 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 Paul DeBraccio
I guess I am becoming a media curmudgeon, but there seems to be a lot mini-booms, or boomlets, exploding in the media world these days.
Boomlet—at CN Gourmet, yet the magazine's gone.
Boomlet—the magazine ad network. Huh?
Boomlet—social media as the new darling. Again?
Boomlet—magazines going away along with newspapers. Again?
Boomlet—agencies disappearing, no reappearing, no morphing.
My curmudgeon side says that they cannot all be happening. Or can they?
I think these boomlets may be indicative of another change in media. Yes, many big names will cease to exist (as will many of the old media consumers) and they (and we) will be replaced by other names that are not so big now but will be in a short time. Google, Yahoo, etc., were unheard of 12 or so years ago.
I once read that in the 1940s the record industry thought radio was going to eliminate the need for records. Yes, I know the Internet did do that ultimately, but the record industry is finding other sources of revenue just as I am reasonably sure publishers will, too. Of course, it will require much blood and sweat, but the innovators will flourish. Holding onto the past will sink most publishers, as it has many businesses through the years. Letting go completely may also shock the system, but judicious changes will help them weather the boomlets.
Know Your Audience
Ask your audience over and over and over what they are doing and what they want to do. Build properties or content around them, and it will become less important if you charge them for that content or if it is in print or digital or video. People will pay for what they really like and adamantly refuse to do so if they are lukewarm or negative.
There is talk among many of my agency and publishing contacts about boutique shops becoming publishers and media resources for advertisers, and publishers also becoming media resources for advertisers. Interestingly enough, this shift seems to show some promise as both publishers and agencies understand audiences and their characteristics, such as their buying habits, more than most. Advertisers benefit in both of these scenarios, too—so it appears to be win-win (until they both vie for the same business). Both of these entities seem to be designed to grab more of the seemingly scarce ad dollars from advertisers that seem to be a bit undecided these days.
As far as the über ad network goes (that someone allegedly mentioned to the press), it is refreshing to hear something bizarre in these paradigm-shifting times. However, more and more companies are launching ad networks as a strategy to grab more ad dollars. I hear that media buyers are laughing when they hear of yet another new and improved ad network. Building or creating an ad network without a firm and clear value proposition hurts everyone. It hurts the useful ad networks by confusing already confused online buyers and it hurts the overall market by adding clutter.
Most of all, it hurts the publishers that are developing these nets because they are not panaceas for revenue decreases. If a publisher establishes itself as strong, credible, reliable and vibrant in a given market, then a network may make a significant contribution to its bottom line. I think the key word here is "credible"—adding high-quality, relevant sites to the mothership serves the market well. If not, it just shows that the publisher in question does not know its audience.
I once read that successful companies are nimble. God knows some publishers may succeed if they take the time to study their audiences and to respond quickly and be prepared to change again and again until things settle down. If not, they will go the way of (fill in the hundreds of American industries that are no longer with us).
Minsider columnist Paul DeBraccio is CEO of Interevco.
|
