Time magazine has tried and failed to get 20 to 30 percent of its clients to buy ads based on total readership rather than circulation, according to a Mediaweek story. The article reports that Time offered advertisers the choice to buy against a guaranteed, MRI-measured total readership of 19.5 million or against a rate base of 3.25 million, 19 percent smaller than in 2006, and only âa fewâ opted to buy on audience. Scenarios like this are confounding for a lot of people. âIt doesnât make sense for an advertiser to buy based on how many copies are printed but rather on how many are seen and what is the action as a result of that,â said John Griffin, president of National Geographic Societyâs magazine group and newly inaugurated MPA chairman, at a recent MPA breakfast. âWe should have some kind of measurement that better reflects the goals of the advertiser. Publishers are arguing that paid circ isnât that important and advertisers are arguing that it is. It should be reversed.â Sure, it should be. But as Griffin said at the breakfast, it is advertisersânot publishersâwho will ultimately make the shift happen (or not). And, judging by this, most advertisers arenât ready for the somewhat ambiguous world of audience metrics. According to the Mediaweek story, some saw the offer as a way to shift conversation away from circulationâa lot of magazines have âa better audience story than a circulation story,â said Barry Lowenthal, president, The Media Kitchen. Some just didnât see making the change as a priority, while many took issue with the nature of reader-reported MRI data. Maybe publishers, instead of asking why advertisers are passing on this option, should ask themselves why they wouldnât.
In early January, shapingyouth.org, a blog on marketing to children, complained to mass retailer Target about a new ad campaign that depicted a woman positioned on a target pattern with the bullâs-eye seemingly targeting her crotch.
What gives, Target? A subliminal sexual message? A lapse into bad taste? Publicity through controversy? Or, did their art director, so wrapped up in the "snow angel" theme, miss the obvious innuendo?
Mistakes happen, but Target's response to the criticism was a showstopper that enraged the blogosphere.
In an e-mail response published in the News York Times, Target replied, âUnfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets.â
âThis practice,â the public relations person added, âis in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest,â as Target refers to its shoppers.
The Times covered the response: âWord of the exchange quickly spread and the blogosphere did not appreciate the slight. âTarget doesnât participate in new media channels?â asked the Web site for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. Target âdismisses bloggersâ commented the blog for Parents for Ethical Marketing. âAhem! So bloggers donât count!â Ms. Jussel chimed in on ShapingYouth."
How long the issue will rage in the blogosphere is hard to say. But a lot of people who held a fine opinion of Target think less so because Target did not offer a simple response to a blogger.
On your next call, if you have a blog product to sell: remind your client that while blogs often deliver small numbers, the readers can be extremely influential and able to quickly muster armies of like minded individuals that can do great harm. As Target may now be learning, ignore blogs at your peril.
Iâve been reluctant to write about Janet Froelich for fear of coming off like a freshman painting student conceding some small admiration for the work of Picasso. Her art direction of the New York Times magazine is legendary, as well as a continuous source of inspiration to the publishing design community. So, I wonât blubber on much.
Nevertheless, I thought Sundayâs cover package was spectacular. Using a relatively restrictive vocabulary of well-worn iconography (maps, globes) She and photo illustrator Kevin Van Aelst push the language in all kinds of unexpected and innovative ways to talk about waning U.S. influence. There are a couple of other stunning spreads in the issue as well. First, the opener and a subsequent spreadâŠ
Style section, with blurry photograph by Julian Schnabel ...
... and a gentle typographical homage to art deco.
The MPA has a terrific booklet that compares the "engagement" qualities of magazines against other media. In a variety of comparisons magazines do extremely well. For me the most sales call friendly parts came on page 14 in the section entitled, "Qualitative dimensions of engagement". Research shows the ads that run in magazines are seen by readers as offering value, not an intrusion.
Use it on a sales call: First off, download the 35 page PDF at the link below. On the call, the trick is to shift the conversation. When many advertisers/marketers talk about engagement they are referring to measurable engagements such reader click throughs, contest entries, getting readers to contribute content or become involved in some way. This great resource from the MPA helps you shift the dialog from this "mechanical" view of engagement into a psychological one where the relationship between magazine and reader take center stage.
You don't have to explain all this on a call. Just explain the magazine engagement story. The story that says, unlike many other media that provide more functionality along along with a lot of distractions (third chart posted below), magazines engage your customers minds and bring the ad message along in a positive way. Very powerful stuff! Download the entire survey here.
Once upon a time (maybe 24-36 months ago), publishers struggled with how to integrate online advertising sales with their existing print efforts.Â Hire a new sales person who knew his or her way around the Internets?Â Retain an outside rep firm with a set of relationships in the online agency world?Â Train your print reps to sell the site?Two to three years later, most publishers have a team of in-house sales reps that can sell integrated packages.Â Why is this so?
Â 1. Online sales know-how has to be one of your core strengths. You'd be foolish to outsource it.
2. There are no more online-only sales people because there are no more print-only sales people. Your average 28 year-old sales person consumes a ton of online media and wants to sell your brand's entire package. Asking them to sell only magazine ads is a non-starter.3. Every RFP that comes in asks for an integrated proposal and, at this point, we're happy to provide one. We can provide print, online, video, events, whatever. You want ideas? Big-time publishers can deliver video of Beyonce caressing your product online, polybagged and on national TV.
2. There are no more online-only sales people because there are no more print-only sales people. Your average 28 year-old sales person consumes a ton of online media and wants to sell your brand's entire package. Asking them to sell only magazine ads is a non-starter.
3. Every RFP that comes in asks for an integrated proposal and, at this point, we're happy to provide one. We can provide print, online, video, events, whatever. You want ideas? Big-time publishers can deliver video of Beyonce caressing your product online, polybagged and on national TV.
At DISCOVER, we'd have to replace Beyonce with a sexy theoretical physicist, but you get my point.I will even argue that publishers are ahead of advertising buyers in this respect.Â Looking through our top 100 advertisers, 80-90% of the accounts have print and online media buying at the same agency.Â When you go the meetings, though, you often see the two teams separately, the print buyer is still looking for online as a value-add, and the online buyer works on another floor or another city.So, get with it, media buyers.Â When a single planning team is evaluating the combo print-online-event-TV proposal (and paying for each of those elements), that's when advertising will truly be integrated.
This post by FOLIO: editor Dylan Stableford on Glam Media and its CEO Samir Arora makes two insights into e-media M&A: "If traditional publishers continue to miss the site network strategy, as Arora says, I'd expect that line of âapproachers' to start looking like the runway at JFK, probably sooner than later. And when it does, it'll be a fun exercise in valuation."
Arora says he's already getting a significant amount of interest from tire-kickers and the supposition that the crowd of curious buyers will soon resemble a packed runway is dead on. Media bankers DeSilva + Phillips have already labeled 2007 as the "year of the digital niche acquisition," and this year is shaping up to be more of the same.
What's more, Arora is actually generating revenues. "Our internal goal has been to drive the revenue growth rate faster than any other media company on the Internet--traditional or nontraditional," Arora told me in our original interview.
Whether or not Glam's revenues are developing at a scale or speed buyers are looking for, that model is something both potential strategic and financial buyers will no doubt appreciate, given the smokey back room approach to early-stage e-media valuations.
With the credit markets as tight as they are these days, buyers may not be as willing to pay whatever it takes to win a bid. And in a deal for a property that has proven financials, a bidder pool would likely expand to include even the more conservative buyers who normally shy away from early-stage Internet companies that have no measurables to pin a valuation on beyond site traffic, demographics, an executive team still in their 20s, and a great idea.
Since the conversation on this topic was interesting, I thought it would be appropriate to add some more information and answer where I stand on the question. After all, I asked the question in my previous blog post, I didn't answer it.
First, my opening comments as [GQ writer and Deadspin editor] Will Leitch and I sat down for the interview. (These come courtesy of Will in an email to me about this subject):
WL: Okay. I want to start off actually, this is going to be just a big Q&A, pretty much straight up and everything. So I want to start ...MC: This is just for GQ now.WL: Just for GQ, not for Deadspin. No Deadspin stuff, and no ... yeah, I have the journalist hat on. And I have the journalist hat on at Deadspin, too, but anyway, let's ... another debate for another time.MC: We won't call that journalism.WL: Another debate for another time.
So I made it clear that I wanted no association with his blog at all.
Does his writing a piece about me with a link back to the very item that he knew I wanted nothing to do with constitute a lack of ethics? I think so. It certainly is a major f*ck you.
Does making the following comment ("Cuban was not amused and spent most of the interview accusing Deadspin of being the Inside Edition of sports. So that was fun") diminish the integrity of the interview itself? Probably not, but to some readers of Valleywag and GQ, it could. Unethical? Probably not. Stupid business? Definitely.
For the record, I certainly didn't spend most of the interview talking about his blog, but I certainly had fun at his expense from time to time and I never said it was off the record. Although, again, this was a GQ interview. Set up and arranged with the magazine with no consideration on my part as to who would do the piece until Will showed up.
Which leads to my conclusion about all of this.
It's my fault. I was stupid to think that the guy who runs Deadspin could stop being the guy who runs Deadspin. I should have asked for GQ to send someone else. Better yet, I should have stuck to my rules and only do interviews via email.
[EDITORâS NOTE: There's been a lively debate regarding this issue on Mark Cuban's blog. Check out and join the debate here, or in the comments section below.]
Evaluating the winners (the New York Times, Gawkerâyes, Gawker) and losers (Bonnie Fuller).
Heath Ledgerâs death this week rocked New York, Hollywood (most of which seemed to be at Sundance) and the rest of the country, as well as Australia, where the actor was born. It rocked the celebrity magazine world too, working editors and production staffs into a deadline frenzy to beat the rush at the newsstand. People magazine was able to close with a Ledger cover while most of its newsstand competitors, which close Monday, did not; Entertainment Weekly, which closes on Tuesdays, managed to produce a Heath Ledger cover, too.
As Ad Age's Nat Ives pointed out, the later close is going to benefit People in âthe relentless checkout-lane war against Us Weekly, Star, OK, In Touch and Life & Style.â Undoubtedly true, but is checkout domination all these magazine publishers care about?
Maybe itâs because I identify more with Heath Ledger than other celebrities (he was 28, liked to party and altered his facial hair frequently). Maybe itâs because Iâve never bought a copy of People. But talk of a checkout-lane war in the wake of a death like this feels a bit tacky.
Particularly when the news of Ledgerâs death was exhaustivelyâthoroughly and well, by the wayâreported in real-time on the Web, more so than cable news coverage. (Donât get me started about this guy. I mean, please.) Radar appeared to be the first to post the news; the New York Times' City Room blog delivered continuous updates; and Gawkerâwhich has the reputation of being tad insensitive in times like theseâposted perhaps the most eerily poignant video of the scene, replete with natural audio (you ever hear a crowded New York street this quiet?) of the removal of the body.
And what does this say about magazine Web sites? Bonnie Fuller, editor-in-chief of Star magazine, chose to blog about Ledgerâs death. Not for Star magazine, mind youâfor the Huffington Post. And a wildly speculative post at that:
None of his gifts, neither talent nor family, appears to have been enough to combat the demons that apparently led Heath to take the pills that could have ended his young life.Heath, perhaps if you had just re-watched your old film you would have been inspired to stay with us and to have "changed your stars."For more coverage of Heath's life and tragic death, go to Starmagazine.com.
None of his gifts, neither talent nor family, appears to have been enough to combat the demons that apparently led Heath to take the pills that could have ended his young life.
Heath, perhaps if you had just re-watched your old film you would have been inspired to stay with us and to have "changed your stars."
For more coverage of Heath's life and tragic death, go to Starmagazine.com.
Bonnie, perhaps you should've considered if anyone cared what your Netflix queue looks like. Or waited, like everyone else, for an autopsy. And maybe a fact or two, while you're at it.
Speaking of tacky, look at the âtagsâ used by HuffPo for their Heath coverage:
Thatâs right. Theyâre tagging their stories with misspelled variationsâand rumored causes of deathâon purpose in order to boost their traffic with people who type âKeith Ledgerâ into search engines.
A couple months ago I agreed to do an interview with a major national magazine that I enjoy and respect. I rarely do face-to-face interviews because I have significant trust issues with how an interview can be reflected in a story.
I try to stick exclusively to email for all my interviews. In this case I made an exception because I had developed a good relationship with the magazine.
The interview process was unexceptional. Meaning that it went well. The writer and I got along and I thought it was a fun interview to do.
The article came out last week and I liked it. No problems at all.
Then the person who interviewed me, who is also a blogger, decided to blog about our interview. The blog ran on a site that he is associated with, but is not affiliated at all with the magazine the interview was for. He never asked, nor told me that our interview would be blogged about. While I respect the magazine, I am not a fan of the site he works for, or of its affiliated site that the blog ran on. A point I let him know. I would not have done the interview had I known he would blog about it for this site.
As it turns out, he did not clear the blog with the magazine either.
So he traveled on their dime to do an interview for their magazine and then used the interview to generate a blog for his site from a subject that was not expecting to be blogged about.Ethical or not?[EDITORâS NOTE: There's been a lively debate regarding this issue on Mark Cuban's blog. Check out and join the debate here, or in the comments section below. And see Mark's answer to the question here.]
Hereâs to taking customer satisfaction to the extreme.Each year, the Menâs Journal advertising staff participates in what it calls the âDare Your Repâ campaign, an initiative to help engage their clients and to promote the magazineâs May âAdventureâ issue. So what awaited the magazineâs eager sales staff this year?
Firewalking? No. Winter surfing off Montauk? Nah. Taking more than 40 percent of clientsâ votes was swimming with sharks. Of course.
So, last week, 15 advertising reps donned wetsuits, hopped into a tank at the Adventure Aquarium in Camden, New Jersey, and got up-close-and personal with several varieties of sharks. Even publisher Will Schenck got in the tank.
Swimming with sharks is apparently just another notch on the belt for the Menâs Journal ad staff. Last year they ate from a menu of tasty delectables such as honey-glazed spiced tarantulas, herbed cream cheese with glazed scorpion, filo dough pastry cups with prickly pear cactus jelly and roasted ants.
Anything for a sale.
A year apart, and in two different management regimes, two executives use remarkably similar language in describing remarkably similar priorities.When Colin Ungaro [pictured, left] came on board as president of the magazine division of F+W Publication in April 2007, he was brimming with ideas and priorities in e-media, events and more. He predicted significant growth for the 60-title company and described a business with a strong bond to its readers, poised for great things. He left the company in December 2007. Now David Nussbaum [above, right] has come on as CEO. In an interview this week, Nussbaum was brimming with ideas and priorities in e-media, events and more. He predicted significant growth for the company and described a business with a strong bond to its readers, poised for great things. He sounded very much like Ungaro did in April 2007. In a way, itâs not surprising. This is an industry where executives often work off the same script when it comes to major announcements. Has anyoneâanyoneânot heard these kinds of phrases?âą âWe are closing (selling) these properties to focus more on our core strengths ...ââą âIâm delighted to be forming this partnership with [fill in the blank] and its talented team. With their strong positions in their served markets...ââą âWeâre thrilled to have an executive of [fill in the blank]âs rare level of experience and skill joining us as we aggressively build out our [fill in the blank] businessâŠââą âThe variance to budget was a timing issue related to [fill in the blank] ...âSome excerpts from Ungaroâs Q+A then, and Nussbaumâs Q+A now:On what b-to-b and consumer-enthusiast media have in common ...Ungaro 2007: âItâs serving a particular audience, which is what you do in b-to-b. There are a lot similarities between the two.Nussbaum 2008: âI see b-to-b and enthusiast media as very similar. We serve highly defined markets. We have very interested and passionate communities. We are very vertical in our approach.â On their plans for e-media expansion at F+W ...Ungaro 2007: âWe already have the infrastructure in place to grow online. The infrastructure was in place before I got here. We have an interactive media department. So what Iâm doing is building out what we already have.âNussbaum 2008: âF+W started aggressively building its e-media infrastructure about a year ago. In June 2007 it hired a top-notch talented leader in John Lerner. There is a lot to work with here from a talent perspective. And the current budget calls for a further meaningful investment in people, technology, and services to continue that investment.â On new product development ...Ungaro 2007: âWeâll be rolling out new products at a very fast pace.âNussbaum 2008: âThere is an opportunity for the growth rate to be excellent. We think there are a myriad of new product ideas that need to be brought to market. Frankly, I took this job because there is such a deep and natural path for new revenue.âOn the strength of F+W events ...Ungaro 2007: âEvents are a very profitable part of our business. It helps us to serve our audiences much better and, I would say, weâve only just scratched the surface in the market. Weâre very bullish about the business and the growth we can achieve.âNussbaum 2008: âWe are also going to be focused on event launches. For example, the annual How Design conference, which consistently experiences sell-out capacity, has given life to two additional conferences to better serve our customers. Both new conferences are well-attended, without sacrificing the success of the how conference.â On serving enthusiasts ...Ungaro 2007: "Weâre serving different needs in different markets, but the common thread is that weâre serving enthusiasts that want to get very specific information in whatever they are interested in.âNussbaum 2008: ââProsumersâ are willing to pay for information and products that are their passions and hobbies, and thus are committed to their media offerings and brands. There is a sacred pact between the media brand and its community to provide networking, information, data, and help in deepening the readersâ knowledge about the subject.â
If you're a journalist who believes, as I do, that the best way to improve your skills is to teach yourself rather than wait for the boss to invest more money in you, there are a couple of interesting announcements today.
First, check out Wired Journalists, a social-networking and information-sharing site born in the wake of Howard Owens' call for non-wired journalists to learn the skills of new media.
Wired Journalists has been in beta for a few weeks now. (I was the seventh person to join.) But now it's open to the world.
You can read Howard's announcement here. Read Ryan Sholin's take here. Check out Zac Echola's thoughts here.
I'm looking forward to seeing more folks from the world of B2B journalism on the site soon. So if you're willing to share what you know, and willing to learn more, join Wired Journalists.
Second, longtime readers of this blog know that I'm a big fan of WordPress, the content-management system popular with thousands of bloggers. I've long argued that WordPress and similar open-source systems are vastly superior to the systems used by most publishers.
Now comes news that WordPress has landed $29 million in new financing ... including an investment from the New York Times.
Check out Matthew Ingram's thoughts on the deal here. Read Wall Street Journal coverage here. For an earlier post of mine on WordPress, click here.