Measuring Up

Will you pay up?

The New York Times will now charge money for readers to access its online version. That's a big leap of faith for any online news provider. 

Will it work?

This blogger says no. Here are three simple reasons why: 

1) Free - The New York Times and pretty much every other competitor has already spoiled us rotten. Content is free. We like it free. And, with so many other news providers to choose from, free trumps anything else these days.

2) Where's the unique value? Sure, The Times might have exceptional writers and does clearly offer some interesting stories and exposes. But, most of what the online version offers is also generic, national/international news and trends. These stories are often covered similarly by dozens of other news and content providers. Unless this new outlet can bring its current readers more compelling content that they can't get elsewhere, the masses simply won't pull out their credit cards and subscribe.

As I was thinking about this post, my brother made a good point yesterday on this topic. He believes that there are specific sections of the paper (like the Arts and Book Review) which fall into the exception to this rule category. That's because the Book Review Section has a following based on the distinctive types of reviews it offers. Many New York Times readers buy the paper simply to read this section because the content is hard to find elsewhere. Some audiences might subscribe simply because of that. I agree with his viewpoint. But, the amount of loyal followers here, doesn't add up to a lot.

3) Duplication - I have a regular print subscription to the paper. And, I read it online (when I am traveling). Would I buy an online subscription, thereby duplicating my subscription (and adding to my cost). Probably. But, that's because I'm in a related news business and truly need to read it. My feeling (though) is that the general universe who already pay for the print version certainly won't feel the same need and thus will not fork over the money, thereby paying double for both versions. That means this media company needs to pull in an entirely new audience of readers to pay for the online version. I'm highly skeptical that any such audience exists for this sophisticated newspaper.

The New York Times is a great news outlet and I really enjoy reading its online version. But free is what sells now (uh...slight humor). Absent of that, my belief is that the changed model will fail.

Has this media empire out Foxed the rest?

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch announced his next big media move. News Corporation introduced 'The Daily,' a digital-only daily newspaper.

Delivered as a news application designed for the iPad, Murdoch is taking a bold step forward by charging a monthly subscription rate of $39. According to his comments, he believes that this new venture will position News Corporation as the digital newsstand of the future.

The concept is quite interesting and controversial because it runs counter to how people consume their online news today. Instead of the ever popular push model where free RSS feeds and subscriptions allow any and all relevant news to be pushed on a 24/7 basis, this model literally creates a digital version of the USA Today model.

Murdoch believes that a more general interest, high- resolution color digital newspaper that offers readers news and gossip on dozens of topics will greatly entice them. He also claims that 'The Daily' will be the first to seamlessly bring photos, video and interactive features together, in this new “all in one place" format.

Murdoch's initial costs for this venture are purposely low. He hopes to build sales through subscriptions over time. No doubt the partnership with Apple will help. And if he's able to build circulation numbers, then advertisers should naturally flock to his outlet as well.

Yet, I wonder if 'The Daily' is still a few years ahead of its time. I do believe that many (including this blogger) would happily subscribe to this app if it was free. But, with so much other free content available at my finger tips, what motivating factor will compel me to want to offer up my credit card for this content? Thirty nine dollars isn't a lot. It's just the difference between having to go that extra step with a payment for content, versus continue to use my favorite model– free.

In the end, I believe that 'The Daily 'will need to provide some incredible value to generate mass subscriptions in this day and age.

I applaud Murdoch's moxy and continued innovative mind set. He failed big time acquiring soon to be 'has-been' My Space a few years back. This time, he's done a complete 180 degree change by establishing a first mover status. I just believe that unless 'The Daily' is offered as part of a larger package (i.e. buy an iPad and receive a six month subscription for free), with Apple consuming the cost, it will be a long and difficult climb to grow sales for News Corp.

Who really cares?

The debate between advertising, digital and PR professionals regarding who should lead digital engagement for   clients has grown tiresome.

Witness another piece of propaganda (this one from PR Newswire). This white paper focuses most of its effort (to no one’s surprise) on the opinion that PR professionals have a better mix of ‘the right’ skills to consult and execute client digital campaigns. The argument isn’t necessarily wrong (yes, I am a PR man at heart). Public relations professionals have a certain type of DNA that pushes them to communicate in a non-commercial, typically transparent way. If we hadn’t operated this way for the last 50 years, media wouldn’t accept our client stories or use them as sources for interviews. And, non commercial, organically created humor/news/stuff is typically how real digital engagement works best on the Internet today. But, that certainly doesn’t always mean that PR professionals or their agencies are best suited to follow these rules.

Sam Ford, Peppercom's Director of Digital Strategy wrote a Chief Marketer piece on this titled 'Get Advertising and PR to Work Together on a Spreadable Approach.'

I’ve listened to and read of countless articles and debates from the digital and advertising professions as well. Their belief is that creative concepts, sustainable campaigns and the high quality graphics and use of content that are key to making brands appeal to online consumer audiences have always been owned by them. So, naturally those that have always led traditional brand building through advertising, direct marketing and now digital content development,  are better positioned to be the lead dogs in showing clients how to build their brands and create better online engagement. Objectively, it’s hard to argue the rationale behind some of this thinking as well.

Anyone in the marketing agency business can understand why this debate is growing louder and louder. A lot is on the line because the reality is that all of these ‘sister’ industries are undergoing a seismic paradigm shift that hasn’t been seen since… well, maybe never. The lines of who is responsible for creating anything digital are completely blurred. Because of this, these agencies with different traditional disciplines now (for the first time) view each other as encroaching on eachother’s turf. The result is that they aren’t playing nicely in the sand box together anymore. And, that is becoming a real problem for clients everywhere.

So, who do I believe should own the digital landscape. To me, it’s always come down to the actual people who live within each individual agency  versus the discipline or brand differentiator that any agency possesses. There are some hot digital agencies that have very mediocre executives. In those cases, any client accounts those professionals work on will probably choose their more strategic PR and/or ad agency brethren to lead digital efforts. I’m sure the reverse holds true with public relations firms offering less than stellar PR executives up to clients as well, because when there is risk involved (and digital engagement is still an unknown risk to most), clients turn to who they trust most  for direction. Not, the PR guy or advertising account leader because of some discipline specialty.

In the end, those agencies in the know are now attempting to morph into much more of an integrated marketing model, which can offer clients as much as possible under one roof (and most importantly, a real digital solution). The real question isn’t which discipline is better positioned to lead this fast growing digital landscape. But, it’s about which agencies can build the most talent to show clients how to do it right.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen

Blockbuster, the one-time business growth success story and king of the video industry, is heading into bankruptcy.

Although the company’s fall has steadily been in the works for years, it will become a classic text book example of how new, disruptive technologies can take down what seemed like an invincible business giant. What happened is pretty simple. While this industry leader continued to expand by opening dozens and dozens of new video stores around the country, upstarts like Netflix understood that the entire model supporting video distribution was about to change forever. Because of this, it innovated by bridging the gap by offering consumers a better distribution method (receiving DVD’s through the mail) and more importantly, it understood that the creation and distribution of content via the web would soon trump everything else. So, it signed a variety of deals to secure content partnerships where consumers could stream online video so much easier.

Then, of course, we all became customers of Amazon and Apple because their customer-centric content offerings brought that much more convenience to consumers across the globe.

Blockbuster is a victim of its own success. It failed to see these emerging trends. And, while the company also made a variety of bad decisions along the way, ultimately, it just waited too long to jump aboard this bandwagon. That lack of strategic vision, foresight (or just plain complacent attitude) made Blockbuster an extremely late entrant into a competitive field. Thus, it never could capture significant market share, all the while it continued to consistently plummet with its traditional video business.

Clayton Christenson, the renown author of Innovator’s Dilemma, professor at Harvard Business School (and a former Peppercom client), wrote a lot about how companies need to constantly look into the future to understand the power of new game changing technologies. He believed that the difference between success and failure was pretty simple. These technologies could be leveraged to reinvent or change companies’ business models to meet the coming demands of consumers. In these cases, upstarts like Google, Netflix or Amazon could actually topple their largest and most successfully long standing competitors. Or, these technologies would only serve to disrupt and ultimately kill those businesses because they became irrelevant to their customers.  

My guess is that Clayton (or some other professor) at Harvard Business School will be discussing Blockbuster in class today, as a prime case in point of how disruption worked this very week.

What’s in store for the future of communications?

As part of our on-going recognition of Peppercom’s 15th anniversary, my business partner, Steve, and I recently had a lively and thought provoking conversation with three premiere corporate communications leaders:  Monica Teague, Senior Manager, PR, Brand Business Teams, Whirlpool, Tom Topinka, Public Relations Leader, Genworth and Amber Harris, Manager of Digital Communications for Discovery Communications. 

I posted the first part of the podcast last week, as we focused on the existing state of our industry and what undercurrents drive our business today.

I now want to share the second part of our conversation wherein we look ahead and discuss what challenges and developments will plot our course into the future.  I hope you will enjoy listening to the conclusion of our dialogue as we discuss the digital age’s world domination and shaping of the potential of global communications.

Click on the gray bar below, to listen, and as always, I would like to hear your comments- good, bad or indifferent.

15th_Year Anniversary Podcast-Part 2

Should we call it 'digital driving'?

OnStar announced today a new application where drivers can soon communicate on their Facebook page with just a push of a button.

From what the company's president discussed on MSNBC this morning, this new capability is almost entirely hands free. Drivers simply need to push a new button on their OnStar devices and then talk into the microphone. That voice monologue will then be automatically turned into text that will appear on his/her Facebook page.

Pretty wild, huh? If you're stuck in a frustrating traffic jam, all your Facebook fans can read about it as it's happening. Or, maybe you've just past something of interest on the road. Once again, everyone you care about will soon read about it.

What I found most illuminating about this announcement though is what the OnStar president said about other possible coming features/applications. He mentioned technologies that could allow for live video conferencing and even the ability to do much more social networking on the Internet. Of course, he also reinforced numerous times that his company focuses on safety first. That's why all of these applications are (or will be) virtually hands free.

When I first watched this story, I thought this is pretty cool because these new breakthrough technologies have come so far. But, then something in my mind didn't add up when I combined the objective of driving safely with the reality that by leveraging new gadgets such as these, drivers will have to focus on so many other variables that don't include the road (or the car in front of them). That spells potential disaster.

We all know that texting, emailing and, generally, having conversations on PDAs while driving causes many more accidents these days. OnStar's new apps might be quasi hands free, but that won't help many drivers who fumble about figuring out how to make their connection to Facebook work (while they drive).

I also wonder about when enough is enough. In this case, do new boundaries need to be mandated? For example, do we (as a society) really need to be completely connected to our friends/fans every single minute of the day?  And, although video conferencing could certainly provide another twist to making business more accessible and personal, what's so appealing about watching someone stare at the road ahead versus just listening to him/her on a phone call. Some technology innovations like that simply add very little appeal.

No, it seems to me that the automobile should be one place where safety and common sense need to take precedence over accessibility and efficiencies. That means the concept of digital driving should really be limited to playing a Wii video game at home. Not an OnStar application that probably will have more of a negative impact than positive benefits.

Still relevant or digital relic?

When's the last time you discussed the social networking site MySpace with friends? And, when it came up, was it discussed in a positive light or as a passé online destination that lost its mojo many moons ago? For me, the answers are: probably six months ago and it's kind of a joke representing any company that lost its relevance.

Here's an interesting article in AdWeek (MySpace: Still Here) that surprisingly portrays this once dominant entity as still strangely relevant. In fact, MySpace actually attracts 61 million unique users per month, second only to Facebook (which still dwarfs any other networking site with 146 million users).

According to this article, MySpace has assumed a much more focused role as a sharing site versus its larger nemesis which really has become the ultimate communications platform. To capitalize on its positioning, MySpace has developed numerous programs around music and has built a following of over 5 million bands on the network. It has leveraged sponsorships with the likes of Wendy’s to build brand awareness for MySpace "Music's Get Close Program," a competition that gives fans the chance to see the net's featured musicians perform live.

It's interesting to see how this once proud leader is making a valid push to revive its relevance among young people. Still, I wonder if these efforts fall under the heading: Too Little, Too Late.

While clearly the site has many fans, MySpace lost its cool factor (and more importantly) its buzz three years ago. I spent 15 minutes conducting my own informal, non-scientific research (I asked half a dozen teens and 20-somethings their perceptions of MySpace). The answers were uniformly consistent – “not interested and my friends aren't either.” That told me a lot.

As superficial as it sounds, buzz is critical for digital survival as well. It brings advertisers in and it creates the perception of success, which ultimately breeds more (real success), if managed correctly.

These days, Twitter and Facebook are the clear kings on the mountain. New entrants such as FourSquare are also creating real buzz and excitement. Of course, there will always be one or two other new players who challenge their buzz supremacy by offering the newest and latest cool networking or communications tool, as well. Understanding all of this, my belief is that it's next to impossible for forgotten brands (such as MySpace) to stage any type of real comeback, regardless of what unique offering they develop or how they reposition their value proposition.

A great example of this is Yahoo. Yahoo was the pioneer and dominant force in internet search for a good long time. Then, it was googled by Google and life was never the same. While it has found some relevance in the online advertising arena, it lost any real search relevance forever because Google consistently out maneuvered it.

Regardless of what AdWeek writes, MySpace has fallen into the digital relic category. It may still attract a unique audience, but there's a big difference between being a compelling Internet player that so many are buzzing about versus just being there, while no one really cares.

Can social media bring divided factions together?

Anyone who’s ever worked inside a large company understands that corporate politics and turf battles are almost always a reality of day-to-day business. From our consultant viewpoint, we’ve pretty much seen all of the ways companies get stuck in their own inertia. One run-of-the-mill infrastructure issue we often see involves functional departments competing over budget sizes and resource allocations. And, within departments, managers often jockey for control over specific projects/campaigns or groups of employees. In these cases, the end goal (whatever it might be) is typically sacrificed because of power battles.  My least favorite (though) is when great ideas (that have the ability to “move the needle”) are killed for no other reason than because of petty personal insecurities (i.e. it didn’t come from me, and I don’t want that guy to look good).

We were discussing many of these issues last week during a day-long workshop that Peppercom co-led with CableFax, the cable industry trade publication, and Access Intelligence (its parent company). The workshop focused on how cable and media companies can learn to leverage social media more effectively within their current internal and external communications/marketing efforts. No surprises really came from this group. In many cases, even the largest companies are just dipping their toes into the digital water right now. Others haven’t created a social media strategy due to lack of resources, expertise or because their organization is still figuring out where this new functional discipline should be housed internally.

We also had two excellent guest speakers, a research team from MTV Networks who discussed how their organization is using social media research to serve its many properties (i.e. MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.) from a content and marketing standpoint. What I found most interesting, though, is how they’ve leveraged social media to unite so many different business functions within the organization. In their experience, this still misunderstood medium can bring many factions within a company together for the first time. And that’s exciting.

How is this possible? Well, after applying some logical analysis, it makes sense. What we heard is that most companies (at least in the cable and media industries) have not yet created one social media function or division within the organizational chart that runs across the company. Instead, various resources are often siphoned from different departments within the organization to take the lead on figuring out social media. These people are then deemed “social media experts.”  I’m sure that outside specialists are also brought in to show the way in many cases as well. But the point for MTV Networks is that, because its many business lines, brands and marketing areas are all intently trying to learn how to apply social media to their communications/marketing/audience engagement efforts, these factions find themselves opening up, integrating and simply working better with each other to learn and leverage best practices. More specifically, our guests discussed how social media research serves to play this unifying role (i.e. everyone wants it to make better decisions about specific campaigns/projects that should be created or not based on this first-time research).

In essence, because social media is so new and still somewhat mysterious (at least to its ultimate effect), it can actually serve to change the unwritten political rules that govern how internal behavior works within large organizations. Of course, this was but one example from one workshop. But, the possibilities are still pretty exciting.

What’s not to like about Steven Singer?

Ever hear of Steven Singer Jewelers? I’ve probably heard this company’s quirky radio commercials a thousand times and never thought anything about them. Until it finally hit me this morning just how bizarre Steve Singer’s marketing strategy is. You see, Steven Singer’s web site is www.ihatestevensinger.com. And, whether the company  is simply promoting discounted jewelry (as it always does) or special 14 carat gold dipped roses around Valentine’s day (yuck), this web URL is proudly highlighted over and over again in all of its advertising.

I found it quite odd that a company would promote such a negative statement about itself. So, I Googled Steven Singer to see if anything is being written about the URL name and then went to its Web site. I couldn’t find much being written, but the “About Us” section of Steven Singer’s Web site gave me what I was looking for. It seems that founder Steven Singer is quite a successful entrepreneur and businessman. He started the company at an early age and then expanded it in the Philadelphia area not long after. He’s won countless awards and has played a key civic role in the community as well. The positioning doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but Steven seems to feel that with each successful move he’s made, it’s a great reason for people to hate him (i.e. when people say, “Don’t you just hate the guy?”). Pretty weak, eh?

Regardless, his contrarian strategy to create a lot of noise around this negative (completely comical) Web site URL seems to work pretty well because the company keeps expanding. I only call this point out because it shows how sometimes counter intuitive, yet very creative marketing strategies can actually work when implemented the right way. With Steven Singer, he actually has Howard Stern preaching the company’s accolades, all while he makes fun of the URL ihatestevensinger.com. That’s caught on with Howard’s fans big time.

Who knows. Maybe this will start a trend and we’ll see Apple create www.ihateipod.com , or Disney promote www.idespisemickeymouse.com. Well… I can’t see this really becoming a trend (and I wouldn’t recommend it to any clients.) But, if it works for Steven Singer, that’s great.

Because of credible digital communications, I never looked “back”

Every few months my aching lower back acts up again. Like many, I’ve tried most therapies, from acupuncture  to intense physical therapy to regular chiropractor sessions. All of these have helped in making my back feel whole again for 4-8 month periods. But unfortunately, none gave any type of real lasting powers.

Ask 10 different people for advice on back therapies and you’ll get 10 different answers. Go on the internet looking for solutions and you’ll only find yourself tired, frustrated and more confused about the myriad of “guaranteed” procedures and doctors who can supposedly “cure” your pain. I was just about ready to end my Internet Google search, when this series of videos hit my screen.

; ;

In case you don’t have the time or desire to watch it, Dr. Howard Goodman (a back physician and chiropractor) discusses how something called spinal decompression can possibly help those who have inflammation or herniated discs (I have the former). What caught my eye about this series of videos (and kept me watching) is the simple, easy to understand and credible manner with which this specialist comes across. Instead of guaranteeing any type of magic solution, or trying to impress me with high brow MD knowledge, Dr. Goodman calmly explains to me what decompression is and how it can really help SOME patients (but not everyone.) He discusses it in the context of an alternative to surgery and then walks the viewer through symptoms that a candidate would have (and why.) Lastly, in layman’s terms, he describes the end benefit that this procedure can accomplish during a 6-8 week therapy timetable. I also like the fact that the entire intro video is only three minutes in length. (That’s plenty of time to explain to me the basics.) All the videos can be accessed from YouTube as well.

There’s nothing new about creating YouTube videos to educate and promote products, services and thought leadership. I just think that many in the medical field haven’t really figured out how to leverage this powerful Internet tool to effectively communicate credibly with target consumer audiences. With so many different medical “solutions” continually pushed to us, it’s incredibly hard to know which one is believable and really fits the problem at hand, or just pure snake oil (and there are quite of a few of those on the Internet these days.) So, guarantees and/or cocky promotions about medical pedigrees and language that I don’t understand are sure fire turnoffs for me.

After watching this video, I went to the Web site of New York Rehabilitation Center (which luckily happens to be physically located a block away from where I work,) and was further educated about the way decompression could really work for me. I also read articles (posted on the site) and did my own analysis on the doctors there to feel comfortable that everything seemed legitimate. In many ways, Dr. Goodman and his staff did everything right to successfully create a credible social media offering. The large amount of positive reviews about this video certainly helps to reinforce that. I think that others in the medical field should take notice.

Will this work for me? That’s a good question. I’m on to my 5th decompression appointment and the old back is actually starting to feel better. But, only time (6-8 weeks) will tell. I’ll be sure to report back to you how I’m feeling then.