FOLIO: Section Blogs by emedia and Technology

Prospecting Up-sells with Behavioral Analytics

Bill Mickey — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:34:08 -0500

This post is republished with permission and originally appears here.

In paid content, one of the challenges for corporate sales is finding demand for content that can be monetized – finding a good lead. Our research shows one of the best sources for leads is within existing individual subscribers where several individuals are sharing the access to the paid content. The charts below show a typical example of how to identify an individual subscriber that is a lead for an up-sell to a corporate or group agreement.

The first chart shows the daily use profile for two different individual subscribers by graphing the total number of reports accessed over a 90-day period. Each daily use profile is color coded based on the unique devices used to access the reports. The daily use profile with just the blue color shows how one subscriber’s account accessed reports via a single device. The daily use profile with multiple colors shows how the other subscriber’s account accessed reports via five devices (each color representing a distinct device).

Whereas the daily use profile with one color represents a loyal subscriber, the daily use profile with five colors is a prospect for an up-sell because of unmonetized demand of multiple users sharing one subscriber’s account. But how can you be sure the multi-color profile isn’t simply a raving fan?

The number two is a good start. In the hourly use profile for each account, the shared account has twice as many active hours as the individual account. Additionally, some devices are active earlier than other devices (e.g., purple vs. orange) but overlap on their activity which means they are used in different time zones. Also, note the individual account profile shows inactivity for lunch in the middle of the day. There are no low activity hours for the shared account rather it peaks at the periods of most overlap between devices.

Looking at the quarterly use profile, it becomes clear that each of the shared account devices were active throughout the period. Unlike the individual account which had ten inactive work-days during the period, the shared account had no inactive days. Digging deeper into the quarterly profile, the shared account consumes three times the content as compared to the individual account.

The Implication

The shared account exhibits usage profiles with monetizable demand for content. Corporate sales has a number of avenues to pursue the lead either directly, through procurement, or even through compliance. Properly engaged, this lead will convert with high probability.

Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

FMA Day: Can Apps Be Too Complicated?

sbotelho — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:18:54 -0400

At the 2011 Fulfillment Management Association [FMA] Day, keynote speaker Bob Sacks, who has held multiple roles within the publishing industry, told the industry professionals in attendance that the present is one of the best times in history to be a publisher.

“I believe we’re heading into the golden age of publishing and it will be fun and lucrative,” he said. “The publishing industry used to be about seeing distinct, finite finished magazines going out the door on a regular basis. Now there’s the new paradigm of a continuous array of news that may never be finished. What we do now is not what we did.”

Sacks says that publishers will see success through digital readers and that niche publications will be the future profiteers. Additionally, he reassured the audience that everything, in fact, has not changed in publishing.

“Over the next 10 years, one of the main effects of the great publishing realignment will be the deep rooted change experienced by the magazine industry from a primarily print oriented business to one where digital products will represent the largest share of a smaller periodical industry,” he said. “The industry is going digital and I see that as the land of opportunity for everyone in this room because they are new dollars. We just have to go out and get it—someone will, it might as well be you.”

Bob is right. Publishing in the digital space is not going to harm the industry, only enhance it. According to recent data, tablet shipments will increase to about 80 million next year, up from a predicted 53.5 million for 2011. In total, there were about 17.9 million media tablet shipments into sales channels worldwide last year.

At FMA Day I moderated a panel on apps. Jill Greto, director of consumer insights for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. and Peter Costanzo, director of digital content for F+W Media, were among the panelists slated to speak.

Greto brought the audience into several Martha Stewart branded apps including Boundless Beauty, Everyday Food and Martha Stewart Living. Costanzo introduced the audience to the Web Designer's Idea app, a breakout product connected with the company but not directly linked with a magazine.

During the Q+A portion of the panel someone asked about interface and complexity. Greto, during her presentation, had pointed out that Boundless Beauty, while a bit more complex in its usage due to the nature of its design (a reader must flip from landscape to portrait mode), was a huge hit with younger audiences—those that may have never interacted with the brand before.

I suggested that publishers looking to enter the tablet space look to the future—as Greto pointed out and I concur—as tablet devices become more mainstream, younger people will be using the devices more. Costanzo, on the other hand, argued that his students at New York University should be designing and implementing with grandparents in mind.

That seems foolish. In 5 years, the kids in high school will be entering college, likely with tablet devices since the cost of the product is much cheaper, even by today’s standards, than at least four years of academic textbooks. With the introduction of today’s Amazon Kindle Fire, the price of a tablet and the accessibility will be more widespread.

Additionally, while tablet users are predominantly older people, the lower cost will give access to larger demographics—the children that are 13-years-old now have been inundated with technology their entire little lives and can handle a more complicated interface.

The next generation of human beings will be completely surrounded by technology from the moment they are born—if the Apple commercials are right, doctors may be even using an iPad while they deliver said baby.

It’s not progressive to try to design for the simplest interface because in a few short years readers, who have been bombarded with technology, will be bored. I maintain the idea that a 21-year-old can likely pick up an iPad and learn how to use its basic features and functionalities in about 20 minutes, much quicker than a grandparent.

Don’t believe me? Take my grandparents, for example. They have called me and asked me how to turn on their computer’s monitor. My father can barely work his iPhone. My mother just learned to text. Design with the future in mind or design to drive them away.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Click-through Rates: The Metric for Missed Expectations

Matt Kinsman — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:23:18 -0400

This post is republished with permission and originally appears here.

Click-through rate (CTR) is often used to describe the advertising performance on a publisher's site. CTR for an ad is defined as the number of clicks on an ad divided by the number of times the ad is shown (impressions), expressed as a percentage. If the ad sales team for a publisher claims 1 million monthly unique visitors with 4 million page views and a CTR of 0.2% (or 8,000 click-throughs), the buyer might think those click-throughs are all distributed across the million unique users to yield 8,000 unique conversions. The buyer and the seller are wrong.

Here's the problem: CTR doesn't take into account audience engagement, not to mention the fact that other advertisers are competing for the click-through on the same page. To demonstrate the weakness of CTR as a performance metric, let's assume a single advertiser buys the entire inventory for the month. The advertiser buys all 4 million page views from the 1 million uniques to have an expected 8,000 unique visitors click through to the advertiser's site. But two factors skew actual unique conversion from the CTR's expected unique conversions: CTR differences between visitors and click-through qualification.

• Scout Analytics research shows that the advertiser's desired conversion target, the loyal audience, usually comprises 20-30% of the visitors who generate 70-80% of the page views. This means that the available audience for the advertiser is really 200,000-300,000 visitors not 1 million. The remaining 700,000 audience members - those generated from search - are irrelevant to the advertiser.

• Scout Analytics research also finds that click-through behavior varies by engagement, with loyal audience members delivering the majority of click-throughs because of relevance. For a myriad of reasons, the 700,000 irrelevant fly-bys still generate click-throughs, but at a lower CTR. For this example, let's assume their CTR is half that of a loyal audience.

• Finally, Scout Analytics research shows that some audience members are more "clicky" than others - meaning they click on ads more frequently. The clicky audience not only generates click-throughs more frequently, but often do so on the same ad, distorting the CTR further. (This example assumes 10% of the loyal audience is twice as clicky as the average loyal audience member.) Click-throughs from clicky audience members need to be de-duplicated.

After solving a couple of simultaneous equations, the CTR of the average loyal audience is 0.217%; the clicky audience's CTR is 0.434%; and the fly-by CTR is 0.109% The graphic below shows what these CTRs do in delivering conversion rates. The horizontal calculation follows traditional CTR thinking to yield the expected 8,000 unique conversions. The vertical calculation, called Audience Conversion Rate (ACR), follows a methodology of tracking unique audience conversions by qualifying the click-throughs as in-market and unique. Rather than getting 8,000 target audience members to click through, the advertiser would actually get 6,087, a full 24% short of the expected 8,000.

The more relevant ACR metric measures the number of unique audience members that clicked through divided by the total number of loyal audience members. Looking at the above example, the publisher is actually producing 2% ACR (i.e., 6,087/300,000). Not only is the 2% rate more representative of publisher and media performance, it is also a better value proposition to the advertiser. This makes your ad sales more productive.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

3,044 Reasons Why CTR is the Wrong Metric for Media Buying and Selling

sbotelho — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:06:37 -0400

Click-through rate or CTR is often used to describe the advertising performance on a publisher’s site. CTR for an ad is defined as the number of clicks on an ad divided by the number of times the ad is shown (impressions), expressed as a percentage. If the ad sales team for a publisher claims a million monthly unique visitors with 4 million page views and a CTR of 0.2% (or 8,000 click-throughs), the buyer might think those click-throughs are all distributed across the million unique users to yield 8,000 target audience members. The buyer and the seller are wrong.

Here’s the problem: CTR doesn’t take into account audience composition. To demonstrate the weakness of CTR to communicate performance, let’s assume a single advertiser buys the entire inventory for the month. The advertiser bought all four million page views from the one million unique to have an intended 8,000 target audience members click-through to the advertiser’s site. What skews CTR to be a poor metric of performance? Engagement.

· As shown by Scout Analytics research, the advertiser’s target, the loyal audience, is usually 20-30% of the visitors who generate 70-80% of the page views. This means that the available audience for the advertiser is really 200-300,000 visitors not 1,000,000. The remaining 700,000 audience members generated from search are statistically irrelevant to the advertiser.

· Scout Analytics research also finds that CTR varies by engagement with loyal audience members delivering the majority of the click-throughs, but for odd reasons, irrelevant fly-bys still generate click-throughs. These 700,000 irrelevant fly-bys typically have a much lower CTR. For this example, let’s assume their CTR at half the CTR of a loyal audience.

· Finally, Scout Analytics research shows that some audience members are more “clicky” than others. The clicky audience not only frequently generates click-throughs but often on the same ad distorting the CTR further. This example assumes 10% of the loyal audience is 5X more clicky than the average loyal audience member.

After solving a couple of simultaneous equations, the CTR of the average loyal audience is 0.177%; the clicky audience’s CTR is 0.885%; and the fly-by CTR is 0.089%. Rather than getting 8,000 target audience members to click through, the advertiser would actually only get 4,956, or 3,044 short of the expected 8,000 – a full 38% short.

A more relevant metric would be audience conversion rate (ACR) or the number of unique audience members that clicked through divided by the total number of loyal audience members. Looking at the above example, the publisher is actually producing 1.65% ACR (i.e., 4,956/300,000). Not only is the 1.65% a more representative of publisher and media performance, it is also has a better value proposition to the advertiser and makes ad sales more productive.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

How Readers Respond When a Magazine Goes Digital-Only

Matt Kinsman — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:20:06 -0400

The number of magazines folding or going digital-only just within the last 72 hours has us flashing back to 2009.
Linux Journal--which launched in 1994 serving the Linux computing market--is yet another publication whose August 2011 issue will be its last in print. "The big computer-industry trade magazines from the '90s have either disappeared or gone digital," writes senior editor Doc Searls in a note to readers. "Of the big three publishers, only IDG is still intact, but relatively few of its old magazines are still in print [EDIT NOTE: IDG is quick to point out that in the U.S., only InfoWorld went digital-only, while Computerworld, CIO, Network World, PC World and Macworld remain in print]. We survived while others failed by getting lean and staying focused. But the costs of printing and distributing continue to go up. We could keep publishing in print if we could raise the number of advertiser pages, but we don't see that happening. What we do see is a core readership that has stuck with us, along with Linux, for a generation. You, our readers, are at the heart of Linux, and always have been. We want to keep that heart beating."

Beginning with its September issue (#209), all subscribers will be offered the Linux Journal Digital Edition, which features a PDF version delivered via e-mail. Linux Journal also says it will have custom iPhone, iPad and Android apps ready by September.

To its credit, Linux Journal is making the discussion around its new strategy public by setting up forums for subscribers and non-paying readers.

While the forum for non-paying readers hasn't provoked much response, the subscriber forum is blowing up. True to form, it's primarily the people who have a problem with the decision who are posting (one reader also set up his own LinkedIn poll saying, "Maybe if the LJ staff sees a graph of their reader's opinions they will realize how wrong they are").

Still, these posts can give other publishers a sense of what they might be facing if they're considering a digital-only jump (and what they may need to do to make it palatable for their audience).

Even a tech readership like LJ's seems reluctant to give up its print.

"I don't have much to say other then I am completely disappointed with the decision to go all digital," posts one reader. "Just because we're techheads, doesn't mean we all walk around with friggin ipads or iphones and read pdfs on the crapper."

Others rebel against the price of a digital subscription.

"This is ridiculous, why would I want to pay $30 for a digital subscription," writes another reader. "I can already view practically all the issues online (all but the last 2). So why would I want to pay to get some silly pdf file which will likely still be full of ads. Frustrate customer, will not be renewing without print.

P.S. HOW is this a benefit of digital over a physical magazine? ‘Off-line reading: you can download one article or the entire magazine and conveniently take with you. You also can print any pages you want.' I can take my whole magazine with me as it is, no need to download anything."

Much of the frustration comes from the current digital format.

"PDF has never been a proper digital format for delivering the magazine. . ." writes one reader. "'Enhanced Digital Edition'? An even worse insult to a paying customer. It's like all the similar bad imitations of print magazines being tried on people in the last 10 years. . . A dedicated app? Yeah right, just what I need. Another app that tries to replicate something that can be achieved without one. . .Just give us a proper ePub version already. I for one do not want an imitation of a paper product. I want something done in a format meant for the eReader / iPad it's going to be read on. In the FAQ you mention more features in the future like interactivity and video. These are things that can be accommodated by a format such as ePub and it can be used by the users in their favorite reader / management apps. It is a format specifically meant for this purpose. Bottom line. PDF or ‘EDE' are not options. It's either ePub* or I'll walk."

Another is a big fan of the content, but not the format:

"While the articles in Linux Journal are excellent, and well worth the subscription prices, the total conversion to 'digital media' negates the worth of the magazine (to me) to the point where the publisher would have to pay me to read it in a digital media format. I paid for a hardcopy magazine, and will not accept a digital-only version."

However, others are welcoming LJ's jump to 100 percent digital:

"I for one applaud your decision to go digital," writes a reader. "Where is it written that we must have books and magazines on paper? Time for a change, and I believe this is a change for the better -- less wasteful, easy to search, active links to resources, bookmarks, etc. And as our digital technology advances, it's only going to get better yet. Your Enhanced Digital Edition looks great! And the pdf, too. It would be nice to have in epub format as well. Keep up the good work!"

Linux Journal seems to have a passionate audience that's heavily invested in its content. Going forward, the publication's success will depend not just on going 100 percent digital but offering a digital version that works. Just as some consumer publishers had to learn that a successful iPad app in these early days is more about quick downloads and easy navigation than self-indulgent design and spasm-inducing rich media, b-to-b publishers have to understand that good content won't excuse a bad reading experience for most readers.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Moving Beyond the Click to Define Success with Brand Advertising

sbotelho — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:44:24 -0400

In recent years, online publishers have transformed the Internet into a richer, more diversified platform offering entertainment, information, communication and other remarkable content that would have been unimaginable only two decades ago. Yet, as rapidly as the Internet has grown as a consumer medium, it has not kept pace as an advertising platform. Considering the number of hours that consumers spend engaged with high-quality online content, the Internet‘s share of advertiser dollars is far lower than it should be.

One of the obstacles we face in attracting additional brand advertising is the Internet’s legacy as a direct response, transactional medium. As a fledgling industry, we convinced advertisers that the Internet was a superior advertising platform because consumers could click on banner ads and buy a product directly. The early income stream from banner ads was essential to the financial health of many pioneering websites. But our success as a transaction-based medium has limited us when it came to attracting brand advertising dollars.

Simply put, many of the world’s largest marketers do not engage in direct response advertising online. Categories such as CPG, Entertainment, Financial Services, Auto and Healthcare do not expect an immediate return on an ad. For many, it’s about brand building – building an overall reputation of the brand and its products and, if successful, contributes to a consumer’s desire to be more loyal to that brand and buy their product the next day, the next week, or even the next year.

Internet publishers have long recognized the challenge of attracting more brand advertising dollars. This is an important consumer issue because without increased revenue sources, publishers cannot continue to improve the consumer experience and increase their yield. But to attract new brand marketers, our industry needs innovative ad formats that drive brand engagement.

Finding New Methods For an Old Game

The IAB created the rising star competition to encourage the industry to create new standard ad units that would be embraced by brand marketers. AOL won 2 of the 6 awards in February 2011– out of 36 total submissions to the competition – and we are hopeful that these two formats will soon be adopted into the standard set of IAB ad units.

The right side of the page (where the ad is located) should be as compelling and rich as the content of the left side of the page (where the editorial content is). New advertising formats accomplish this by making it easy for advertisers to repurpose their existing high-quality brand assets (including video commercials, still photography, etc.) for use in their online advertising campaigns. Major marketers spend millions of dollars a year creating amazing brand content, and premium formats allow them to easily convert this content into their online brand campaigns.

A few weeks ago at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, the industry saw results from a six-week study performed in the UK by IPG Media Lab on one of our award-winning formats – the IAB Portrait ad unit. IPG found that IAB Portrait, a 300 X 1050 unit that permits advertisers to use high-quality ads, performed much better against traditional display advertising.

Not surprisingly, more interactive, integrated and visually beautiful ads are more effective than standard ads.

Specifically, the study revealed that interactive, premium content makes people notice advertisements more frequently than static ads, which create “banner blindness.” The interactive units attracted 81 percent more attention than static units. The study also found that consumers spend an average of 47 seconds more with an IAB Portrait ad than they would with industry-standard rich media banners. They also play 24 seconds more of premium video. As such, the results we are seeing mimic the level of activity found on advertiser websites.

In terms of attitudinal results, the IPG study found that the IAB Portrait unit saw improvement at every step of the marketing funnel from dramatically increased awareness to brand appeal to recommending to friends. At the very bottom of the funnel, consumers’ purchase intent after viewing these unit increased by 263 percent.

Of course any advertisement that can compel a consumer to engage with it for more than 47 seconds comes at a premium CPM. Yet chances are that no matter how effectively we do our jobs as advocates for online brand advertising, we will never be able to maximize the value of our inventory as long as we continue to use clicks as our primary metric to gauge the success of a campaign.

There are numerous problems with using clicks as the metric to determine if a brand campaign was successful. Among other issues, the most desirable high-income consumers simply do not click. Further, consumers consistently say they don’t want to be distracted away from the content on the page and they feel that clickable ads take them away from the page. They also feel that these ads are neither engaging nor interesting.

Our challenge as an industry, then, is for publishers to not only begin to adopt and deploy these new premium formats, but for the industry to identify a metric that can replace click-through rates to help define success.

The Internet is still in its early development stage as a communications medium and it will only grow in importance and value in the years ahead. Nevertheless, we are at an important crossroads. If we are to continue to grow, we need to adopt premium advertising formats and develop new metrics that will convince major brand advertisers that online advertising is more effective and engaging as the same ad placed in the traditional off-line media.

Greg Rogers is the co-founder and CEO of Pictela, a division of the AOL Advertising.com Group.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

The Only Thing Worse Than a Fly-By…

Matt Kinsman — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:37:23 -0400

This post is republished with permission and originally appears here.
...is a scraper! Or at least scrapers that aren't monetized properly. Scrapers are users or automated services that systematically consume media content - especially news. Their motivations are usually commercial in nature such as a media monitoring service, advertising verification, or lead sourcing. A scraper can be identified by the fact that their volume of consumption is several standard deviations or more higher compared to the rest of the audience - even compared to fans.

It's not uncommon for scrapers to make up less than 0.1 percent of an audience and generate 10-15 percent or more of the page views (i.e., ad inventory and revenue capacity). The graph to the right illustrates the behavioral difference between the largest segment of visitors, fly-bys, and the smallest segment, scrapers. On average, scraper behavior generates 100-150 times more page views than their percentage of the total audience represents.

So why is a scraper bad for publisher revenues? Aren't page views good?

The first reason is that scrapers devalue a publisher's ad inventory by lowering conversion rates for advertisers. Page views delivered to scrapers are like page views delivered to bots. An advertiser that purchases a scraper page view is wasting their money.

Therefore, mixing scraper page views with regular audience page views produces lower conversion rates. As advertisers see the lower rates, they move their advertising dollars to higher performing sites.

The second reason is that scrapers decrease sell-through rates and CPMs. Many publishers do not have 100 percent sell-through rates and as a result, it is harder to negotiate ad rates with advertisers because the publisher is trying to get all the inventory sold. In the case of selling inventory without scraper page views, the publisher creates scarcity along with higher quality (see first reason) to raise prices. Because scrapers reduce sell-through rates and CPMs, they hurt a publisher's revenue.

The third reason is that unmonetized scrapers represent lost revenues. Remembering that scrapers have economic motivations to consume media, publisher can provide a different value proposition. Rather than monetizing their behavior like the rest of the audience, scrapers can be charged for direct licensing of the content. The beauty of direct licensing is that the publisher typically gets a multiple over the ad revenue these scrapers would have produced, and for the ones that don't license the content, they are at least blocked from devaluing the ad inventory and lowering CPMs.

While some publishers try to identify and stop excessive consumption, the bar is often set too high.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Study Says Tablet, E-Reader Users Haven’t Given Up Print

Matt Kinsman — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:27:48 -0400

Few magazine apps in the App Store don't have at least one reviewer clamoring for a subscription package that bundles print and app, and now a new study from GfK MRI suggests that rather than abandoning old media, tablet and e-reader users might still be print's best audience.
According to the study, tablet owners are 66 percent more likely than the average U.S. adult to be heavy users of printed versions of magazines, while e-reader owners are 23 percent more likely to be heavy print users.

The study also says men are more likely to own tablets while women are more likely to own e-readers (although I still dig my Kindle and I'll arm-wrestle anyone at GfK MRI or Yudu who makes fun of me).

While e-reader owners are primarily reading books on their devices (87 percent) with magazines (15 percent) barely edging out newspapers (14 percent), tablet owners are more evenly split, with 57 percent having read a book on the device within the last six months compared to 39 percent who read a magazine and 41 percent who read a newspaper.

So how about you, readers? Are you double-fisting the Wall Street Journal in one hand and the Financial Times app in the other on the way to work? Or have you said sayonara to any print magazines in favor of the digital version exclusively?
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Paywalls Versus Advertising? Why Not Both?

Matt Kinsman — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:01:56 -0400

Advertising and paywalls are typically viewed as a mutually exclusive proposition but they can successfully co-exist, according to participants at a roundtable at DPAC (Digital Publishing and Advertising Conference) this week.
"Why not dual models?" said Andrew Rutledge, vice president and general manager of publisher development at PubMatic. "Who's paying for digital content from more than two providers? The market can only support two or three players with a paywall. I don't think the paywall is THE solution, it's one of many."

However, Brian Hecht, senior vice president of publisher premium services at TheStreet.com, which offers 10 premium content products ranging from $200 to $5,000 per year, thinks the market opportunity is larger. "I don't agree that only two to three publishers can succeed with a paywall but I do agree that it's difficult to sell subscriptions. It's a complex process, we have a significant marketing department, we have people with PhDs running this, but the company would not be where it is without the stable advertising side."

Brian White, vice president of publisher solutions at Vibrant Media, a company that specializes in contextual advertising, agreed that subscriptions and advertising can co-exist online, but only with certain types of advertising [naturally]. "Behavioral and contextual advertising are becoming more valuable," he said. "Display advertising can now target by characteristics but I'm not sure if higher CPMs can mitigate the loss of pageviews."

Paying for Content or for Access on a Select Device?

The panelists cited News Corp.'s The Daily and The New York Times as two publishers taking different approaches to paid content-with The Daily only available on select devices, while The New York Times is charging for content across a variety of platforms. "Is the value simply that you can access it on the iPad?" said Hecht. "Or is there some functionality that makes it different? How do you keep The Daily from being just a novelty item?"

(The Daily may have other issues as well. In a March earnings call, News Corp. said the app was still a "work in progress" and generated a $10 million loss in the last quarter. When the DIGIDAY panel polled the audience on how many attendees downloaded The Daily the first week it came out, maybe 20 out of at least 100 raised their hands. When asked how many read it this week, just one raised a hand, at least that I saw.)

As of April, The New York Times said it had 100,000 subscribers with its new plan (which is roughly equal in revenue as this point to what The New York Times generated from its previous paywall attempt, Time Select, which generated 227,000 subscribers and about $10 million per year).

Creating content that others are willing to pay for also requires significant investment, something that can be at least partially addressed by sticking to an advertising model. Content aggregation and licensing deals are part of any smart content strategy but they are also a symptom of the fact that most publishers (particularly those serving the mass market) just don't make enough money online to cover the costs of creating digital content.

Specialized information providers (particularly those in the financial services space) invest in unique content and have an audience willing to pay for it (The Daily invests heavily in content but again, is it the right model and the right content?). Paywalls are the new hope for some smaller b-to-b publishers seeking an answer to eroding ad dollars, but many of those same publishers still look at content creation as simply a cost center.

Is The Billing Process An Even Bigger Factor?

Beyond content quality itself, publishers have to consider how they draw readers in and perhaps even more importantly, how readers actually pay for that content. (Look at reviews of publisher apps in iTunes--even the ones doing well with app functionality got knocked for the billing process, at least in the pre-Apple subscription days).

The Financial Times has experimented with online content going back 15 years--its current iteration follows a metered model of offering a select number of stories before requiring payment. In 2010, FT saw paid circulation growth of 50 percent.

"Publishers have to think long and hard about what they are," said Hecht. "iTunes used to offer 30-second samples of songs, now they offer 90 second samples. Does that make you more or less likely to buy today? The lesson there is, don't do market research in your head."

Some publishers charge different fees for access on different digital devices. "The biggest factor for the paywall is the back-end," said Rutledge. "If you have to go to different publications or different devices and key in your information each time, the fall-off is huge. Part of the reason iTunes is so successful is that's a turnkey process but publishers don't want to slice and dice revenue with Apple."

However, if it builds TheStreet's paid audience, Hecht would gladly team with Apple. "I'm happy to give Apple 30 percent and I'll take it from there and figure out how to make up that money on my own," he said.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Counting Page Views? Don't Call It A Business Model

Matt Kinsman — Thu, 26 May 2011 09:30:45 -0400

This post is reprinted with permission and originally appears here.
Measuring the number of page views as a key performance indicator (KPI), is a growing practice among publishers. In fact, editorial and development teams are increasingly being rewarded for boosting page views, with some publishers even shaping their entire site just to generate page views.

That is not a business model! Let me prove it with an extreme example.

Any publisher can deploy bots to generate page views for their site. No advertiser will pay for those page views, because the page views have no advertising value. While page views could be used as a KPI by the editorial team to generate more content for bot consumption, no revenue is coming through the door to keep them employed.

The right metric for publishers should be revenue performance indicators (RPI), which means the metrics tie directly to the business model. Many publishers are looking to build recurring revenue streams from loyal audience members, and in this case, RPIs such as audience size, loyalty, and level of engagement are meaningful. However, some publishers are relying on non-recurring revenue from SEO acquired visitors, and in this case, RPIs such as percentage share of search and time on site become more relevant. In paid content, RPIs such as price per article or price per device become critical. And for all of these business models, average revenue per user (ARPU) is the RPI for benchmarking efficiency and profit (see my post on ARPU here).

While correlating user behavior to the business model is the only way to judge revenue performance, surprisingly few publishers can differentiate between a page view that is aligned to the business model vs. a page view that is not. Consequently, many publishers are chasing low value page views and jeopardizing their long-term viability. Might as well hire some bots.....
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Social Media: Where Have All the Grown-Ups Gone?

sbotelho — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:32:04 -0400

Publishers of all sorts have now entered the social media space – a place once mostly populated by college kids, indie rock bands and dance club promoters. It seems largely unnecessary to explain in this forum why publishers have chosen to do so. Staying relevant is the only way to stay alive, and it appears publishers think social media may be the fountain of youth.

However, I’ve noticed certain perils publishers sometimes snafu on when entering social media territory. Perhaps the most disconcerting trend is the downgrading of voice and ramping up of a global popularity contest (“Like us! Tweet us! Share us with your grandmother!”) occurring among publishers. For all the “likes”, fan base building, retweeting and friending occurring, at what price are publishers paying to rein in the social media-scape?

On March 24th, Forbes published a blog written by Lewis DVorkin exploring Forbes’ recent social media efforts “to put authoritative journalism at the center of a social media experience”. He writes, “...with the release of our World Billionaires List, we rolled out Like buttons on our people profile pages.” Click on the provided link, and the reader is taken to a profile featuring Carlos Slim Helu, chairman of Telmex (a telecommunications company based in Mexico). The profile lists 2,000 likes of Slim via Facebook.

Why is it that Forbes, a well-respected news outlet serving numerous locations around the globe, is encouraging readers to “like” a wealthy businessman? Chances are, a huge percentage of these readers don’t know Slim personally. I’ll go as far as to guess that many of them had never heard of him before this profile ran. I might even go farther to say that it does not really matter at all whether people like him or not, as he is a chairman of a company who is valued at $18 billion; he’s not the guy who drives the neighborhood ice cream truck.

I think I understand Forbes’ aim here. Creating a like button sparks interaction between reader and content, and the share feature allows readers to pass it along in their respective social networks. The more shares, the bigger the audience. However, it is the message that is troubling here: the encouragement of a popularity contest between business tycoons from a publication readers rely on for unbiased, well-reported news.

Publishers utilizing Twitter aren’t safe, either. Maybe it is the fact that the limited tweet can only contain 140 characters, or maybe it’s because publishers are often hiring “social media experts” to run their social media offerings instead of having their writers do so. Unfortunately, these social media gurus often equal fresh out of college young adults whose “expertise” is honed by logging on to Facebook every twenty minutes or so to obsess over what their friends are doing, wearing and watching. Possibly not the best choice to promote a major publication’s brand and copy in a venue where all its peers are watching.

Either way, the tone of tweets often misalign with the publication doing the tweeting. TIME Magazine, another reputable news publication, is a repeat offender. Last week, TIME’s Twitter account tweeted, “Can Japan really just dump radiation into the ocean?” and included a link in the post. In a sentence that contains less than 10 words, sensationalism, stereotyping and simplification of a complex matter are all apparent.

I suppose that reading the provided link may clear up a portion of this, but much of the point of Twitter is to provide short digestible pieces for a busy audience to consume. If the only thing a reader takes away from this tweet is the tweet itself, a misconstrued picture is the one they will have – one TIME would probably not be keen on being identified with.

Some publications thrive off the casual, “We can say what we want” attitude that comes with the social media turf. TechCrunch’s tweets of a few weeks slamming owner AOL and MovieFone execs serve as one entertaining example (full story here). Important to note, though, that TechCrunch has built a reputation on technological insight and a rebellious attitude (as TechCrunch contributor Alexia Tsotsis writes, “This is Silicon Valley, not Hollywood.”)

In short, I do believe publishers should use social media outlets to promote their writers, content and products to audiences. But maybe, they should also focus on not losing their actual message in the mix.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Most Dangerous Jobs: Loggers, Cops, Forum Moderators?

Matt Kinsman — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:31:21 -0400

In the two-way street that is journalism today, most editors are used to readers taking occasional shots at their work (or the editor themselves), often with a fury that makes them wonder if it's the article the poster is really mad at.
However, not many editors (at least in the U.S.) have had a bullet with their initials scratched into it mailed to them because of their work.

That actually happened to Sean Adams, vice president of online communities at Moose River Media, a b-to-b publisher that serves the grounds keeping and agriculture markets with forums such as LawnSite.com and PlowSite.com. Those may not sound as catchy as the Men! Men! Men! message board on Cosmopolitan.com, but Moose River is one of the few publishers--b-to-b or consumer--to turn social media into a real business, with 20 percent of Moose River revenue coming from online (primarily the communities) and advertisers paying well over six figures for select banner placement within those communities. Last night, LawnSite.com (which boasts more than 113,000 members) had 6,000 members participating at one time, according to Adams, who was the keynote speaker during an internal Access Intelligence event on content and community today.

Now, most of us out here in the ‘burbs have probably considered pumping a round through a faulty mower before, but I never would have dreamed it's a topic that could lead to threats against people. But that's exactly what Adams says his moderator duties (normal moderating duties, not antagonizing anyone) occasionally spawn. "I've had 90 pound women tell me they were going to claw my eyes out," he says. "We've been called ‘Forum Nazis.' One group at a trade show somehow found out my address, took a picture of themselves raising a certain finger, then Photoshopped themselves into an image of my front lawn."

Adams says he doesn't share those stories to suggest that people are necessarily wackos in social media land, but that publishers who want to make a real go of social media need dedicated community managers, and those managers need to be prepared for unreasonable behavior. "If you've warned people, you don't need to engage further," he says. "Eventually they just go away. Drama is good for a community, disagreements are good. But someone has to keep it from going too far."

What's the most unreasonable behavior you've seen on one of your sites?
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

Implementing a Mobile Strategy as an Independent Publisher

Matt Kinsman — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:06:58 -0400

Mobile advertising in the United States by several estimates will reach a total of $5 billion in 2015. While a large share goes to b-2-c publishers, the trend represents opportunity for b-2-b publishers as well. The proliferation of smart phones and tablets with the consumption of applications lends to the advertising opportunities and its growth. 'In-App' purchases shows great commerce possibilities and tablets are fast becoming a preferred tool for sales presentation.
A tablet device or smartphone can be loaded via an app or direct custom website, with company brochures, product configuration and contain immediate feedback to send data back to the home office for processing. In the engineering space, these devices can monitor and pull back data from the factory floor or individual machine or point source monitoring. So with all the potential (and potential for confusion) here are a few tips on implementing a mobile strategy especially if your just now evaluating your mobile plan. The following explores a tactical approach to implementing your mobile strategy by looking at your websites, smartphone apps and QR codes.

Mobilizing your Websites

One of the first area to address with your mobile strategy is with your current web site. Depending on your site platform(s) and content, this process is relatively simple. As a visitor arrives on your site, you can install code that reads the agent of the visitor. The agent is basically which web browser, spider or otherwise is hitting the site. If the agent is a web browser associated with a mobile device, a re-direct to mobile content can be implemented. While the web browsers on smart phones continue to get better, the real estate presents the limiting factor. So while on the iPhone a standard website may look good, browsing, clicking and zooming to find can present challenges. In addition, Flash based advertising will not display correctly on iPhones and iPads and certain javascript functionality can be compromised. Video is another important consideration, as the video itself must be coded to be mobile friendly or potentially your video will not playback properly on certain mobile devices. Many 3rd party providers that deliver video will have smart delivery of sort to ensure that if the agent is mobile, as mobile version, both size and codec, are delivered versus video delivered to a PC.

On some site platforms such as Wordpress and others, there are plug-ins that can be installed and configured to add custom CSS styling to site content and strip out most everything except for main post entries and simplify the navigation menus for easier mobile browsing. The plug-ins detect the agent and automatically displays the mobile style and framework. This makes for mobilizing a site a very simple process.

For other platforms more custom css and coding strategies maybe needed to do a clean mobile conversion. The Design World site was built custom on .NET / C# and in our case presented substantially more work to do a clean mobile version in parallel to the main site development. In this case we build a stand-alone site (m.designworldonline.com) for mobile content. This also provided more control in cross linking other site content and custom advertising options. On special campaigns or product launches, a mobile microsite is very effective as the site is build basically from the ground up to be optimized for mobile devices. Overall the open source communities have provided an abundance of good mobile tools and plug-ins to ease the mobile conversation process.

The challenge with mobile re-direction is with devices such as the iPad, directing to a mobile version of your site might be sub optimal, as the real estate and function of a tablet is a much different experience. Fortunately the agent varies slightly on tablet devices and code on a site can direct a tablet browser back to the main site, or even another custom coded site specifically for tablets.

App Versus Site?

There are multiple versions of your website to accommodate mobile users, smartphone applications bring up even more considerations. With Design World Magazine and network of over 25 websites, we decided an app would be an excellent way to aggregate select content from across many sources. In early 2010 we surveyed our audience and BlackBerry devices came back at the top of use list and the decision was made to start there first. We then contracted with a developer that ended in a compete failure based in large part on the complexity in app creation for RIM devices. The proliferation of different RIM devices and different programming requirements for the devices convoluted our efforts. In addition the developer indicated they could program for Apple iOS and the Android platform, so there was some level of distraction.

From our first setback, we took a quick look at the market and decided to hit the iPad / iPhone first. The decision was based on where things were going versus the past behavior, and also at the advantage of the touch capabilities and real estate of the iPad. We also decided to just focus our efforts on one platform going forward at a time. Developing for multiple platforms was simply a resource issue, and doing one at a time made more sense as a start. When we started we did not anticipate how high the iPad consumption would be, but then no one did. To date Apple claims over 15 million iPad have been sold. We also decided to do a + App, meaning it would run native for both iPad and iPhone. In the end, our early mistake proved to be a good decision and enabled us to make the right bet with the iPad app development project.

Further, we decided against a digital version of the print magazine (PDF conversion of pages) for several reasons. Our research (and others) shows that users consume digital in a vastly different way that in print. So the psychological engagement of picking of the print magazine and browsing articles does not translate to well to the digital space. We also produce content daily and did not want to limit content to a single, outdated update every month. The whole idea of online content is timely, relevant and interactive - meaning you can read, watch video, save for later, comment on a post and share digitally across your preferred social networks. You can do many of these things in principal with page-turn digital editions, but the navigation, layout and timeliness is the overriding disadvantage.

WIth the Design World + App we decided on a 3rd party (Mutual Mobile) team as we lacked the appropriate coding experience internally and Apple has a fair amount of requirements on optimizing applications for audio and video streaming over cellular networks, functionality and other features that we needed guidance on from an experienced team of programmers. Internally we have enough software development expertise to manage the process, but this too can be challenging in writing the specification and keeping features locked in a schedule. Otherwise feature creep will kill deadlines and budget.

While managing our ipad app, in parallel we also internally decided to build our own app for our community site, www.engineeringexchange.com The platform for this site uses a public API (application programming interface), so data can be passed to and from the site via the API. In conjunction with another SaaS site, we were able to spin up a lightweight App for the iPhone using the EngineeringExchange API along with feeds form the site around blog posts, forums and video. So we were able to give members the ability to log into their accounts, update their status and blog post from their iPhones. It took three submissions to the App store to get approved, thereby validating our decision to use an experienced 3rd party on the iPad App. However, we were able to mitigate a rather large expense while continually build a better user experience and capture some intellectual capital.

To contrast, the Engineering Exchange App took a total of 2 months, a fair amount of fixed overhead and a minimum monthly fee to launch and maintain. This also based on having the API and many RSS feeds ready to roll into the app to use as the conduit for data transfer. The Design World + App took over 7 months to develop, lots of project management time and so far over $25,000. This is just for version 1.0 and version 1.1 is under development. As we look to Android and now Microsoft devices, its apparent there is substantial fragmentation but also opportunity. The costs for a publisher to produce apps starts to look overwhelming, but key is evaluating your user base and possible advertising opportunities. For now, we are on the sidelines with Microsoft and Android is an important player, but code developed for the iPad is not very portable to Android 'Honeycomb' apps. The notion of HTML5 may alleviate some issues, but its hard to see convergence anytime soon. HTML5 promises the idea of "develop once, distribute to many" and HTML5 has very media rich features to produce app-like native performance from a web based protocol. Apps however are firmly entrenched and offer performance advantages, offline advantages and act as a kind of 'pay-wall' (for paid apps) that a lot of publishers are seeking.

QR Codes

Print is a key part of the Design World mix and the efforts of mobilizing become apparent when considering Quick Response (QR) code use and integration. A QR code is a two-dimensional bar code developed in 1994 and their use is on the upswing. Designed for dedicated QR readers, QR codes can also be read and processed easily with mobile cameras and an QR code reader app. Its a perfect fit then for print integration where a reader can simply take a photo of the code and be taken to a specific website, app, video, contact information or utilize location-based technology for various purposes. Mobile content is key to provide if using QR codes as a majority of those devices are smartphones. Tablet cameras and apps bring up the same issue mentioned with mobile versus non-mobile resources, but again correctly coding for the agent can help optimize the user experience. Design World Magazine has rolled out QR code integration in print on featured content that links directly to mobile versions of those articles online. QR codes can easily be generated through many online paid and free services.

Putting QR codes into print required some workflow modifications. First we had to ensure timing of online placeholders for featured print content prior to the print deadlines. Internally we developed a tool to auto- generate a QR code based on URL input. The system would also generate a short URL along with the QR code. The QR graphic itself could then be auto-sent to production for inclusion into the print article. We include the short URL with the QR code for our audience that may want an online reference, but do not have a smartphone or QR reader. We also tested a lot with the size of the QR code. The initial outcome was 1.5" x 1.5", but found that most QR readers, we could reduce down to about .75 x.75. There is a fair amount of tolerance in QR codes which makes them ideal for this process.

By including a clean mobile friendly version of your website and smart re-direction based on agent is the overall foundation of any mobile strategy. Custom stand-alone mobile specific sites can be key for product launches, promotion and contests. Looking at applications across various platforms if they fit your business model is essential as the technology is moving fast on this front. Finally, if print is still part of your mix, utilizing QR codes can bridge print to online in an efficient way.

For WTWH Media, delivering a mobile strategy is a must have for remaining relevant to our users. With a solid mobile strategy all publishers can offer users content on their terms while providing advertisers new opportunities. Its no wonder special services are becoming important to publishers as many customers need more expertise and guidance through these fast emerging technologies. The more publishers can reduce risk for the advertiser and help guide them in best practices, the better the user experience and everyone gains. A solid mobile strategy will pay off in the both the short term with immediate growth opportunities while being optimally positioned for new developments in software, hardware and processing power on next generation mobile devices that more and more people favor as their primary network device.

Marshall Matheson is SVP of online media at WTWH Media.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

The Secret to Digital Growth: Investing In Content?

Matt Kinsman — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:04:10 -0500

At FOLIO:, we're used to having to cajole publishers to share metrics to back up the case they're making for their own success. But every now and then someone lays it all out, understanding that solid revenue, net income and EBITDA figures go a lot further than phrases like "synergy" and "relationship with our audience."
Kudos then to Henry Blodget, CEO of financial news and analysis site Business Insider (which was just named a Top 25 Financial Blog by Time.com), who shared the type of proprietary financials that keep most PR heads up at night in a post making the case for the viability of "digital news" as a business. (The admissions come on the heels of Huffington Post's $315 million sale-or as one talkbacker to Blodget's post wrote, "The headline on this post should be: Dear AOL, For your consideration, we're an excellent Web property too!")

The stats: Business Insider generated $4.8 million in revenue in 2010 (up from $39,495 a couple years ago), mostly from advertising. The company was profitable in 2010 (making $2,127), but Blodget warns it will dip back into the red over the next few quarters, due to aggressive investment, spurred in part by New York State's capital tax. "Making $2,127 feels about 2,127 times as good as losing money," he writes. "And it makes us confident that, if we keep working hard, and we keep getting better, we'll be able to build a successful business and a truly great product someday."

The Costs Of Making Online Content a Real Business

While we're definitely in the "aggregation"-oops, sorry, I meant "curation" age-many online startups are investing in staff and resources in creating original content (which is more than can be said for many of their peers coming from traditional media).

Blodget [pictured] acknowledges the knocks against HuffPo's content (paying a few big name writers while plucking content from low-or-unpaid bloggers, generating SEO-bait) but he also says that with HuffPo expected to grow another $20 million to $50 million in revenue that it "will likely hire a lot more New York Times staffers to go with the ones it has already got. In other words, HuffPo will keep getting better." (HuffPo did just snap up political writer Jon Ward from News Corp's The Daily).

Blodget doesn't reveal what he's paying to generate content, but says "We didn't make that profit because we're a sweatshop, by the way." He claims a 25-person newsroom, (which is larger than many magazines which are generating far more than $4 million and splitting four or five people-if they're lucky--across print AND digital).

He writes

"Our newsroom salaries for full-time employees, for example (which include bonuses and benefits) are now higher than at many companies in the traditional news industry. Because the digital news business is quite different from the traditional news business, we often promote from within, and we've had the huge pleasure of watching folks who joined us as interns grow up to take leadership positions. True, we can't yet toss around the $300,000-$500,000 a year per brand-name columnist that Huffington Post and Daily Beast are now reportedly tossing around. But, in future years, if we keep doing what we think we can do, we should be able to pay our top people a lot more than we do today."

But what's the cost of growing and getting better? According to Google Analytics, Business Insider has seen a steady rise in traffic, generated nearly 8 million uniques in February (comScore has it at 3.5 million-Blodget promises a post addressing the discrepancy in the future).

Meanwhile, financial blogger Felix Salmon estimates that expenses have been growing at the same rate as Business Insider's audience (spending between 23 cents and 36 cents per unique visitor), and points out that Business Insider has moved away from producing premium content for Wall Street "elites," after realizing that there's "no money in micro-publishing."

Revenue hasn't caught up with costs when it comes to creating digital content for mass media (with some exceptions). But BI doesn't necessarily have to go mass market, it just has to siphon off enough readers from the established players.

This isn't meant as a Valentine to BI. Blodget's snarkiness (a prerequisite in the dotcom world), his commitment to tweaking "old media" whenever possible, and BI editors tripping over themselves to attach a cutesy headline to just about every story can get tiresome. But it is good content.

Many traditional publishers--overleveraged and struggling to meet covenants or lose it all--can't invest in content (or real lead gen or real marketing services, etc.) But for the rest--many of which are seeing improvements in print and boasting solid margins even through the worst of the downturn, and who HAVE proven there is money in micro-publishing--continuing to operate on a shoestring across all media (even as they consider a metered model) will leave them wondering why business is going to a digital startup.

Even Google values quality, original content. Do you?
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

How Aud Dev and Analytics Support Content Creation

Matt Kinsman — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:48:53 -0500

Much has been said about the publishing life cycle of news content online and in print. At Forbes, where we're kept apprised of the brand's new print and digital developments by chief product officer Lewis Dvorkin's blog posts, we can see how important analytics and audience development have become in content creation.
Dvorkin argues that the top-down "caste system" of traditional newsrooms has been outmoded by the way content is consumed and shared digitally. "The self-imposed newsroom caste system has run its course," he says in a recent post. "The three vital voices of the media business [content creators, audience members and marketers] now publish together and actually form relationships with one another."

The new newsroom, he says, is no longer a one-way operation where content is simply created and delivered to readers, rinse and repeat. The digital platform demands a much more interconnected process that links content with data (both demographic and feedback) and a strategic approach to production methods.

Interestingly, as Dvorkin describes the four columns that support the newsroom structure, we can see how important analytics and audience development are to the entire process.

Dvorkin's four main support components of his newsroom are:

1. Analytics--consisting of a small team that monitors activity at the page and site levels. The data is then used to help editors determine what content resonates and drives engagement.

2. Audience Development--another team that uses the data produced by the analytics team to develop KPIs and uncover new areas for audience growth.

3. Contributor Support--These folks work closely with the content creators, combining production tools with data insights to help creators optimize their production.

4. Programming--these guys also depend on AD and analytics to fast-track specific content packages and formats to maintain momentum created by content that resonates well with readers.

Dvorkin adds that, depending how you look at it, data could be king, or audience development or content. Yet that classification is diluted by the circular nature of the process.

Nevertheless, it's clear that the entire structure moves forward on the basis of what the analytics and audience development folks are picking up from the community. The business of content generation and its concomitant sales operation are perpetually refined or even re-engineered through this process.

Bill Mickey is executive editor of Audience Development magazine.
Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.