Bob Rosenbaum | The MarketFarm

Rocky Mountain News closes for the 3rd time

The Rocky Mountain Independent has closed just two months after it started. The Independent was formed from the ashes of InDenverTimes.com – which actually still exists as a free information site, but not with any of the well-intentioned people who started it five months before the Independent.

Both of these were created by jobless journalists jilted by the February closing of the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News.

The closing is sad, but predictable. The online-only effort at covering news in Denver was started for the wrong reasons (early-onset nostalgia), it had an implausible business model (premium priced news content), and it was run by the wrong people (journalists).

For the ultimate review on the subject, check out Alan Mutter’s Newsosaur blog. Everything he writes about this episode is spot-on and couldn’t be said any better.

But I will emphasize one point: Once upon a time, the news business might have been about the quality of reporting. And I know that some very strong journalism schools are still teaching that it still is. What else should they teach: mediocrity?

But it’s dead wrong. With the exception of some notable niches, content today is judged on a strictly pass-fail basis. It is either not good enough, or it is good enough.

For most media today, there is no ROI in anything that aspires to be better than good enough.

I’m not saying that great journalism doesn’t have a redeeming social value. Of course it does. It’s the bedrock of democracy; it’s the record of humanity.

There’s just no money in it.

Condé Nast shocker: A hard move, but smart

cover_modernbride_190 In a move that startled almost everybody, Condé Nast is closing four magazines: Gourmet, Cookie, Modern Bride and Elegant Bride.

At some level, though, this shouldn’t be a surprise; the two bride titles are simply maids of honor to Brides magazine – also owned by Condé Nast. Elegant Bride, with 150,000 total circulation is a niche magazine for those who plan to buy luxury weddings. Modern Bride, with 335,000 total circulation, is positioned as the hip, fun and stylish magazine in the segment. Brides is simply the No. 1 with 340,000 total circulation and, notably, a network of local/regional bridal magazines. cover_brides_190

Once upon a time, this kind of segmenting made sense. It assured the perfect fit for every possible advertiser, and many of those advertisers – given a little incentive – could find reason to buy into multiple titles.

I don’t have any idea how many of its bridal advertisers are still buying in multiple titles; I’m sure it’s a lot – but I’m also sure it’s not as many as a few years ago. Much of that piggyback revenue will be hard to replace. That’s why company executives needed a third-party consultant to tell them what they already knew: In today’s environment, it’s no longer economical for a magazine publisher to serve a category both horizontally and vertically.

Casting away two out of three heritage brands is scary, and some observers are already beating up the company for the decision. But I’m guessing that the publishers (Modern down 21 percent this year and Elegant down 32 percent) were already getting early reports of a continued bloodbath in 2010, as more advertisers rationalize their purchases across a few broad-based titles per category. If Condé Nast hadn’t made this gutsy call now, then its recession would simply drag on into next year.

By consolidating all bridal business into Brides, Condé Nast undoubtedly gives up a lot of revenue, but it also reduces a lot of expense. And what it gains is the ability to focus all development efforts on the one brand that is already recognized as the industry leader and that already encompasses all bridal niches. In fact, the company has said it plans to double Brides‘ frequency to 12x.

cover_gourmet_190 The recipe is pretty much the same for Gourmet – which has a rate base of 950,000, compared to Bon Appetit (also owned by Condé Nast) with 1.3 million.

The company has probably had an increasingly difficult time justifying a two-book buy to its advertisers and has been told that it needs to make their ad buys simpler and more cost-effective.

Cookie is probably a different situation altogether. It’s a lifestyle magazine for the modern mother – a category that would overlap with parenting titles, women’s titles and shopping titles (of which Condé Nast closed one, Domino, early this year). It’s a hyper-competitive cover_bonap_190 category and, founded just four years ago, Cookie (total circ: 550,000) probably never had a chance to develop its own secure presence in the shrinking marketplace. Other titles in the Condé Nast portfolio include Vogue, W, Glamour, Allure, Self and Lucky.

Condé Nast CEO Charles Townsend told the New York Times that the decision was simple: The four magazines were losing money and that’s no longer going to be tolerated. He also said no more closings are planned.

Which may be the truth. Today.

If only print could be more like TV in trying to be more like the ‘Net

An interesting bit of information from the TV world:

The new Jay Leno Show is particularly successful in one area: reduction time-shifting – which is the practice of watching a show at a time other then when it airs – basically through TiVo or other recording devices.

Last year, according to a report in MediaBuyerPlanner, which cites TiVo as its source, 70 percent of viewers watched NBC’s 10 p.m. programming on a time-shifted basis; only 30 percent watched it live.

The good news is that’s improved to about 50 percent watching it live and 50 percent recording it to watch later. What’s amazing to me is that half the audience basically refuses to watch the show on the network’s terms. Given the technology, consumers are telling television insiders exactly what they want and how/when they want to watch it.

That’s not to say the networks are responding like champions. But I have to say, subjectively, that bumping even a couple reality shows in favor of a talk-entertainment show like Leno’s is a step in the right direction. And maybe that’s what the audience is responding to; perhaps the reduction in time-shifting basically means, “If you give me something worth watching it, I’m more likely to watch it when you air it.”

With a blog that’s so heavily dominated by print-to-internet trends, why do I think this is worth noting?

Because it points out a huge difference between what’s happening in print media vs. broadcast. Both are struggling to keep up with the change brought on by online technologies, they’re being impacted from opposite directions.

TV is losing its audience to other activities, and has had to fight and innovate to earn every viewer that it gets. Then it can turn around and sell its successes to advertisers. This is a healthy business model.

Print media, on the other hand, isn’t being pushed by its readers – who have largely made it clear that they prefer a print product. Otherwise, readers might pay for online content; and they would certainly ask for digital editions of their favorite magazines. And if that were the case, there wouldn’t be a problem. Readers would get the product they want, advertisers would know exactly how many people see and respond to their ads, and publishers would be able to cut the Three P’s that represent the largest cost of doing business: production, printing and postage.

The problem for print is that it’s being pushed by the other end: the advertisers, who demand better accountability for the impact of the money they spend. Because you can’t measure the impact of print media as simply or directly as online media, advertisers are draining their print spend in favor of an online spend. So magazines keep trying to come up with online products, and readers are yawning.

In the end, the trouble for print is that it’s not yet figured out how to give both the audience and advertisers what they want. And it’s responding to the advertisers first. And each time, readers yawn and the medium loses more credibility with advertisers.

That’s not a healthy business model.

Playing the Twitter shellgame

I’m not giving up on Twitter. Yet. There are still a handful of people whose Tweets are interesting and useful to me.

But it’s a stupid game.

It has nothing to do with how much you have to say or how often you say it. It has everything to do with how many people you follow. I recently attended a webcast on how to build a social network on Twitter. The basic advice: follow a lot of people and they’ll follow you back. And if they don’t follow you back, unfollow them.

The rest of the session was inside ball: what rules Twitter uses to prevent such inanity and how to get around them (wait 24 hours before unfollowing anyone); how to identify non-followers quickly using Twitter’s minimalist interface (if you don’t have a direct-message option next to their name, they aren’t following you); and which tools you can use (Hummingbird, $197.00) to automatically follow people and then unfollow them if they fail to reciprocate.

By using this advice (not the software; just the advice) I tripled the number of people following me (from about 100 people after 4 months of thoughtful tweeting to 300 people after another day and just one tweet). Time spent in the effort: 15 minutes.

The etiquette at Twitter is simple: Someone follows you, you follow them back. And vice versa.

How this does anyone any good is beyond me; it assures that you have an audience of people who don’t give a wit about anything you have to say. And vice versa.

To prove the point, I just got a follow from someone whose list of followers and followees at this moment is in the range of 34,000. She has 14 tweets since May (4 months).

Fourteen? Really? That’s 1,960 characters, which isn’t even a respectable dependent clause to William Faulkner. That’s like 17 followers per word. If Jesus had a ratio like that, would Islam even exist?

When in history have so many people lined up to listen to so many people with so little to say?

Trouble with democracy: It doesn’t pay well

If there’s anything I write about or comment on that is sure to draw a hot and negative response, it’s the insistence that journalists start to get in tune with their true market value. It’s not that I don’t see a huge social value to the work they do. I credit journalists with keeping our democracy alive. But they’ve never been paid by democracy; they get paid by a business model.

My point is twofold:

Journalists have always been part of someone else’s business model. But it’s generally only in times like this, when the business models are under fire, that journalists are compelled to recognize it.
While traditional media models are under siege, journalists themselves are becoming part of the solution — developing new models and new approaches to paying the true cost for news. (For example, check out Spot.us and MedCityNews.)

Today’s e-mail brought an item from one of my favorite blogs, Seth Godin’s Blog. He usually has something insightful to say about the way the world works. But this is the first time I’ve ever seen his blog address the media world directly.

His message (you should read it yourself; it’s short) is simply this: Journalists can be measured for the interest their stories generate — as evidenced by a Washington Post columnist who was let go because his blog posts didn’t generate enough traffic. In every other industry, people’s performance is measured against specific objectives.

It’s happening now with journalists — bringing them into intimate business contact for whatever business model employs them.

Coming face to face with reality can be a painful experience, but in the working world there is really nothing more important.

In a world of SEO, does content matter?

Well, yes. If you have bad content then it doesn’t matter how many people come to see it. Consider this visual from Mark Smiciklas.

Wait, it’s worse than that. If you have bad content, then the more people who see it, the worse off you are. Because now you’re simply broadcasting the fact that you suck.

I would argue you’re better off with great content that only a few people see — because at least those few people will have good things to say about you.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in a magazine that was all about business-to-business commerce. Our readers were intently trying to build e-commerce platforms that would increase the velocity of their business; our advertisers were trying to sell them 7-figure solutions to do so. But the discipline was in its frontier days, and much of what they were doing was first-generation inadequate.

The problem wasn’t that the e-commerce systems failed. It’s that everything else was built for a slower world. Warehouses weren’t organized well enough to handle the high-speed demands of e-commerce. Inventory wasn’t well-enough planned to keep fast-moving items in stock. Shipping contracts didn’t include the kind of pick-up and delivery guarantees that e-commerce requires.

Companies could take the orders with lightning speed, but then the old, slow processes took over.

Which resulted in what became known (at least in my own head) as Rosenbaum’s Law: Enabling e-commerce at a company with bad processes merely makes those bad processes apparent at a much higher speed to a much larger number of people.

The point: Make sure you have something intelligent and/or compelling to say.

Then communicate it.

Then — and only then — promote the heck out of it.

Even low-cost social media campaigns need to be measured

There is an entire industry of consultants that didn’t exist three years ago, telling people how to collect thousands of followers on Twitter; how to gain friends and fans on Facebook; and how to leverage large networks on LinkedIn. These consultants are writing books, conducting web-seminars and selling services.

The thing that gets too little attention is what all this is worth? Sure, you can grab a small nation’s worth of Twitter followers, but will it make you any money if they aren’t paying attention to your Tweets?

So it was refreshing to stumble across a new series or articles in Computerworld on How to measure the ROI of social media.

It would be nice if there were a few key metrics and some nice neat formulas you could follow, but social media is evolving too quickly and the measurements aren’t that simple.

In the end, if you want to know whether your time with social media is well spent, you need to do the following:

Set a meaningful goal. Is the purpose of your social media outreach simply to gain followers? Then you’ll have an easy time measuring, and a hard time proving that the effort was worthwhile. Instead, set a more specific goal, like this: To generate sales of $XXX (or X number of sales transactions) from members of our social media network.

That way, you’ll not only have a pass/fail measurement, you’ll learn something important along the way: i.e., how many new connections it takes to achieve a sale.

Assign specific tasks. If more than one person is going to be involved in the social media effort, make sure that each person knows his or her specific role. For instance, one person might conduct the outbound communications while another works to convert inbound communications into leads, and still another works to close sales.

This way, the entire job will get done — not just the fun part of blogging and tweeting. Further, when things don’t go perfectly (they won’t), you’ll have a team of experts who can figure out what adjustments to make.

Track everything. Time is money. So while social media programs are astonishingly inexpensive in terms of hard cost, you’ll want to know how much of each day your team members are spending on social media vs. their other responsibilities.

If you do these three things, then measuring gets easy. If you have goals, an organized work effort and good data, determining whether your resources are well-spent will be easy. Just like the example of Reality Digital, also from Computerworld.

Wal-Mart redesign cuts magazine aisle in half

Last week I wrote about Wal-Mart’s next-generation store design (Magazines: kick ’em when they’re down), which moves the magazine rack to the back of the store near music, electronic games, DVD’s and books.

Wal-Mart’s pretty good at figuring out how to maximize the sales of every square foot of space, so while the move is a symbolic kick in the pants to an industry that is suffering from all sorts of afflictions — not the least of which is a big drop in newsstand sales — it was hard to know if the move would really have an impact on the media business.

Well, apparently it does. According to AudienceDevelopment.com, the new store layout will also reduce the length of the magazine rack by 20 feet — approximately 50 percent. That means something on the order of half the magazines you can buy at Wal-Mart today will be unavailable there after each store is remodeled.

Wal-Mart isn’t saying which magazines will get the boot, and according to AudienceDevelopment.com, that decision hasn’t yet been addressed. But, consistent with all of its in-store activities, Wal-Mart officials (not a talkative bunch in the first place) are blunt in saying they’ll keep only the magazines that sell the fastest. Because that’s what Wal-Mart is all about.

It’s good for earnings and it’s good for the publishers that make the cut. But shoppers looking for titles with slightly narrower focus will simply have to go elsewhere.

Because that’s the downside of Wal-Mart and the Big Boxification of retail: Only the most mainstream items in any category – from lumber to breakfast cereal to music to magazines – get shelf space. Wal-Mart is bad for variety.

And in this case, it’s bad for the magazine business. The likely in-store survivors — usual suspects like Cosmo, Maxim, Better Homes & Garden and, (going out on a limb) Guns & Ammo — may see an increase in sales due to the new location, improved merchandising and reduced category competition. But I can’t imagine that the bump will be enough to offset the 20 feet of shelf-space that’s being given to some other retail category.

Face the fact: At the world’s largest store, magazines have just been put within site of the back door.

So the QB will give the snap-count just a little bit slower.

The following item is reprinted in its entirety from The Plain Dealer, Tuesday, Sept. 15:

3 current players to donate brains for study of injuries

Three NFL players announced Monday they will donate their brains and spinal cord tissues to a Boston University medical school program that studies sports brain injuries.

Even though dozens of former NFL players have agreed to donate their brains after death, center Matt Birk of the Baltimore Ravens, linebacker Lofa Tatupu of the Seattle Seahawks and receiver Sean Morey of the Arizona Cardinals are the first active players to do so.

Newspapers getting closer to a paid-content consensus

In his blog, Reflections of a Newsosaur, Alan Mutter — a Silicon Valley CEO and a former newspaper reporter, columnist and executive — says nearly half of newspaper publishers don’t believe they can succeed at charging consumers for content.

I think Mutter sounds like a smart guy, and his blog is great; just having stumbled across it I’ve put it on my blogroll. However, what he sees as the glass half-empty looks to me like it’s half-full. I’m pleased and impressed that just over half of newspaper publishers think they can charge for content.

As Seth Godin, another of my blogroll favorites, says: Success is mostly about your attitude. Which means the newspaper business is half-way home to figuring out how and why people are going to pay for their content. I’m not saying it’s an easy task, or that the tradeoff in revenue — advertising and classified for reader payments — is a neat-and-clean one-to-one swap. (It really doesn’t have to be; online content doesn’t come with huge printing and distribution costst, but that’s a digression). Like I said, I’m pleased to hear that half of the U.S. newspaper industry is giving itself a fighting chance at success.

As for the rest of Mutter’s blog, he’s smarter than I am, so you should just take a look at his more detailed analysis, and at the report that directed me to his blog in the first place.

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45119/half-of-newspaper-publishers-believe-online-pay-walls-will-work/?utm_source=mbp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=newsletter