 Rich Antoniello Frank Cutitta Jeff DeBalko Paul DeBraccio Judy Franks Nancy Hallberg Dave Hendricks Daniel Lagani Ken Sonenclar Domenic Venuto Marta Wohrle Matthew Yorke |
|
By Nancy Hallberg, The Parenting Group
A few weeks ago, I had the honor (and distinct pleasure) of attending Bonnier’s two-day summit in Stockholm, where the company was founded over 200 years ago. This annual conference gathers over 250 representatives from Bonnier companies all around the world to network, swap ideas and share stories about the media industry in our respective markets. It was a welcome break from the long slog that 2009 has been here in the U.S., but more than that, it was an opportunity to take a step back and get some perspective on what we do and why we do it. Oh, and we drank a little aquavit, too.
There were many interesting speeches at the conference—given by futurists, data gurus, Silicon Valley blue bloods and cognitive scientists, among others. But the most inspirational were not the ones who showed us how the next iteration of whiz-bang gadgets and virtual reality will transform our wired, webbed and Twittered world. The speakers who truly moved the audience were journalists who risk their lives and sanity covering wars, oppression, famine and the triumphs of those with the grace and spirit to do good in a world increasingly gone mad.
It was a good reminder that at its best, our business is about telling stories that illuminate, inspire, teach or enrich; creating content with real value for our readers and site visitors. It was a humbling experience for all attendees. And I think it was humbling for all those futurists as well.
The recent economic implosion has made it hard for us to keep this loftier editorial purpose in mind. It’s forced us all to spend the better part of the past year in relentless pursuit of “the right business model”—cutting costs and budgets and looking for ways to monetize any available page or pixel, wielding technology like a divining rod that might point the way toward the dwindling ad budgets of our clients. In this desperate fight to stay solvent (and, sadly, for many of our colleagues it’s been a losing battle) we often behave as though being a vehicle for advertising is our only reason for being.
That singular focus is the subject of much curiosity on the part of our European colleagues. In Sweden, for example, the business model is primarily consumer driven. Magazines command a hefty cover or subscription price; the reader contributes the bulk of the revenue stream, paying dearly—and willingly—for content they feel has real value. Ad sales are essentially icing on the cake. The readers are the arbiters of success or failure, and their feedback is carefully monitored. By contrast, one has only to look at the way we talk about our business here to see a very different perspective.
Every Monday, the New York Times prints a column in the business section called “Most Wanted.” It tracks seven different entertainment and media categories, listing the best performers each week. In every category except one, success is measured by consumer response—how many people watched which show, downloaded which music tracks, saw or rented which movies. Magazines are the anomaly. Our performance is measured not by readers; not by consumer response, but by ad pages. Even titles with strong newsstand sales see their fortunes rise and fall based on paging.
We have ourselves to blame, of course. Years of systematically promoting our titles to consumers at rock-bottom prices has effectively devalued our own content. Skeptics will say it’s too late to adjust this model, that the Web itself is a game changer and that it’s impossible to expect anyone to either start paying for online content or pay more for print content.
Yet we at Parenting have evidence to the contrary. Last year, our research identified an unmet editorial need among our mom readers for more targeted information. As a result, we segmented our core title into two age-targeted editions: Parenting Early Years and Parenting School Years. And we did it in the face of the worst advertising market our business has ever seen, believing that if we delivered the relevant content moms wanted, they would embrace it, and the advertisers would follow. Some called it a gamble. We call it a success, and as evidence of the positive reader reception, we’ve seen an increase in the number of individual paid subscribers as well as an increase in average subscription price—in other words, more readers willing to pay more.
There’s additional evidence that change might be possible in the message boards, blogs and comments from distraught readers lamenting the latest iconic titles fallen victim to the soft ad market. As the New York Times noted in its article (10/6/09) covering the recent Condé Nast closings, “Gourmet did not lack for impassioned readers.” The volume and intensity of commentary makes one wonder whether there isn’t some other way to unlock the evident value these readers ascribe to our product. If a Twitter campaign to save the title gathers 200 supporters in a day, imagine how many more could be mobilized with a little time, creativity and resources?
The best hope we have of finding a better business model may, in fact, mean nothing more or less than honoring our original mission—telling the true and honest story—as we in Stockholm were reminded by such varied journalists as David Carr, Åsne Seierstad and Abraham Verghese. We in the audience responded viscerally—as consumers—acknowledging the value of the stories they tell and the lessons to which they give voice. Will advertisers want to be associated with what might occasionally be unconventional or difficult content? It might take a little time, but if it resonates with readers, they will; they must.
Minsiders columnist Nancy Hallberg is chief strategy officer of The Parenting Group.
Nancy Hallberg Archives
|
