A friend of mine in the ad business had a great line for the newspaper business: 'it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic'. Such a perfect description. The lumbering giants cannot move fast enough to change the business model. Working right now with a property (that shall remain nameless, of course) that won't or can't work with me on a cost per click rather than impressions basis-and this for a unique ad that no one else is doing. They would be showcasing not only the ad, but their ability to run it and generate results. And you wonder why the newspaper business is suffering.
Paying for content is another. I finally figured out why this has me so fired up; I'm not going to pay for something that doesn't have any value for me. And quite frankly, most major publications have still not shown it in paid content. However, several specialty publications like Runners World are moving to a hybrid pay model; bundling interactive tools like show reviews and marathon training with a print subscription for one price.
According to a recent survey from the American Press Institute, 51% of publishers believe they can successfully charge for content. 68% of publishers thought that if they charged for content, users would have a difficult time finding content elsewhere, 38% would limit full story access and 28% would build a micropayment system for specific article purchase. Poll was completed by 118 newspapers of various sizes in small, medium and large media markets.
I think what's happening is publishers will start limiting access to content, watch their audience shrink and lose precious advertising revenue. Find a way to bundle and bring value to the product in new and innovative ways for both consumers and advertisers. Show some creativity and value and then, guess what- you can have your cake AND eat it too -:)
Showing posts with label Newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newspapers. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
August 18 2009
Newsday Rejects Ad Criticizing Cablevision-The Tennis Channel offered up the ad that leads with 'Thanks for nothing Cablevision'...you dropped the ball by preventing your customers from seeing round the clock coverage of the US Open. The ad goes on to encourage readers to switch to DISH, Fios or Direct TV. All of the NYC area newspapers (NY Times, NY Post, Daily News, Westchester Rockland Journal News and the Record of NJ) accepted and ran the ad.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
August 9 2009
Newscorp CEO Murdoch is wasting any time. According to The Guardian, The Times will be relaunched as a stand-alone website and access to certain sections will require a fee begining in November. The Sunday Times is the largest weekend newspaper in the U.K with over 1 million weekly copies sold. Murdoch is betting that this move will prompt other papers to do the same-“Quality journalism is not cheap,” Murdoch said (via Australian paper The Age). “An industry that gives away it's content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting."
Interesting viewpoint. Has sort of a 'better than you' attitutude, doesn't it. It seems that Murdoch is truly believing that readers will enjoy what each property's reporters and writers have to say, that they will open their wallets to prove it. What's worse is that if other publications see that it can be done, they will follow suit and began to charge as well.
What you will begin to see is a wave of consumer protest, cancellation of any print subscriptions and an influx of Ihate(insert publication, website, TV here).com blogs and websites.
The bottom line is its all about value. Users will pay for something they feel adds something to their life that they can't get somewhere else.
Interesting viewpoint. Has sort of a 'better than you' attitutude, doesn't it. It seems that Murdoch is truly believing that readers will enjoy what each property's reporters and writers have to say, that they will open their wallets to prove it. What's worse is that if other publications see that it can be done, they will follow suit and began to charge as well.
What you will begin to see is a wave of consumer protest, cancellation of any print subscriptions and an influx of Ihate(insert publication, website, TV here).com blogs and websites.
The bottom line is its all about value. Users will pay for something they feel adds something to their life that they can't get somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
