 Alex Baxter Frank Cutitta Paul DeBraccio Judy Franks Dave Hendricks Marko Hurst Jay Lauf Daniel Lagani Karen Macumber Diane Salvatore Ken Sonenclar Domenic Venuto Marta Wohrle Matthew Yorke |
|
By Judy Franks
Most of us certainly agree with the saying, “There is no ‘I’ in the word team.” If you believe in this expression, try a new one on for size: “There is no ‘C’ in ‘editor,’ and that’s a big problem.”
What in the world am I talking about? We have experienced a rapid transformation in the control of media content and flow from the programmer to the consumer. Fundamentally, the “C” stands for consumers: their individual preferences, and the technology that is now available to them to create a truly unique content experience across most media, except for magazines.
The idea that the consumer is in control isn’t news to anyone reading this article. And magazines clearly understand the power of the consumer who chooses to part with limited discretionary funds to either subscribe to or buy a magazine at the newsstand. Beyond the power of the purse strings, consumers don’t wield that much power in shaping the magazine experience. Granted, editors consider reader input in the form of focus groups, online forums and letters to the editor. But the relationship is clearly skewed to the editor: what the editor thinks is best for his/her readership at large. This one-way relationship doesn’t reflect the realities of how consumers now engage with media in general.
The control of content flow has shifted dramatically: from the content producers to consumers, and now to metadata (aka “the math”), which can optimize the flow of content based upon real-time behavior (see William Uricchio’s Television’s Next Generation: Technology/Interface Culture/Flow). This phenomenon is taking place across media:
• Television: The network television programming directors wielded great influence once upon a time. They created programming strategies such as tentpoles, hammocks, roadblocks and stunts to optimize audience flow throughout the night. Enter the remote control, and that all changed. Consumers had an easy means to disrupt flow, and change the channel. Now fast-forward 40 years to a television landscape where DVRs, video on deman and Hulu enable viewers to watch what they want when they want it. Consumers can now customize television content flow to create a personal programming lineup as opposed to the networks’ point of view.
• Radio: Once upon a time, musical tastes were shaped by the power and influence of the very few: the major record label executives and the consolidated radio station owners who created homogenized formats to realize economies of scale. Individual preferences were relegated to token call-ins to request a particular song. Enter the MP3 player and music downloading services (both legal and illegal) and, all of a sudden, control shifted from the gatekeepers to consumers. The music industry is currently experiencing Uricchio’s third generation of flow: Enter Pandora and iTunes Genius which, through metadata, can create an optimized playlist based upon personal listening behavior. We no longer have to create our own playlists. The math takes care of this, and the result is an experience that is wholly customized to individual tastes.
• Online: Online never really experienced the gatekeeper phase of content control and flow. The medium was built on the notion of opting-in to contextually relevant content experiences. The consumer has always been in the driver’s seat. And the metadata is part of the online infrastructure. It’s the fuel that drives behavioral targeting and contextual messaging. No need for Pandora or Genius to transform this medium.
So, what about magazines? I can be a passionate subscriber to a magazine, yet I have little to no say as to what shows up in the pages of my particular issue. In every other medium, I can now create a customized content experience. In the case of magazines, I have to read what the editors select for me. This puts magazines at a disadvantage that affects the perceived value of the medium. Take the following example: If I paid $3.95 for an issue of Magazine X and only 75% of the content appealed to me, that issue really cost me $5.27 in perceived value. This is an economic formula for disaster. In tough economic times, when consumers carefully consider every discretionary purchase, magazines cannot afford to lose perceived value beyond the actual subscription and/or newsstand price.
Magazines must transfer some control of content flow from editors to consumers. What if magazine Web sites became a content sampling mechanism? What if an individual subscriber could log in, review a menu of articles and opt-in to those articles that truly appeal to them? The result is a more customized experience that will yield greater perceived value. Will this idea present logistics and cost challenges to an already challenged medium? Of course. But consider the alternative: no ‘C’ in ‘editor,’ and no consumers.
Minsider Judy Franks is the founder and president of The Marketing Democracy, a consultancy that helps world-class marketers bridge the creative and media divide that exists in today’s unbundled marketing services industry.
|
I agree that editors bring us delights that we, alone cannot imagine. In this model, the editors offer a menu of articles that a subscriber can select. The content is still crafted and considered by the editor. Instead of the struggle: which article makes it into the issue and which gets left in the editing conference room, the consumer selects based upon contextual relevance.
Whew, glad that "C" stood for consumers. I thought of another word altogether to describe some of the people working in publishing. Shouldn't the "C" also stand for creativity, which is sadly lacking in so much of our print and online publications.