Category: Independent Media

What is the world’s smallest deck chair?

aol-logo-4It’s the period in Aol. As in, America Online’s new branding effort, which changes the company from AOL to Aol. – but doesn’t make it any more relevant in a post-internet-service-provider world.

Seriously, this isn’t like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; as AOL and Time Warner complete their de-merger, it’s like replacing the rubber pad on a leg of a deck chair so it doesn’t scuff the deck.

I don’t understand why Aol. even exists anymore, except that it’s too big to go away quietly. The services it provided in the early days of the Internet – everything under one roof like a well-lit mall in an otherwise under-developed part of town – have all been superseded by a wider variety of offerings on the well-developed ‘Net.

Its search engine has dropped out of the top tier and offers no unique user value that would separate it from any others.

And I’m always startled when I find myself exchanging e-mails with someone who still has an address at the aol.com domain. Actually, it’s not an exchange; any e-mail I’ve sent in the last few months to the few Aol.-users I know has bounced back to me. Just this morning, I printed out a document and put it in an envelope with a stamp, because the Aol. user’s address rejected the attachment.

aol-logo-3Yes, Aol. has a brand problem. If you’re an investor who bet your retirement on AOL-Time Warner, the brand represents broken promises and unfulfilled dreams. For pretty much everyone else it represents obsolescence.

aol-logo-2That’s obviously not what the folks at Aol. and its branding agency, Wolff Olins (of the Omnicom Group) are thinking.

In its coverage (linked above), The New York Times quotes Sam Wilson, managing director in the New York of Wolff Olins, the branding agency Aol. has hired. The Times writes:

The period in the logo was added to suggest “confidence, completeness,” Ms. Wilson said, by declaring that “AOL is the place to go for the best content online, period.”

aol-logo-1The article also quotes Aol.’s CEO (or is that Ceo.?) Tim Armstrong:

Mr. Armstrong said he liked to describe the period as “the AOL dot” because “the dot is the pivot point for what comes after AOL,” whether it is e-mail, Web sites or coming offerings that will “surprise people.”

What will surprise me is if Aol. can provide the Internet community with a reason to exist other than its legacy – something about which the online world is notoriously indifferent. To me, the dot looks a lot like the head of a nail, a coffin nail maybe – which might be enough to keep the deck chairs from sliding around as the ship continues to list.

People will pay for online news? Now we’re talkin’

A study by Boston Consulting Group indicates people are increasingly willing to pay for local and national news delivered to their mobile devices.

On average, according to the study, the price would have to top out at about $3 a month, which admittedly isn’t much. But it offers two strong points of optimism:

People are willing to pay SOMETHING for what was previously assumed to be of no commercial value.

$3 a month, for a product that no longer has the production or distribution cost of a printed product, is worth far more in the way of earnings than it would be for a traditional media product.

No, this isn’t proof that consumers will pay the full cost of journalism. But does demonstrate that they are aware of the pressure that traditional media models are under as advertising revenue continues to erode; and that they are warming up to being part of the solution.

News: Not dead, but being reborn

This article, on the effort by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar to start a local news service in Honolulu, validates my postion that journalism and the news business are not dead or dying. They are being taken up by a new generation of media outsiders – people who value news and aren’t so burdened by years of “training” in the industry, that they can see new possibilities that may exist. It also helps that they aren’t burdened by an infrastructure built over decades to support old business models.

The article doesn’t say much about Omidyar’s business model – but he intends the service to be for-profit and to generate new contet.

A couple things about this jump out at me – in addition to the obvious fact that it’s at least one more person who’s not willing to give up on the news.

  • New news businesses tend to be local – where there is less competition to provide information, and where the advertising crisis has had the least impact.
  • The goals of new news businesses are modest; the ones I’m hearing about tend to seek primacy in a small area, to have a good impact on a relatively small number of people, and make a little money in the process.

Which strikes me as a pretty good way to rebuild an industry that is in historic transition.

Years from now, there will be big players again, who have figured out how to consolidate the many small for-profit news operations that are popping up. Some of those big players will be the same names that are familiar in media circles today. Others will be new.

And the news business will look very different from the way it does right now.

But it will be a business and an industry.

Somehow.

The startling drop in audited circulation

According to AudienceDevelopment.com, audited circulation levels are declining at historic rates.

This actually points to two trends — one economics related, and one customer-induced.

The first is that publishers are cutting circulation in order to reduce cost. AD states that “183 publications decreased circ 5 percent or more compared to 142 a year ago and 101 the year previous. Conversely only 41 publications increased circ five percent or more compared to 76 the year previous.”

OK, so publishers are cutting circulation to reduce printing and postage costs. It happens in every recession, and it won’t  come back much, if at all, following this recession because advertisers won’t accept rate hikes in exchange for a larger rate base. There’s simply no money in sending more publications to more people.

But the second trend is bigger and more meaningful to advertisers and publishers – and it could put the auditors out of business. That is that publishers are dropping their audits altogether because the audit process provides decreasing ROI.

AD states: “Departing titles far exceed newly audited titles. A record 69 titles were discontinued or ceased being audited and only 23 titles were added to the audited ranks. The total number of audited “consumer magazines” fell from 545 a year ago to 499.”

More and more advertisers are changing their perspective from wanting to reach a verified audience to wanting to achieve a measurable response from whoever they reach – a painfully fundamental change that I’ve previously addressed, and which most publishers – especially in the glamorous consumer world – are still trying to tiptoe around.
A hundred valid responses from an unaudited audience is worth 10x more than 10 valid responses from an audited audience.
From a publisher’s perspective, if you can deliver the responses, the audit becomes irrelevant.

Based on this, the audit bureaus ought to be frightened.

And while abandoning your audit is still a bold step in the magazine business, I assume that most publishers who do so are reinvesting in products that deliver the kind of results their customers really want.

The parties I’m most concerned about are the publishers who haven’t talked about leaving the audit behind. Because if it hasn’t occurred to you, then you clearly haven’t been listening to what your customers want. And this is one of those watershed times when the only security is to be so close to your customers that you can feel them breathe.

All the news that’s fit to buy

The New York Times, according to one of its own, is close to deciding whether to try charging for online content. If you assume that the best way to bolster the future of news is to figure out how to get people to pay for it online, then this is important – and a good thing if The Times does, in fact, try charging for content.

The only way to get people to start paying for content is for a few leaders to simply take the leap and start charging. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. is implementing a plan to do so. Having The Times follow would only be good for the movement.

Can it work? That’s the big debate in media. Many think content wants to be free. Others, like myself, think consumers want it to be free primarily because they’ve been trained that content comes cheap. What nobody knows is how much people will actually pay, or whom they would pay, for real journalism.

If the news is to find its footing again – that is, if anyone is ever going to figure out a 21st Century business model by which journalism can flourish – the starting point is knowledge of the true value that journalism has to its end users. This is something that’s been obscured for the past 150 years.

Will consumers place enough value on it that they are willing to pay the full, unsubsidized cost of sending  investigative reporters to do what they do (and defending against the inevitable lawsuits that are a byproduct of their work)? It would be nice. It would simplify the quandary of media executives, who are now gathering in solemn charrettes in search of a bew design for profitable media.

But the truth is that nobody knows. We don’t know what a newspaper would actually cost if paid for fully by readers? Or how its mission, staffing levels, range of focus and intensity of reporting might be adjusted over time to reflect the market-based measure of its value. How would it be distributed? How often would it be published? Who would its readers be?

None of these questions can be answered until enough media simply jump in and try to find out. Until now, few (the Wall Street Journal being the only one of any critical mass that I can come up with) have taken that risk. If The New York Times is getting ready to give it a try, desperation in the business may be reaching some kind of tipping point.

I’m fully confident that real journalism has a significant societal value. The problem is that it’s always been paid for indirectly. Once that value is untethered from the indirect means by which media have always monetized it (that is, advertising), then the real work can begin to right-size the industry and focus efforts where they deliver the most value.

There is real risk that the result would be even more “circular media,” in which celebrities are first manufactured and then covered by the same media organizations as if they were of real consequence  (Jon & Kate and Lindsay Lohan represent two train wrecks in which the front of the train has crashed into its own caboose).

But I’m more optimistic than that. I have enough faith left that if news businesses got serious about charging for the news, they would eventually achieve market balance – knowing how much to spend, and optimizing that for the best impact, as defined by consumers.

I’m hoping the Gray Lady of New York is ready to give it a try.

A novel notion for monetizing the news

While newspapers are wallowing in catastrophic circulation losses, their online revenues are falling short of objectives, and more people look to the web for news, Amos Gelb, a former TV guy and now an associate professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, suggests a new model for profiting from running a serious news operation: cost transference.

In short, the idea is for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – his example is Verizon Internet – to pay for news feeds on a per-subscriber basis. It’s how CNN works – collecting 37 cents per subscriber from every cable television provider that carries CNN (which is pretty much all of them). While CNN does earn revenue on advertising sales, its most dependable revenue stream is from the cable providers – which in turn simply pass that cost along to consumers as part of the cost for basic service on their monthly bill. And consumers don’t seem to mind – even though there is plenty of market evidence right now that they wouldn’t pay the same 37 cents per month directly to CNN if given the choice.

How does this transfer to newspapers? The largest news organizations (Gelb cites Time Warner, New York Times and Washington Post) would block their content to ISPs, except when paid on a subscriber basis. Those ISPs that make the payments would then pass along the cost to subscribers.

People who care about getting news content online would gravitate toward those ISPs that provide it.

The model strikes me, on its surface, as incredibly complicated given the wide range of business models that exist among ISPs. It also doesn’t include the many smaller news organizations that, one way or another, are going to survive, but will never be large enough to command attention from ISPs.

I don’t ever really expect to see the model play out as Gelb describes it. But I like the out-of-the-box thinking he brings to the discussion, and I agree with his assessment that news is something people want, and something people will pay for – just not directly.

In fact, the way I see it, it’s already playing out on small scale and through a slightly different medium: the burgeoning app store business.

There are now multiple places where smart-phone users can buy applications: iPhone’s App Store, Blackberry’s App World, and soon, Palm’s App Catalog. Each of these offers apps that let you aggregate and read news from various sources. Many are free, some cost money – from a $2.99 one-time download fee to monthly subscriptions (or so I’m told, though I haven’t actually found one on the monthly model in my time at either of the functioning app marketplaces).

So people are paying money to download an app that will deliver the same news they could get for free right now on the Internet? It’s a little different than the model Gelb envisions, but it plays out the same way psychologically: People who buy these apps aren’t actually paying for news; they’re paying for a new gadget on the smart phone. The cost has been transferred.

Gelb’s notion is heavy lifting, to be sure. To achieve the kind of behavior change that he describes, large news organizations are going to have to give up on their most cherished belief: that increased profit necessarily derives from increased distribution. And then they would have to convince numerous other organizations – like Google, Yahoo, Verizon and AT&T – to alter their business practices, all while risking the anger of their paid customers.

It sounds like a long shot at best. But the drastic decline in circulation and revenue that news media is experiencing is, if nothing else, a strong motivator.

Measuring the declining investment in journalism

Rick Edmonds, media business analyst at The Poynter Institute, estimates that U.S. newspapers have reduced the amount of money they invest in journalism by about $1.6 billion a year. His methodology is – by his own admission – back-of-the-envelope.

He has essentially calculated the reduction in total revenue of the U.S. newspaper industry over the past few years, and then multiplied this by the average percent of revenue that newspapers spend on their news operations.

The result is $1.6 billion.

According to an the annual survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, newsroom employment took a beating in 2008 – down 5,900 positions, or more than 11%. That follows 2,400 newsroom jobs eliminated in 2007.

And the cuts have continued in 2009. Just last week, the New York Times announced 100 newsroom layoffs. According to Papercuts,  a website by graphic designer Erica Smith who began tracking newspaper layoffs in the middle of 2007, nearly 14,000 newspaper jobs have been cut this year. (Her numbers track closely with those reported by ASNE).

Not all of those jobs are from the newsroom. Let’s be conservative and assume that a third of them are jorunalism jobs; that would put this year’s total at about 4,700. Anecdotally, I think it’s higher. But even at 4,700, that would put total newsroom cuts in the last three years at 13,000  – about 1 in 5 newspaper journalists.

What’s the average pay? According to Indeed.com, it’s $35,000 for reporters and $51,000 for editors. What’s behind those number is vague and I wouldn’t take them to the bank. But my guess would have been an average of a bit over $40,000. So let’s just go with that.

At $40,000 per job, plus 18% for benefits, the total savings per job cut is $47,300. Multiplied by 13,000 and you get a total of $614.9 million in permanent cuts from newsroom payrolls in the last 3 years.

So whose number is right, mine or Edmonds? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. My calculations are strictly meatball, and Edmonds’ blog says essentially the same.

But also consider that these numbers don’t include cuts from magazines or broadcast channels and the real point is clear: There is a lot less journalism going on today than there used to be. And to drive that point home, all you need are the fairly reliable newroom employment figures from ASNE:

Going into 2009, newspapers across the U.S. employed about 46,000 journalists — a number that next year will show up in the low 40s or high 30s.

There are roughly 88,000 municipalities in the United States. Plus state and federal governments. Plus school districts, businesses and sports teams. Not to mention technology, health-care, religion, legitimate causes, social issues, spammers and scammers, and fascinating work in cosmology, physical anthropology and particle physics. And and even ill-behaved starlets and loose-cannon reality TV stars.

Thirty- to forty thousand journalists just isn’t enough.

I don’t know when we’re going to figure out the economic models that allow these watchdogs to get paid for the necessary and under-appreciated work that they do. But it will happen.

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_190In 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_190The 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_190category 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.