Category: Independent Media

A shocker about ad budgets – and why

According to a consortium of advertising agencies, ad budgets are down this year. Who woulda thunk?

Seriously, according to B2B, a survey of 40 ICOM agency members indicated that more than half the agencies have seen client budgets drop at least 21% this year.

That seems to have translated directly to the magazine sector. The Seybold Report cites  data that consumer magazine pages were down 25 percent in Q1, with a corresponding decline in “rate card revenue” (that is: it’s just a calculation) of more than 20 percent.

According to the Magazine Publishers of America, this is just more of the same; pages were down about 12 percent in 2008. And various reports put them flat or down slightly in ’07.  So this isn’t just about the recession.

According to Seybold, more than half the respondents to the ICOM survey agreed with this statement: “Budget cuts and new challenges have served as catalysts for clients to come up with new ideas and experimentation to market their products.”

Again, this isn’t just about the recession. This is about businesses deciding that their marketing departments can and should play the role of publisher.

I started observing this bypass about 10 years ago, as my biggest and most sophisticated advertisers  literally started publishing their own magazines. Since then, it’s become easier and less expensive; today you can become a publisher with a website, a blogger and some folks who are really good with Facebook and Twitter.

Murdoch charges for content; Gannett closes my first paper

Rupert Murdoch is apparently tired of all the talk about how to save newspapers; now he’s taking action. According to a report in Media Buyer Planner, Murdoch is going to begin charging for content in 54 daily newspapers that he owns.

tucson_citizenIt’s an action few publishers have been willing to take, but Murdoch must be tired of watching profits simply fall out of the bottom of this bottomless boat. At some point, and I guess he’s there, a publisher has to say, “The risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of doing the wrong thing.”

The big fear has been that people don’t want to pay for online content, and that if newspapers start charging online, readers will simply evaporate. I think all of that’s true, as I’ve written before.

But if dozens of newspapers make the switch in a short period of time, it might also simply change the expectation of users who have been getting their news for free.

This very well could be the watershed moment that gives newspapers a chance at a future. And while I am generally pretty sparing in words of praise for Rupert Murdoch, it’s a credit to him that he has the courage to do this.

Meanwhile, on a note of personal disappointment for me, Gannet has folded the Tucson Citizen. It was an improbable product — an afternoon newspaper in a small city with two newspapers. The survivor, The Arizona Daily Star, is the morning paper. It’s owned by Lee Enterprises (when I was in town there, it was owned by Pulitzer) and has operated under an unusual joint operating agreement for at least the last 25 years, in which the two competitors share circulation, printing and a building.

I’m not surprised, but certainly sad to see it go. It’s the first newspaper where I worked, in 1983 as an intern in the Teaching Newspaper program of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. It’s like watching them tear down your childhood home and replacing it with a fenced-in, overgrown and rocky lot.

I suddenly miss my editor, Mike Chihak, and my friend Don Rodriguez — niegher of whom I’ve talked with in years, but who taught me a lot while I was there.

Nobody who ever worked for the Citizen could feel right about this. We were always the White Hat, the Star was the opposite. The feeling was confirmed for me the one time I had reason to step into the Star’s newsroom, on the opposite side of the building, with separate doors and an independent security system.

I don’t remember why I needed to go there, but while the Citizen newsroom was bright and cheerful with white linoleum floors, the Star newsroom looked to me like the White House War Room — with indirect lighting and a black tiled floor.

Very mature of me. I know. But it’s a vivid memory, as was my entire time at the Citizen. R.I.P.

What B2B advertisers really want from media

I’m not an advertiser, but I’ve spent the last 10 years selling to them.

I think my first day selling was the last day of the golden age in B2B media — back when magazine people spent all day bending over to pick up money, and then marveled at how hard they were working.

On my second day the balance tipped; customers by-and-large stopped looking for reasons to advertise, and started looking for reasons not to advertise. This has been documented and discussed. What’s missing from the discussion is why industrial advertisers might actually want the trade media to fail.

Start with the assumption that as much as buying marketing, these advertisers were buying security.They followed a  simple formula, perfect for the engineering mindset that drives these companies. It was this: Advertising with trade media is the only reliable way to reach a targeted audience. So by doing whatever the competition does you will achieve similar results.

Feeling aggressive? Spend a little more and you’ll do a little better. There were few variables, like the strength of your creative, and the novelty of your logo-ed novelties. It was neat and simple and let companies get back to the business of making stuff — which was their true DNA.

Then came the Internet, which replaced measurement by lead-generation with measurement by click-throughs and unique visits. It put a premium on speed and courage; and it created so many variables that there was no longer assurance you could match your competitors’ results by matching their spend.

Suddenly, buying print meant spending a lot of money without getting any security.

That would be enough for marketers to resent the media. But there’s another piece.

The traditional media model is sponsorship: Media creates content, which advertisers sponsor to reach a targeted audience. As friend and former boss Teri Mollison now at F&W Media, likes to say, this is the “We talk, you listen” model of marketing.

The Internet? That’s more like, “No, you listen.”

This is an uncomfortable thing in industry, where blunt and scratchy feedback didn’t always have to be tolerated. Nonetheless, it emphasizes how little feedback print really offers. That’s troublesome because of print’s other historical value proposition: distributing product information.

What good is that function in the Internet era if the information takes a a month to get out; doesn’t provide a lot of feedback compared to emerging alternatives; and inevitably gets filtered by a team of trade press editors.

It’s not news that cuts in ad spending have been offset by increased expenditures by industrial marketers on videos, articles, e-books, blogs and other original content. The Internet empowers them to do something the trade press won’t: get information to the market quickly, with no strings attached, and without a filter. There’s no begging, no pitching, no sending of gifts (which never really works, by the way), no threats to the publisher. The media’s old customers like being able to do their own media work. They don’t want to give up the flexibility and the freedom. They don’t want to see the power move back to the edtors.

Media companies are suffering terribly in this recession, but I’m not sure if many of them really understand why. It’s not just because there are too may other choices. It’s because industrial marketers aren’t interested in their survival.

Are magazines really that important?

Folio:, a trade magazine for the publishing industry, reports that Entrepreneur magazine is being sued for $178 million by a group of 87 investors who claim the magazine promoted a business that turned out to be a giant Ponzi scheme. (Here’s the article.)

ent-mag-cover-may-08In the suit, they claim the magazine “deliberately, willfully and recklessly failed to exercise due diligence in publishing information” about Agape World, according to the Folio: article. That information was contained in a May 2008 ranking of the “Hot 100” fast-growth businesses. Agape World was ranked 73rd, but early this year its owner was arrested and charged with mail fraud to the tune of $375 million+. The company has  been retroactively removed from the Hot 100 list.

This sounds to me like a bunch of crybaby investors looking for someone to blame because they didn’t do their due diligence. And I have little sympathy for them. The investors, according to the article, are also going to sue Dunn & Bradstreet, which apparently provided some of the information Entrepreneur used.

But it also peels back the blanket on one of publishing’s most worrisome and quietly kept problems. Magazine people claim that, despite the advertising/revenue crisis they currently face, they will remain viable over the long-run because their content is so important to readers.

For instance, here’s what Gordon Hughes, president of American Business Media (trade magazine association) said just a few weeks ago, in another Folio: article about the 26% declinein ad sales in 2009’s Q1: “What our industry does, and has always done, is provide information that makes business better and stronger. We will come through this period as a stronger industry, a more creative industry, and maybe even a more dedicated industry.”

He should have included the word “smaller.” Because the great good that he claims the industry performs is more exception than rule.

Take Entrepreneur‘s example. Its Hot 100 list is repurposed information from public databases. OK, somebody has to crunch the data. And I’m not saying there isn’t any original reporting; but even the magazine’s CEO says there isn’t a lot.

Here’s what Entrepreneur‘s COE Peter Shea told Folio: “Given the limited information provided about each company, it was certainly not Entrepreneur’s intention to evaluate or predict a specific company’s investment potential nor expectation that anyone would rely on such information to make investment decisions.”

What a terrible position: In order to defend his product against this lawsuit, he has to make the case that the content is really just trivia.

I don’t mean to condemn all magazines. Many do fine work, which I read and admire. But most of what passes for such is a little bit of data and a lot of promotion. For every magazine that is earning its way by producing content that readers really won’t live without, there are probably dozens that face a real comeuppance.

Advertisers are dropping out of magazines to create their own content, and magazines must finally (they’ve been talking about it for years) get readers to pay a larger share of the actual cost to produce the information they provide. As they do, many will face a truth they probably already know: Their content isn’t all that important.