Can the iPad Change the Newspaper Business? March 29, 2010Posted by David Dirks in business strategy, Dealing with change, Dealing With Competitors, Solving Business Problems.
Tags: apple iPad, business strategy, growing subscribers, marketing strategy, newspaper strategy, newspapers, subscription base, subscriptions
add a comment
Among all the things we ponder about the new iPad, one of the most talk about and debated issues is whether or not an iPad-like device can impact the newspaper business. My answer, now that we know the capabilities (and that more will be coming soon in terms of software for the iPad), is a resounding ‘YES’. More than anything, iPad devices will change the economics of the business in a positive way.
We’re so wedded to the printed page that it sounds crazy to suggest that any paper can afford to go totally online with a PAID subscriber base. But it can be done.
How? By allowing newspapers to cut costs dramatically.
Let me first explain what I’d do. First, I’d offer only an online version of the paper and price it competitively. That means eliminating the printed version, which accounts for a substantial percentage of operational costs. Second, for subscribers that signed up for extended subscriptions, like 3 to 5-years or more, I’d also offer to sell them the device for a major price reduction. Yup. Just give it to them for far less than if they bought the device from Apple or some other producer. Or, if they don’t want an iPad, give them a netbook instead.
I thought you’d ask that question. For one thing, if I can lock a subscriber in for a long term period by enticing them with a device they can use to read the paper and do other things, I’m all for it. But there’s a far bigger reason for doing this: going online means you’ll take out substantial costs that are currently embedded into your publishing business. Like printing each daily edition and the total production costs involved in doing that.
If you can take out major costs in your business but still deliver a valuable product everyday (via online instead of printed paper), you can improve your profitability dramatically.
How will subscribers react?
At first, there will be some short term gnashing of teeth and discomfort but only for those who are technologically slow-adapters. Change has a way of doing that. However, by reducing your production costs dramatically, you can offer subscribers a better subscription rate to entice them to the online version…or throw in a netbook or an iPad device for subscribers who are willing to lock-in their rate by extending it to 3-5 years. Think bigger and longer here.
Improve the Subscriber Experience
I’d also make sure that the online version offers the ability to customize it to the readers needs. You input the content and organize it then let readers determine how they want to see it online. Wouldn’t be great if I could tag an article or column so that I’d get an RSS feed when new content on that subject is posted again? Let’s find out how readers like to see and consume their information and re-engineer the online experience for them. We need to move the online ‘wow’ factor up a few notches here.
Here’s another twist on enhancing the subscriber experience:
Combining the Best of Print/Digital/TV/Radio
If you’re not engaging your reader on a constant basis, then what’s the point? Instead of having a shelf life of day, a digitally accessed version of the paper breathes life into the content. What a platform like an iPad really does is gives newspapers a chance to give local TV and radio a run for their money. If you can embed an online news channel (via digital video feeds) with a radio platform (like podcasting), with an online print version of your paper, you’ve got the makings of an advertisers dream.
Of course, you see video along with podcasting embedded today with stories. One of the best-in-class examples of this is the Wall Street Journal Online edition. Not only that, but they charge for the online version too. Media-driven tools like the iPad will allow publishers to move deeper into the value they can provide their subscribers. With a digitally-focused product, publishers will be able to embed other types of media into columns and stories to make them come alive. Adding additional content like pdf files that provide additional information for the reader who wants more info will be key.
The embedded video is something everyone seems to do these days. However, what if you created an online, LIVE video webcast…with newsroom that looks the one on TV? For local news and information, nothing beats my local paper, The Times Herald Record (full disclosure: I write weekly columns for the paper…but that doesn’t make it any less great!). A live video webcast is the answer for providing real time updates of news events as they happen? Or live interviews?
The iPad also serves as a way to more effectively repurpose the great content that is created by daily newspapers. Special online ‘books’ of specific local information can be developed and then accessed by all those paid subscribers. Normally, after a story or column is printed, it seems lost forever. Why not look for opportunities to create information books for local and regional issues that can be read on a iPad? Two issues here: repurposing content for revenue generation and organizing previous content so that it is easily found by subscribers. How about links to previous related stories? You could just go on and on.
For those who insist on reading hard copies of stories or want a copy for ‘old time sake’, they can print as many stories as they have paper for.
Say no to page count restrictions!
Today, section editors are restricted to daily page count restrictions. Let’s unshackle journalism with this old-school financial measurement. Content to advertising revenues…it’s a good financial measurement but what if you didn’t have the cost of printing paper anymore? What if your only limitation was server space? There’s no reason for having page counts when
How would advertisers react?
Of course, nothing gets done in publishing if we don’t have advertisers. I’m sure at first, there will be more than a few who will not know what to do or say if they can’t see or touch their ad on anything but printed paper. However, remember that our goal would be to reduce production costs (no printed paper!) as more than an offset for any temporary reduction in advertising revenues.
If newspapers stay focused on growing and retaining their subscriber base online by creating great and dynamic content that keeps them engaged on a 24/7 basis, the advertisers will be there.
Making Online Publishing More Effective for Advertiser’s
Think about this. What if advertisers had their ads place next to topics in the paper directly related to their business? In addition to random ad placement, advertisers could also get the extra benefit of multiple ads in different sections for one price? The digital online platform gives advertisers the ability to pay an incremental amount above their 1st ad in order to place their ad in several different sections of the online ‘newspaper’. In other words, the higher the reader ‘views’ on one section of the paper, the higher the price you pay for your ad to be there or some variation therein. Special ‘instant coupon’ sections that make it easy for customers to download and print coupons.
My point: focus on building your market share with long term subscribers by creating engaging content that readers want and you needn’t worry about advertisers. Advertisers will follow their customers. Keep their customers engaged in your online content either in a PC or an iPad-like device and you’ll win.
Investing in More Journalism
At the end of the day, we want to preserve our heritage of professional journalism. So let’s take some of the savings from not having to print an hard copy edition and invest in more journalism talent or work to retain the assets we have. Give journalists the tools like the laptops and video camera’s they’ll need to capture the local news wherever & whenever it happens.
Cutting out the printed edition of a paper is a gut-wrenching experience for sure. However, with media-centric and consumer friendly tools like the iPad, it’s only a matter of time before printed editions will be just too expensive to produce. Besides, readers like me, who are loyal and pay the subscription fee aren’t too pleased to see all the freeloaders getting the same content online that we pay for. I pay for the privilege of getting a printed paper delivered to our door even though I (and those who pay nothing) can get the same content online for free. Who’s the crazy one here?
When Getting Bigger Isn’t Better March 14, 2010Posted by David Dirks in business strategy, Diagnosing performance problems, Fixing performance problems.
Tags: business strategy, David E Dirks, dirks on strategy, hotjobs, monster, strategy
add a comment
A recent headline in the Wall Street Journal: Monster to Acquire HotJobs. As soon as I read that headline, I knew it meant trouble. Let me put this headline into context for you: When companies run into major challenges (aka trouble) and can find few answers to meet those challenges, they resort to buying another big competitor. Remember when HP bought Compaq a few years ago? HP was trying to find it’s way through a dismal personal computer market and groped for an answer by buying Compaq, which was also groping along. Two gropes do not make for a good business strategy. Result for HP? The CEO was ousted after the HP board ran out of patience waiting for good to come out of that mega-merger.
On the surface, its very tempting to buy a rival who sometimes can be bought cheaply…sometimes not so. The typical formula is this: merge – cut costs wherever possible during the merger + instant market share = profits that flow from being bigger. Well maybe. In too many cases, buying another competitor to gain market share and profits means more of the same problems just in a bigger package now.
Sears buying Kmart is another great example of when getting bigger is not better. Sears has been looking for a purpose for decades now and was already sickly. At the time of the merger, Kmart was just about on a death watch from a retailing perspective. The result? The disease never went away. Sears and Kmart are just as dismal performers than ever.
The giant job search database called Monster has seen it’s market strength zapped by low-cost players like LinkedIn and by savvy recruiters who now use business networking and social media platforms like Facebook to find great job candidates. More companies are providing financial incentives for their employees to enlist their help in the recruitment effort. Monster, once the king of the job search road, has found itself searching for ways to grapple with declining revenues and aggressive social media competitors. The landscape for job search databases is forcing change.
For its part, Yahoo is looking to shed assets for cash but ends up the real loser. According to the WSJ, Yahoo bought HotJobs in the heat of the dot com era for $436 million and is now selling it to Monster for a mear $225 million in cash. Nice going Yahoo.
Getting bigger as a way to answer for declining revenues and market share is generally not a good business strategy. History is full of great examples of this strategy. Despite the hindsight, companies continue to grope for answers by spending money that could probably be used elsewher
What Ronald Reagan & Lady Gaga have in common March 10, 2010Posted by David Dirks in personal branding.
Tags: branding, David Dirks, dirks on strategy, marketing, personal branding, personal marketing
add a comment
Let me show you a series of photos:
What do these two have in common? They are both excellent examples of what we call today, personal branding. Of course, in President Reagan’s day, it wasn’t called personal branding. What’s significant about both Reagan and Gaga is what they were able to accomplish over a period of time in the context of how people perceived them.
Reagan was able to move from his branded position as ‘actor’ to his next phase of branding, Governor, and then of course to his last phase, President of the United States (much to his detractors shock and awe). Think about it. Reagan, as an example for the rest of us, demonstrated that it was within the realm of possibility to move from ‘Bedtime for Bonzo’ to the Oval Office. Reagan was able to change his position from what most people thought at the time was absolutely impossible (except for Reagan himself). Going from movies and TV to the most powerful man in the world an amazing example in personal branding.
In the same context, Lady Gaga started her singing career looking and acting much different than she looks now. Most people wouldn’t be able to recognize her from her earlier days to her latest branding phase of today. Whatever you think of Lady Gaga, she’s another excellent example of moving from one branding position to entirely another. Is it working? Well, she has real talent and I’m sure her bankers would attest to her marketing power in selling songs and concerts too.
A couple of my takeaways (you may certainly have your own too):
1. Personal branding is a long term process. It took both President Reagan and Lady Gaga many years to evolve their brands. Too often today, we’re led to believe that personal branding is simply a process of repositioning yourself in a few areas using a few tools and…zappo…the new you is born. Not so.
2. Both President Reagan and Lady Gaga prove that you can clearly move from what your personal brand means today to an entirely different personal brand. Personal branding can often look like a daunting task to those of us who are not used to looking at ourselves as an evolving personal brand.
3. Talent still counts. Both Reagan and Gaga had or have real, tangible talents and skills. There’s no substitute for mediocrity. No amount of work on a personal brand can overcome a lack of ability, talent, and skill. You have to have the goods to deliver the results.
Personal branding is not something new. It used to be called your ‘reputation’…what you stood for. It still does. But it’s not just a simple process snapping your finger and making it happen. It takes time to evolve a personal brand. The best news is that you can move your personal brand from wherever it is right now to another completely different but genuine brand position. Just not in one day.