn’t a huge shock to learn that the 159-year-old New York Times is betting the newsroom on whether or not readers are willing to pay to read it online.
Advertising, it would seem, no longer makes the world go round.
No, this won’t be a PR vs. advertising post, declaring a universal winner because one of the most globally noted newspaper decided to stop at a losing game. Marketing done well incorporates both strategies. (Sorry, I digress). People want direct access to the real-time news they want, and, apparently, consumers are fine with paying for it. According to The Times, more than 20,000 consumer survey responses confirmed pricing of “100 product combinations priced as low as $5 and as high as $40 a month.” Advertising as primary source of revenue stream appears in most cases to be a broken model. Consumers are voting with their wallets, signaling that they are tired of the signal-to-noise ratio while just trying to get to news they want. It’s not clear from this post if ads will be a part of the pay model or not, but I would think anyone paying for content deserves clutter-free news. 
As media specialists, this shift represents a huge opportunity to engage with the “true audience” that might develop from a successful pay model. I welcome the narrow focus on defining true influence. Then again, influence is an ever-moving target and variable that can be highly personalized – actually, there’s room for a whole separate post for the subject of influence alone. A recent post from Olaf Kowalik, vice president of product management and development at Waggener Edstrom Worldwide (WE), highlights some of WE’s tools used to identify and amplify influence to see who is making impact for clients and how they communicate within their community, as well how deep those relationships are and advise on how best to spread conversation. The Ripple Effect and Social Graph are a few of many offerings from WE’s Influence Toolkit. Oliver Blanchard has also done a good job detailing why “Influence is not a Jedi mind trick.”
What really happens if you lose a percentage of the audience due to the new model? Are they outliers who maybe weren’t paying attention to start with? Does it follow that you gain a refined audience of engaged listeners? Does this new core audience represent a more “accurate” circulation figure? Potentially, at least, a new industry standard could be born, shifting the thinking around the “norm.” Is bigger really better? Ideally, under this new model, one can target those who are actively listening and are therefore more likely to take action.
Will advertising go away completely under the pay model? If so, will that shift have any impact on how The New York Times covers companies, the economy and even politics? Investing in and being a part of how quality content is generated is what we get paid to develop, analyze and promote.
There are several current examples of other types of pay models doing fairly well:
- Traditional cable companies are seeing market share eaten upby pay-TV and by the likes of both Hulu and Netflix – especially among the younger demographics.
- Streaming on mobile devices is the latest channel to emerge and challenge the traditional ad-supported model of television. According to USA Today, 2011 NCAA men’s basketball tourney rating hits 11-year high. According to CBS/Turner, “Visits to its live streaming game coverage online and to mobile devices is up 47% this year, which is partly driven by coverage being available free to mobile devices for the first time.”
What are some other great pay models that you personally or professionally subscribe to? Would love to hear why you feel they are worth it. Do you believe that The New York Times can find success by asking readers to pay for content?
Edits by Julie (Arterburn) Evensen.
Images by Mike Bailey-Gates.
Guest post by Lezli Goheen, Account Director
It’s no surprise that digital content is becoming an increasingly important way for people to consume information. We know that a printed newspaper in your hands is a dying concept, and the recent findings of a study by USC’s Annenberg School reinforces that reality.
The speed, variety and richness of web content has changed the game and people now rely on the internet and television as their primary sources of information. In fact, about 25 percent of people who read newspapers said they wouldn’t miss the print edition if it ceased. Not terribly surprising, but another nail in print media coffin and another reminder to us to continue to immerse ourselves in digital content and become smarter and smarter on key influentials for our businesses.
The study goes beyond the premise that people are consuming more online content, to point out that there’s skepticism among consumers about the reliability of the information they’re getting online. They have limited trust in what they’re consuming, with about 25% of those surveyed saying only half or less of the information on sites is reliable.
As communicators, how can we ensure that the people consuming our content view it as trustworthy and reliable? There are many ways to accomplish this, but I’ll get the discussion started with a few ways to bring credibility to your online content:
- Mind Your Tone: “The first of its kind, cutting edge, innovative, game changing.” Too often exaggerated marketing-speak makes its way into our communications and put people’s truth sensors on high alert. Use a critical eye and say no to language that is simply not believable.
- Think like the customer: If people can relate to the product or service and see themselves using it, they’ll be more likely to believe what you’re saying. Instead of presenting a laundry list of product features, talk about the product benefits and differentiators, in plain and simple terms.
- Just the Facts: Use third-party evidence, end-user testimonials and research data to support your claims. Having a credible source say, “I love this product because it really did help me do all the things it said it would,” goes a lot further than saying it yourself.
What other ways can we ensure the online content we’re creating is trustworthy? Please share your ideas!
Image by doviende
To get a better understanding of where we are today we often need to look to the past. In a recent MediaShift blog post Craig Silverman shares insight about what was happening (or more accurately what wasn’t) in Turino, Italy, during the 20th Winter Olympics in 2006.
Graeme Menzies (formerly worked for Microsoft), now director of online communications, publications and editorial services for the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) noticed how much buzz YouTube was getting, yet it was not being utilized at the Turino games.
The social media landscape in 2006 wasn’t what it is today.
“The website is the mother ship,” Menzies said. 60 million site visitors over the period of the Games and somewhere near a 1.5 billion and 1.6 billion page views — and humbly admits they can’t possibly create it all and engagement with audience is a large focus.
Each medium has its place. The fans own the Facebook conversation. He Compares Twitter to a telegram and reminds us after a few minutes content may not be relevant. YouTube continues to be a huge draw.
They’ve also released a free mobile app, provides as much content as the Online Spectators Guide, Cultural Olympiad, news and up-to-date images from the web-site.
“We’re done at end of March, so our goal is to be in the moment…being ahead of the pack is just as bad as being behind. We don’t want to be on the bleeding edge or behind the times. We want to be in the moment.” Of course this will change by 2012 for the next round of Olympics…..
This is a great example (imho) of learning from the past, moving forward with a strategic media plan (which includes traditional mediums not discussed in depth here) and using current digital media tools to reach specific audiences and engaging with different demographics in campaign with a short time span.
Yes, the action is right in our backyard but the passion surrounding this Winter Olympics seems to be at crazed level this round, eh? How are you following the 2010 Winter Olympics events? What do you think we’ll see change as we move forward in 2012? Sadly, I know I just have a few more days “to be in the moment.”
In a recent piece on Morning Edition, Tina Brown talks about Michael Kinsley’s Atlantic article “Cut This Story!” opining that newspaper articles are far too long and the death of print newspapers is due in no small part to excessive length and dullness — whereas writing for the Internet is a great disciplinarian in getting quickly to the point.
Kinsley’s lament comes near to my and most any information worker’s heart, i.e. how to read only the necessary. The remedy, per Kinsley, would be to write only the necessary; in this case, putting tremendous onus on the journalist. Perhaps a page, or a fraction thereof, should be taken from the world of academic research: adopt the abstract.
The art of the abstract has long been relegated to the hinterlands of the peer-reviewed journal, but it has only gained in its essentialness as knowledge domains grow, fork, and sunder, i.e. the essence of the work must be encapsulated so that the reader can comprehend and judge in a timely manner. This may seem trivial, but believe me when I say that advancements in medicine, for example, are highly dependent upon this disciplined and rule-oriented writing skill.
Kinsley makes good hay of some bad examples (ironic, perhaps, that it takes so much ink), but his evocation of style strikes me as something out of Fowler’s or the like, in short, straw already well grasped. Indeed, one simile used by Mr Kinsley seems to miss the essential point: Yes, “legacy code” is the albatross-chiseled-out-of-millstone about the neck, but “new code” will not fly without it.
What is needed (IMHO) is strict referential mechanics, and this to a well maintained and indexed archive, so if you happen to have been in some coal mine you can take the time necessary to re-brief. But newspapers, and new media to an even worse degree, have never been all that concerned with yesterday’s news.
Also, the reality of reading from the Internet requires not so much the context that begets regrettable “hype,” but a context that simply shows where you are in any ongoing discussion. Brevity does not necessarily disable thought. For example, much of the microblogging I read references lengthy articles and reports. The problem is that there is no organization effort toward serializing the discussion. And with shrinking form factors, it can literally be difficult to know what page you are on, let alone the current evolution of any concept.
So, by all means, whittle style to the bone, but do not simultaneously require the reader to get-all-CSI-and-stuff and perform the requisite re-construction of any subject’s skeletal remains; this does not advance the science.
Over the past few weeks (especially yesterday), there has been a lot of talk in journalism circles about new portable devices changing the way people don’t pay for consume media content. While there is a lot to be excited about for content creators, these devices aren’t necessarily going to make people want to pay for content.
Journalism institutions and news media businesses need to be concerned about creating the kind of high-quality, engaging, shareable content that matters in today’s world, not how they can squeeze more money out of old-format content.
Time Inc. seems to understand this. A while back, the company released an awesome conceptual video of its content modified for a touch-screen tablet experience.
Sports Illustrated (and likely many other Time publications) know that money can be made in offering readers an excellent overall content experience.
Sports Illustrated always has great content, but this concept video shows that SI can bring that content to life on a tablet-like device in ways that a normal browser can’t. On a good e-reader or tablet, content jumps off the screen in the form of photo galleries, embedded video and audio, sharing options, and ways to engage with other readers. Plus, it just feels natural to hold the content in your hands and interact with it using your fingers — like a book or magazine.
Getting people to use an excellent content experience isn’t the hard part; getting people to pay for the experience is the hard part. Content creators have to meet a few requirements to get anyone to pay:
- You must provide top-notch, awesome content that nobody else has. And you have to provide it in a way that blows minds.
- You must make it inexpensive and so easy to pay that people don’t even think about it (like buying iPhone apps).
- You must make content shareable. You’re selling the experience, not the content. When paying customers share your content, think of it as free word-of-mouth marketing, not stealing.
Many musicians have learned that you’ll never stop people from freely sharing songs. People pass things along, and not everyone is paying for the content. The best way to capitalize on the popularity is to charge people for a superior experience, like a live show or private appearance.
Perhaps news organizations can do something similar by selling access to great content experiences and private chat sessions with content creators and newsmakers.
This approach alone likely won’t bring in enough revenue to sustain a news operation, but along with advertising and other creative revenue models, it can help.
What do you think? Can e-readers and tablets change the way content is experienced?
Image by mattbuchanan
Tac Anderson, Digital Consulting Director
On a recent trip down to Austin on the red-eye with David Patton (@spincycle3), I was at a loss for what to do with this stack of newspapers he brought on the plane.
The only value I see in the newspapers is passive discovery. The ability to read something, turn the page and find an interesting article about something you’d never go out of your way to find. The problem is most of the time I have no interest whatsoever in the article on the next page and there’s no StumbleUpon button to take me to the next article that I may have more interest in. I’m just stuck with what’s in the paper. (As a side note, I found it much harder to scan a newspaper than a Web page.)
A VC, Fred Wilson, one of the original early-stage investors in Twitter, recently gave a speech at the 140 conference: The Value Of Twitter Is In “The Power Of Passed Links.”
To me Twitter is my passive discovery. The thousands of people I follow provide that discovery that most people get from the paper. Except instead of reading one paper I read bits of hundreds of “papers” and blogs.
Erik Bergman, Senior Editor
I’ve seen too many diet plans and so-called collectibles hawked in Parade Magazine to raise my pulse. But Sunday’s ad for Post Shredded Wheat grabbed me with its headline: “Beware of New.”
Now, a print ad in Parade defines the term “old media.” A print ad for a 117-year-old breakfast cereal surely defines as goose quill and parchment. If Parade is your grandfather’s magazine, then Post is your great-grandmother’s cereal.
My Web search hasn’t turned up a copy of this print ad, which is appropriate, so I’ll sum up Post’s rant against modernity with some quotes. The Shredded Wheat folks sound a touch grumpy here: “Being new is not always a good thing. In fact, “new” is usually a fancy way of saying untested, untried and unready.”
True, something new is not necessarily better or best; it is merely novel. Classic example: New Coke, a brand debacle.
But then Post’s copywriting grows testier. “Some proof? Instead of creating more free time, new technologies have made it harder to leave our jobs at the office.” (This, BTW, smacks of heresy to those of us in digital communications.) Further, these curmudgeons claim, “new shoes always give us blisters.”
When they go on to say, “Why on earth would anyone unleash something new?” I can’t tell if they are pulling our legs or acting out their passive-aggression. The tag line boasts, “We put the ‘no’ in innovation.”
The related Web site, ThePalaceofLight.com, is the clincher, though, that the Post creative folks have their tongues firmly in their cheeks (along with a cud of Shredded Wheat). The videos that riff on progress (and why we don’t need it) are a hoot. Well played, Post Shredded Wheat, well played.
Tac Anderson, Digital Consulting Director
So I stirred up an interesting conversation when I said I don’t read the physical paper but instead get pointed to the news via Twitter.
Some people passionately agree and disagree with me. But today I saw example from Dave Allendemonstrating why I prefer my method (and yes you could actually do both).
Once again, Twitter leads me to a great article. It is hard to believe that some people still “don’t get” Twitter, but when I use it as I feel it is best used, as a business tool, it is incomparable for exposing me to some great thought leaders.
Dave then goes on to blog about the OffTheBus citizen powered news site. I love to see new models emerge and finding a blog about a link found in Twitter pointing to a citizen journalism article and site seems some what serendipitous (or something).
Micheal Foley, Content Editor
It didn’t take long for the folks in charge of the AP Stylebook to see the error of their ways.
Late last week, they issued a new entry for Twitter that just wasn’t quite right. The entry proclaimed, “The verb is to Twitter or to Tweet. A Twitter message is known as a Tweet.”
Over the weekend, AP Stylebook has come to its senses … sort of.
Today the monolithic authority on style and usage for all serious mainstream journalists in the United States issued the following correction:
“Editor’s Note: The Twitter entry has been corrected to say that to tweet as a verb and a tweet as a noun should be lowercase.”
Bravo! Thanks for being receptive to the feedback and making a swift change to your flawed entry.
But, hold on! The new entry still lists “to Twitter” as a verb. That’s just plain bad English. Of course we capitalize proper nouns, but there’s no such thing as a proper verb.
Of course, the AP Stylebook is set up (as is any dictionary) to list the acceptable usages in order of how common they are. I would argue that “to tweet” is used dozens, if not hundreds of times more often than “to twitter.” Therefore, “to tweet” should be listed as the first verb in the entry.
If I were to rewrite that part of the entry myself, it would say, “… The verb is to tweet or to twitter. A Twitter message is known as a tweet.”
Once they finally have the Twitter terminology and the technical aspects of the English language correct, maybe they could turn to a more accurate description of the Twitter service’s capabilities.
The AP Stylebook entry says it is “a community-based message-distribution system that allows users to post continual status updates of up to 140 characters detailing their activities for followers.” As any serious user knows, Twitter is capable of much more than just that.
Let’s see how long it takes for the AP Stylebook to make those changes.
Micheal Foley, Content Editor
Much to my delight, the Associated Press finally legitimized Twitter by giving it an entry in the AP Stylebook – the coveted manual on style and usage for all serious mainstream journalists in the United States.
Twitter A community-based message-distribution system that allows users to post continual status updates of up to 140 characters detailing their activities for followers. The verb is to Twitter or to Tweet. A Twitter message is known as a Tweet.
Hooray! Twitter has entered the mainstream. The highly trusted media institution has recognized Twitter and established usage rules on the social-networking site’s most common terms.
Wait. What did that say? To Twitter is a verb? A message is a Tweet?
That’s not what the vast majority of Twitter users think about the verb and noun status of these terms. In fact, Julia Roy famously commented on the verb/noun usage of these terms in the recent “I am a Geek” video (52 seconds into the video) where she types and says, “Oh and BTW tweet is a verb twitter is a noun.”
What’s worse is that AP seems to have created a new style out of thin air by capitalizing Tweet. Unfortunately, before forming their rules, the folks at AP didn’t seem to take into account how the top Twitter users actually use the terms.
Even the most authoritative source on the issue, Twitter itself, uses “tweet” as a verb and a noun (never capitalized) in all of the company’s official communications, such as its blog and its Twitter Support portal. Twitter is rarely used as a verb in these materials, and when it is, it is never capitalized. Only when referring to the service, site or company itself is Twitter capitalized.
The worst part of this usage debacle is that because AP style is so revered by the mainstream media, these incorrect terms will be parroted back to the public at large en masse. This phenomenon will pit new media and traditional media against each other once again (search “Web site vs. website” or “e-mail vs. email” for previous battles). Some of my geeky copy editor friends are beginning to wonder if AP really stands for “Ancient Prose.”
UPDATE (June 15, 2009): AP Stylebook Issues Half-Correction for Flawed Twitter Entry
