Savvy newspapers have finally realized their business models need to change and simply relying on driving users to their site to generate clicks and impressions is not nearly enough. The Chicago Tribune understands they have creative talent capable of producing content that can be used to help marketers. Marketers may understand the power of a great story, but journalists know how to tell a great story. The fusion and collaboration of these two professions can be quite powerful and help marketers solve the problem of consistently coming up with great content.
This article also briefly touches on the issue of the separation of editorial and advertising during our last class. The Chicago Tribune seems to be taking the high road on this topic, but this article highlights how easily news sources can blur the lines.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-tribune-digital-marketing-0401-biz-20150331-story.html#page=1
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Sunday, April 05, 2015
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Will higher education have the fortune of the newspaper industry due to technology disruption? According to The Economist, yes
This topic affects us all who are studying at a traditional
institution. In our case, ours is renowned for its faculty among other
attributes.
Last week edition of The Economist claimed interestingly that technology will disrupt higher education as it did newspapers and music industries by offering online courses to listen to star lecturers at a fraction of the cost of attending traditional university.
Last week edition of The Economist claimed interestingly that technology will disrupt higher education as it did newspapers and music industries by offering online courses to listen to star lecturers at a fraction of the cost of attending traditional university.
As happened with newspapers, it is claimed that the high
quality institutions will benefit from this trend by expanding their online
remote courses portfolio, while the mediocre universities will end up
disappearing or having to adjust their fees significantly to be able to compete
with remote learning.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Future of the Newspaper
It's old news that the newspaper industry is struggling. With the decline in sales of hard-copies of newspapers, many news organizations are looking at ways to make money through their online newspapers. While many are experimenting with various campaigns, there does seem to be some encouraging news for the companies and their potential advertisers: if targeted effectively, the demographic of online newspaper readers has the potential to be a very lucrative one.
In comparison to the overall internet audience, newspaper web site readers are 27% more likely to be earning $100,000 or more a year, and they are more likely to have a post-graduate degree. They tend to be more web-savvy, and they use the web much more frequently for downloading media. Readers of online newspapers also shop online, often spending money on big-ticket items like automobiles, and they are twice as likely to have gone on multiple round-trip flights within the past month. Couple this with the fact that the total number of readers of online newspapers is growing at an impressive rate, and newspaper companies have reason to be optimistic about their future.
Check out some of the stats here: http://www.naa.org/PressCenter/SearchPressReleases/2008/NEWSPAPER-WEB-SITES-ATTRACT-RECORD-AUDIENCES-IN-FIRST-QUARTER.aspx
In comparison to the overall internet audience, newspaper web site readers are 27% more likely to be earning $100,000 or more a year, and they are more likely to have a post-graduate degree. They tend to be more web-savvy, and they use the web much more frequently for downloading media. Readers of online newspapers also shop online, often spending money on big-ticket items like automobiles, and they are twice as likely to have gone on multiple round-trip flights within the past month. Couple this with the fact that the total number of readers of online newspapers is growing at an impressive rate, and newspaper companies have reason to be optimistic about their future.
Check out some of the stats here: http://www.naa.org/PressCenter/SearchPressReleases/2008/NEWSPAPER-WEB-SITES-ATTRACT-RECORD-AUDIENCES-IN-FIRST-QUARTER.aspx
Thursday, February 04, 2010
"Google is a Vampire" : News without Search Engines?
This week Mark Cuban spoke at the On Media conference here in New York. The interview can be viewed here, and he speaks about a lot of his business ventures. His comments regarding Google and news outlets have generated a buzz on various sites. Cuban's stance is that news/media outlets with established brands are killing themselves by being indexed in Google News. On his blog, Cuban writes "The branding message to the consumer is “I dont need to go to the newspaper homepage. Everything the newspaper has is referenced here in Google News." He goes on to say that news and media outlets are helping to build Google news' brand at the expense of their own brand. One thing that he hinted to was the fact that Google may someday be in the content creation business. "Why couldn’t they hire reporters ? Why couldn’t they give their content priority over all others ? More importantly, why wouldn’t they ?"
Cuban's solution to this problem is for News outlets to block google from their content, and start charging consumers. Really? The NY Times proposed paid content model was specifically designed not to block search engines from their content. As far as I know, news and media outlets are living off of the traffic that they are getting from search engines. Rupert Murdock has taken a stance against news aggregators and blocked them from the content of his news and media outlet. Can this work? Maybe some of the most well know brands in the news industry can cut themselves off from all of this traffic, and additional ad revenue, but what about the medium and small brands? The small town newspaper. This is a big question right now in the industry, and I think most are waiting to see what will work. What's interesting to me is that more people seem to be taking the stance against search engines. Let's see if it works because there always seems to be someone willing to give content up for free in exchange for the traffic.
Cuban's solution to this problem is for News outlets to block google from their content, and start charging consumers. Really? The NY Times proposed paid content model was specifically designed not to block search engines from their content. As far as I know, news and media outlets are living off of the traffic that they are getting from search engines. Rupert Murdock has taken a stance against news aggregators and blocked them from the content of his news and media outlet. Can this work? Maybe some of the most well know brands in the news industry can cut themselves off from all of this traffic, and additional ad revenue, but what about the medium and small brands? The small town newspaper. This is a big question right now in the industry, and I think most are waiting to see what will work. What's interesting to me is that more people seem to be taking the stance against search engines. Let's see if it works because there always seems to be someone willing to give content up for free in exchange for the traffic.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Splash Page Ad at NYTimes.com
Wow! For the first time, the New York Times seems to be placing an ad (for SAP) as a splash page, which you have to pass to get to their home page. Have they done this before? It makes sense as a business decision, given their dismal financial situation (although apparently they're not going bankrupt: http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/new-york-times-were-not-going-bankrupt-in-may-nyt).
On the other hand, maybe it's not a wise business decision. I read that NYTimes.com is the most commonly set homepage. I wonder how this will affect their readership. NYTimes.com is my homepage, but if the splash ads become more aggressive or difficult to sidestep, I will change my homepage to something less irritating.
It seems as if internet marketing is poised to both save and destroy old media.
On the other hand, maybe it's not a wise business decision. I read that NYTimes.com is the most commonly set homepage. I wonder how this will affect their readership. NYTimes.com is my homepage, but if the splash ads become more aggressive or difficult to sidestep, I will change my homepage to something less irritating.
It seems as if internet marketing is poised to both save and destroy old media.
Monday, May 18, 2009
the mini-cooper isn't getting any bigger.
In the WSJ today, a brief article about how the advertising "pie" online isn't getting any bigger, and that any business seeking to be supported by web advertising would do well to keep that in mind. Writes Martin Peers,
"The Internet-ad business is a little like a Mini Cooper. There is a limit to the number of people who can squeeze inside... Yet newspapers, magazines and TV outlets are each vying with Web-only concerns for a piece of the action... Oversupply of inventory could be particularly brutal for pricing."
Peers cites a statistics showing that from 2006 to 2008, ad spending on traditional media "dropped 4.8%, or $6.7 billion, to 1.32.2 billion," while ad spending on the internet rose by $6.6 billion, nearly the same amount. Suffering the greatest erosion in ad revenue: traditional media like newspapers. David Carr writes in the New York Times that the paper lost $74.5 million in the first quarter of 2009 in advertising revenue - and this includes an 8% decline in internet ad revenue.
As a journalist, I am well aware that my industry is in the midst of a full-scale panic right now about this loss of revenue, and how migrating to an internet-based ad revenue model will irrevocably alter the business model of journalism and how newsrooms fund their work. The oft-repeated phrase is that moving traditional media online is the equivalent of trading "analog dollars for digital pennies." Newspapers are attempting different advertising models that mostly involve different points of insertions of advertising in their content - between a link and an article, for example, as Forbes and Salon.com do.
The New York Times recently introduced a prominent two-banner display on its homepage, just below the masthead and above any of its breaking news stories.
For the most part, this main banner ad is thankfully not of the flashing, tacky variety - but the presence of a single Apple logo dominating a quarter of the horizontal space and propping up both sides of the lead story is, at least to me, a little disconcerting. I'm under no illusions that the news isn't a business, but the prominence of advertising surrounding the content, like a moat -- look, it troubles me.
And yet, as Carr writes, even though this new huge homepage banner is enormous, the Apple banner ad doesn't even come close to replacing the Tiffany ad that traditionally runs in page three of the physical newspaper every day (It's had that spot for a hundred years!). The banner ad brings in far less money, and, as Carr writes,
"Until our digital model finds a way to create a similar kind of exalted placement, it will be tough to charge the kind of prices for advertising that reflect the cost of producing quality content."
It is also all the more apparent now that newspapers - accustomed to being the role of displaying the marketing output of their advertisers - must find a way to also market themselves online - to establish a presence in online communities and networks and through email marketing with their subscribers and readers - methods of communicating with media consumers that, for the most part, newspapers are simply not used to doing... and it has been taking publishers a long time to wrap their heads around the notion that news is now an ongoing multiple-front conversation, not a wire distribution service.
In other news, emarketer reports that banner advertising gets a bum rap for being annoying and ineffective, even though it seems that click-through rates are down - while 31% of respondents in a survey reported clicking on ads, ad viewers responded in other ways: by going to the advertising company's website directly, by seraching for information about the company, or even by looking around for information about the company through social networks or message boards. It seems banner ads may end up with the desired end - ad viewers become aware of the company and may even go on their own to find out about the company - but they're bypassing that click.
"The Internet-ad business is a little like a Mini Cooper. There is a limit to the number of people who can squeeze inside... Yet newspapers, magazines and TV outlets are each vying with Web-only concerns for a piece of the action... Oversupply of inventory could be particularly brutal for pricing."
Peers cites a statistics showing that from 2006 to 2008, ad spending on traditional media "dropped 4.8%, or $6.7 billion, to 1.32.2 billion," while ad spending on the internet rose by $6.6 billion, nearly the same amount. Suffering the greatest erosion in ad revenue: traditional media like newspapers. David Carr writes in the New York Times that the paper lost $74.5 million in the first quarter of 2009 in advertising revenue - and this includes an 8% decline in internet ad revenue.
As a journalist, I am well aware that my industry is in the midst of a full-scale panic right now about this loss of revenue, and how migrating to an internet-based ad revenue model will irrevocably alter the business model of journalism and how newsrooms fund their work. The oft-repeated phrase is that moving traditional media online is the equivalent of trading "analog dollars for digital pennies." Newspapers are attempting different advertising models that mostly involve different points of insertions of advertising in their content - between a link and an article, for example, as Forbes and Salon.com do.
The New York Times recently introduced a prominent two-banner display on its homepage, just below the masthead and above any of its breaking news stories.
For the most part, this main banner ad is thankfully not of the flashing, tacky variety - but the presence of a single Apple logo dominating a quarter of the horizontal space and propping up both sides of the lead story is, at least to me, a little disconcerting. I'm under no illusions that the news isn't a business, but the prominence of advertising surrounding the content, like a moat -- look, it troubles me. And yet, as Carr writes, even though this new huge homepage banner is enormous, the Apple banner ad doesn't even come close to replacing the Tiffany ad that traditionally runs in page three of the physical newspaper every day (It's had that spot for a hundred years!). The banner ad brings in far less money, and, as Carr writes,
"Until our digital model finds a way to create a similar kind of exalted placement, it will be tough to charge the kind of prices for advertising that reflect the cost of producing quality content."
It is also all the more apparent now that newspapers - accustomed to being the role of displaying the marketing output of their advertisers - must find a way to also market themselves online - to establish a presence in online communities and networks and through email marketing with their subscribers and readers - methods of communicating with media consumers that, for the most part, newspapers are simply not used to doing... and it has been taking publishers a long time to wrap their heads around the notion that news is now an ongoing multiple-front conversation, not a wire distribution service.
In other news, emarketer reports that banner advertising gets a bum rap for being annoying and ineffective, even though it seems that click-through rates are down - while 31% of respondents in a survey reported clicking on ads, ad viewers responded in other ways: by going to the advertising company's website directly, by seraching for information about the company, or even by looking around for information about the company through social networks or message boards. It seems banner ads may end up with the desired end - ad viewers become aware of the company and may even go on their own to find out about the company - but they're bypassing that click.
Friday, February 27, 2009
New York Times to Launch Local Blog?
TechCrunch reported this morning that the New York Times may unveil a local neighborhood blog project this upcoming Monday. The Brooklyn neighborhoods of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill will be one of two pilot neighborhoods. Users of NYTimes.com will be invited to report neighborhood matters including "...cultural events, bar and restaurant openings, real estate, arts, fashion, health, social concerns and anything else that goes on in the ‘SoHo of Brooklyn.’"
This new initiative can be likened to CNN's iReporters site, which also encourages the public post news stories. How this changes the nature of news reporting still waits to be seen, but it appears that both initiatives will attract more eyeballs, and in turn, more advertisers to their sites. Still, whether or not this can be a sustainable revenue model is anyone's guess. Will small, local advertisers finally be able to advertise on the coveted pages of the New York Times - space traditionally reserved for big name brands? Will the operational costs of running the local sites be recouped? How will the New York Times define "all the news that's fit to print?" Will the paper's brand and image take a hit? Again, the answers can only be guessed at this point.
This new initiative can be likened to CNN's iReporters site, which also encourages the public post news stories. How this changes the nature of news reporting still waits to be seen, but it appears that both initiatives will attract more eyeballs, and in turn, more advertisers to their sites. Still, whether or not this can be a sustainable revenue model is anyone's guess. Will small, local advertisers finally be able to advertise on the coveted pages of the New York Times - space traditionally reserved for big name brands? Will the operational costs of running the local sites be recouped? How will the New York Times define "all the news that's fit to print?" Will the paper's brand and image take a hit? Again, the answers can only be guessed at this point.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
"Bloggers are Monkeys"... Linkbait?
An interesting ad campaign for a Brazilian newspaper has hatched a Catch-22 discussion. It seems the newspaper humorously referenced bloggers as a pack of chimps cutting and pasting random text on the internet, then directing readers to its new, presumably more reputable site. The firestorm of pissed off bloggers linking to the site has generated another, very interesting question...
The ad in question - Bloggers are Monkeys...
Was it deliberate linkbait? That is - were the ad people smart enough to GOAD the blogosphere into giving the ad that much more impact? Knowing people, I doubt it... but it's a very interesting thought...
The ad in question - Bloggers are Monkeys...
Was it deliberate linkbait? That is - were the ad people smart enough to GOAD the blogosphere into giving the ad that much more impact? Knowing people, I doubt it... but it's a very interesting thought...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)