Traditional media and advertising
Is bigotry good for business?
Mar 24th
The comment sections in some blogs, and many online community newspapers, is becoming a cesspool of bigotry, sexism and intolerance. Nobody has struggled more with the idea of online community than the American press.
I’ve wondered why newspapers, who have so staunchly defended the integrity of the published word, would suddenly open the floodgates of stupidity just because the forum has moved to the Internet. My conclusion: Bigotry must be good for business. My friend Jack Lail disagrees. Jack is the much-respected News Director of Innovation for the Knoxville News Sentinel and a pioneer in online media. He’s re-thinking the newsroom in the context of the digital era and dealing with these difficult issues every day.
Jack and I sparred on his blog recently and he has agreed to a point-counterpoint format for {grow}.
Mark’s point:
If I submit a letter to the editor of the newspaper and comment on a news story or issue, it has to come with clear proof of who I am, and even then might be subject to editing for appropriateness. Why then, would the same newspaper allow the public commentary in their online versions to turn into a virtual free-for-all of hate? It just doesn’t make sense except that if the newspapers didn’t allow that liberal allowance for sensationalism, another media outlet or blog will — and there goes the readership and the page views that drive advertising revenues, just when traditional media need it most.
Nothing drives page views like controversy, and nothing drives controversy better than a redneck pissing match fueled by the anonymity of an online comment forum.
Some newspapers have justified this practice by explaining that our country has an important tradition of anonymous dissenters like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. But the irony is, serious dissent found on an op-ed page would require editorial identification, while the ugliness in the comment section goes unabated.
I believe the press has applied their standards inconsistently for economic reasons. They fear the anonymous comments (and readership they generate) will go elsewhere if regulated online. True?
Jack’s counterpoint:
The short answer is Web site operators don’t have the same legal liability in online comments as print publishers have with printed letters to the editors.
Yes, I believe comments increase the “stickiness” and time on site and a sense of community that articles alone can’t achieve. Anecdotally, I often hear people say the comments were better than the story (maybe in an entertaining if not enlightening way).
But basically, I don’t view comments as “letters to the editor.” I often find them more akin to callers on talk radio, where people are identified as “Jim” or “caller from Knoxville.” (If you applied the “same rigorous identification standards” to radio call-in shows, they wouldn’t have any callers.) The dynamics of online story comments are similar to what happens in forums and fairly open mailing lists.
They are, I think, a participatory experience unique to the online medium and whose benefits outweigh its negatives. That said, we’re still grappling with ways to minimize the negatives without stifling the speech.
Do we have story comments merely to generate additional page views? Maybe, but I suspect the cost of managing comments negates nearly all of the additional revenue. A page view on a news story is worth at best just a couple cents.
As Google’s economist Hal Varian recently said: “The fact of the matter is that newspapers have never made much money from news.”
Where does the {grow} community come down on this issue? Over to you …
This dialogue was inspired by a post that originally appeared on Jack’s excellent blog, Random Mumblings. His original post also contains many important references on this issue. For another timely perspective on the subject of hateful comments, read Jeff Jarvis’ blog post this week.
Exploding the “It’s all about the conversation” social media myth
Mar 21st
One of the most pervasive mantras of the social media hype circus is that it’s “all about the conversation” with your customers. But if you look at what’s really happening out there I think you can conclude this is a load of hooey.
To understand the shortcomings of “conversation” on the social web, let’s look at what happens in the old-school format of the focus group. The focus group is one of the most popular qualitative methods for determining consumer wants and needs because it’s a relatively inexpensive and quick way to get feedback and ideas. There are many formats, but generally you get a group of consumer volunteers together and, with the help of a skilled facilitator, conduct a “conversation” about the company, product, service, etc.
The biggest downfall of the focus group is that is nearly impossible to get feedback that represents the true views of your target consumers. First, a lot of people simply aren’t interested in participating in these groups and second, the feedback tends to center around the most dominant members of the group. A real danger is that feedback of an entire group can be influenced by the forceful opinions of the brash few.
In most cases, the social web does not represent a true “conversation” with customers. It is, at best, an un-moderated, non-representative focus group dominated by aggressive personalities likely to complain and force their view on others. Are you really having a “conversation” with your customers and prospects if …
a) It’s only in English?
b) It’s only with people who have time to be active on the social web?
c) It’s with the minuscule percentage of people who are likely to engage on a subject?
d) It’s with people who may not even be the core users of your product?
e) It excludes people who are simply shy or quiet?
Experienced marketers can see this trap. We can also look at the wonderful opportunities of the social web and put them into proper context. But I’m afraid the “social media conversation” is another over-hyped sound bite from the new age gurus eager to play on the fear of somehow being left out. If I hear “it’s all about the conversation” one more time I think I’ll lose my cookies.
Look, there are TREMENDOUS opportunities presented by the social web and there are lots of ways to have social conversations that are meaningful. The {grow} community on this blog is an example. Tapping into real-time sentiment is another. Every marketer should be immersed in this channel to figure out what really makes sense for their company and brand. But don’t check your brain at the door because you’re afraid of being left out of this “conversation.”
Will Blogging Kill Trade Publications?
Dec 17th
I was engaging in an interesting intellectual discussion on this question with my friend Jeremy Victor and he kindly offered to lend his expert perspective to a guest post. Take it away, Jeremy:
As the founder of an online publishing company, you might expect my answer to this question to be a resounding and emphatic, “YES!” … but it isn’t. But as much as I’m a technologist and marketer, I’m also a realist.
We are at a pivotal time in history — not just the convergence of print, digital, and social media, but also the transition of how media is created, packaged, and consumed. And that’s the challenge facing trade publications. So rather than speak to the demise of the “dead man walking,” I’ll offer a prescription to inject some vitality back into the industry. How’s that for helping the competition?
The key to the demise
By far, the biggest factor impacting the trade publication industry is a lack of innovation. High profit margins of the past have lulled the industry to sleep. When the Internet arrived, publishers initially ignored this “fad.” On top of that, the mid-2000s brought rising paper costs and increasing postal rates. Pile the 2008 Recession on top and the industry has no room for innovation. It’s focused on survival.
Backed into a corner, publishers started doing things like selling covers. For example, this week’s Advertising Age cover belongs to the Jackson’s new reality show. What does that say about the state of the industry? Now the talk has turned to pay for premium content models. Innovative? Not so much. That is reactionary, not the Apple-like , market-changing innovation that’s necessary to cure what’s ailing the industry.
Ideas for re-invention
When was the last time you received your mail actually hoping the trade magazine you subscribe to was there? With online content available anytime, anywhere, on a growing number of devices, trade publishers need to put the focus on creating remarkable content that will make it exciting to actually receive a magazine again.
A few ideas to spark innovation in the trade publication industry:
- Develop an iPhone application tightly integrated with both the editorial and advertising.
- For ads, include something like a bar code that can be scanned with the iPhone, providing access to discounts or special promotions only available in the print publication. Membership has its privileges, right?
- Integrate the LinkedIn API or Facebook Connect to enable readers to easily submit their contact information to the advertisers as a lead request.
- Create videos or podcasts that accompany the articles that can only be accessed by using a code from within the magazine.
- Gaming – Trade magazines don’t have to be dry, bland technical journals, do they? Sure case studies and featured articles are necessary, but what’s saying you can’t surround that with some social games? Try connecting the subscriber base through Facebook or LinkedIn – or a newly created publisher branded community.
- Marry the content and the distribution devices. Intertwine paper and online content.
That’s my prescription. Or have the trade publications already heard those fateful words from the doctor, “We’re sorry, there’s just nothing more that we can do?”
Jeremy Victor is the founder of Make Good Media and publisher of BtoBbloggers.com. He can also be found on Twitter at @JeremyVictor.
The marketing genius of KISS. Seriously.
Sep 24th
My son is a professional musician and has wanted to be a performer since he was a little boy. Once I determined that this was his true life goal, not a “phase,” I figured I had better support him and do everything I could to help him succeed. I wanted him to think a lot about the business and marketing aspects of the music business and I decided the best classroom for that was a KISS concert.
For any serious marketer, a study of KISS should be a required curriculum. I just read where the glam-band has a new album coming out and are preparing for a world tour. So here is the question every savvy marketer should consider: How can a quartet of 60-year-old men prance about in high heels, sell out a 25,000-seat arena anywhere in the world in 30 minutes, hawk millions in merchandise, and attract a passionate legion of fans known as their “army” nearly FORTY YEARS after they picked up their first guitar and discoverered they had no talent?
Polish your boots, tune your guitar and turn it up loud. We’re all going to the classroom of KISS:
1) Give your customers EXACTLY what they want. When you go to a KISS concert, you don’t get breath-taking improvisation and cerebral lyrics. You get pyrotechnics, explosions, costumes and decibles of sound that make your heart pound out of your chest. You know every note and every word and can sing along in a fun and predictable manner. This is what KISS fans want and this is what the band delivers — every time. At one point the band abandoned the makeup, tried more serious stuff and spectacularly tanked. That was their equvialent of New Coke. Put the make-up back on, and the fans returned. Consistent brand image is essential.
2) Then give them MORE of what they want. The new KISS tour promises one of the largest, most extravagant stage productions in history. Bigger, badder and louder for a band like KISS is their version of “now with lemon scent.” That’s what keeps the fans interested and coming back year after year — a chance to see what new tricks are in store! So innovate, but don’t ever abandon your core brand promise or your core customers.
3) Develop adjacencies. An adjacency is a new product related to your core offering that can provide new revenue streams. KISS has relentlessly spun off new ideas in merchandise, video games, toys, television programs and comic books that have attracted their own devotees. Of course Gene Simmons has a reality show in the U.S. and Jeremy Bramwell told me he has a different hit show in the U.K., too.
4) Develop a brand and ferociously protect it. One of the most fun KISS stories: When the band was just starting out and broke, they would surround their stage with mountains of empty speaker shells – none of them worked — to give the illusion that they were bigger and more important than they were (I guess that is like Twitter followers today?). Was this tricking the customer? No less than getting somebody to believe that Coca-Cola stands for something more than colored sugar water. To be the biggest band in the world, they had to ACT like the biggest band in the world!
5) Put customers above everything. I can’t imagine applying that kabuki make-up in a different city every night and playing the same songs over and over and over again … the same way … for decades. I’m sure they get sick of it. But somehow (money) they find a way to approach their job, and their brand, with fresh passion every show because they HAVE to. They’re well-rewarded, but they also sacrifice a lot for their fans. Say what you want about them. KISS knows their customers and ALWAYS delivers.
What do you think? What other business lessons can we learn from KISS or your favorite band?
Subscribe
Welcome to {grow}
You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark SchaeferFollow Mark
Groups We Believe In
