Harper‚Äôs Bazaar recently embedded 5,000 copies of its December issue cover with ‚ÄúSwarovski crystal elements‚ÄĚ‚ÄĒ258 of them, to be exact, hand-affixed by Swarovski‚ÄĒand sent them to VIPs in the fashion, beauty and media industries, including, naturally, me.
A week ago, 10,000 copies of New York‚Äôs December 10 issue were printed with a four-page cover wrap advertising the New Museum‚ÄĒusing part of the magazine‚Äôs logo in its design. The special copies were mailed to a select list of the city's "culturati," Andrew Essex, CEO of Droga5, the ad agency behind the promotion, told Jeff Bercovici at Portfolio. "So if you don't get a copy, you're not somebody."
The blinging, er, blurring of ASME‚Äôs church-state guidelines aside, why do magazines print special ‚ÄúVIP‚ÄĚ issues, anyway? And why do the VIPs get all the cool ones?
There‚Äôs a reason, of course: advertisers. In this case, I‚Äôm guessing that both the New Museum and Swarvoski wanted to reach these so-called VIPs, and do so in a way that was eye-catching. But what about the subscribers of the magazine? Are they not Very Important People too?
The answer, apparently, is simple: No.
In a recent test on its own newsletters, MarketingSherpa wanted to know which two- or three-word phrase could get subscribers to click through to another article. Here's what they measured:
MarketingSherpa shared, "With these results, we had a strong feeling that the front-runner, 'Click to continue,' would win in the A/B test, and it did, producing 3.5% more clicks than 'Continue to article.' Needless to say, we immediately switched the words in our link in all of our newsletters."
The next time you send out an e-mail consider how important a few words in the title can make! Also consider that the least pushy wording got the most click throughs.
Visit MarketingSherpa's site.
More here ...
"Listen, the Web is the most exciting part of a modern journalism enterprise for ambitious writers and editors. If they haven't figured it out by now, to hell with them."
Those are the words of Jon Friedman in a column published this week on MarketWatch. You can read the rest of his comments, born of a frustrating experience at the American Magazine Conference, by clicking here.
Now it's worth noting for the thousandth time that I am not one of those people who believe print is dead. Rather, I believe that some of print is dead. Some of it isn't dead yet. And some of it will live forever.
I, unlike Friedman, don't expect to read the obituary of the magazine industry any time soon. However, I do believe‚ÄĒstrongly‚ÄĒthat the careers of a great numbers of great journalists are dead. The refusal to accept the changes in journalism has turned many of the people I know in this industry from assets into liabilities. These people‚ÄĒmany of them friends of mine‚ÄĒare the whining editors and publishers that Friedman says "still view the Web as more of a curse than a blessing." And although it is sad, and although it is a loss to the profession, it's time to let these folks go.
Friedman is right: writers and editors that haven't figured out that Web is now the most important part of what we do aren't worth worrying about any longer.
On the other hand, I'm not ready to give up on journalism students ... at least not yet.
As I've said before, the next generation is woefully unprepared to work in today's media. But I have faith that smart teachers can undo the damage inflicted by the journalism dinosaurs that roam the halls of academia.
And even if this entire generation of college students turns out to have been ruined by print-centric, elderly people, there are indications that today's high school students may turn out just fine.
More here ...
In my capacity as Discover magazine CEO, I had lunch last week with a leading environmental scientist and blogger. After a brief but stimulating chat about the climate crisis, I steered the conversation around to my more parochial concern: Can I dramatically increase my Web traffic by adding more blogs?
He was skeptical to say the least. Incumbents in this market have significant first mover advantages. My friend launched his environment blog in 2004, a year before the Huffington Post but a good five years after Boing Boing. Since then, if you believe Technorati, literally tens of millions of new blogs have been created. At the same time, blog users' bookmarks and RSS readers have been filling up (not to mention other blogs' blogrolls), leaving less real estate for new entrants.
A quick look back to early 2007, though, shows that a magazine site can launch a new blog using a time-honored tactic-poaching from its competitors. In January, Atlantic Monthly signed Andrew Sullivan's blog away from Time, and whatever they paid him was probably a bargain compared to the ad inventory he generates.
There's a lesson here for magazines looking to expand their
blog platforms. Instead of coaxing your overworked editors to blog more, look around your competitive space for established but undermonetized blog sites who might see the benefit of hooking
up with your brand.
If that doesn't work, you can always go with the LOLCats.
Most magazine designers have come across references to the legendary Aspen‚ÄĒa multimedia-filled ‚Äúmagazine in a box‚ÄĚ published between 1965 and 1971‚ÄĒthough few have actually seen a copy. In addition to articles, Aspen included phonograph records and several issues came with Super-8‚Äôs. (For our younger readers, Super-8 was kind of an early Quicktime.) Well, the folks at Ubu have provided a tantalizing look at some of those Aspen pages. The images are not as large as a designer would ask for, and some of Ubu‚Äôs attempts at recreating the magazine as Web pages fall flat, but they do provide mp3s and streaming video for all of the publication‚Äôs multimedia content.
Read more here ...
I just returned from a sales trip on the West Coast. I am always looking for ways to keep fighting the wacky perception that print is dead, as is regularly reported in print media-Doh! One of the problems was typified by a large client who said he wants to measure the success of a marketing effort on the very next day, and since you could not do that with print, he was only using online media.
Now there are many things one can respond to here, but I want to focus on the metrics. It is very difficult to measure the results of a print ad campaign in a trade publication on a daily basis. It's not how they work. You don't measure the speed of a glacier moving in miles per hour. You measure glaciers in inches per year. Similarly, you have to measure print campaign benefits in longer-term metrics like "increase in awareness over six months, change in brand perception or brand preference" over a longer period of time.
If you are not offering the kind of research that measures these kinds of metrics right now, you need to be. Print cannot be measured with clicks but it doesn't produce that type of impulsive result. That doesn't mean that what we do produce-awareness, brand preference and sales-cannot be measured. They can be, quite easily with pre-and post-campaign studies. There are many quick-and-dirty online research sites out there (www.surveymonkey.com is one) where you can do a study for less than $20.
You should also be using Harvey, Readex or Starch to independently measure the perception of an advertiser's creative as well as the creative of every other advertiser in the issue. This sort of research- common in print for years-is very rare in the online world. When I mention the breadth and depth of these studies to the new online buyers they are amazed.
Don't give in to demands for online metrics that don't make sense for print. There are ways to measure print's effectiveness. Educate your customers and use them.
A tip of the knit hat to my pals at Boston magazine, who did the right thing when the Boston Bruins tried to buy a little love:
"That‚Äôs when Wendy Watkins, a marketing executive from Delaware North‚ÄĒthe company that oversees the Bruins and all of the various other Jacobs family business concerns‚ÄĒcalled one of the magazine‚Äôs sales reps to ask whether or not the story about Jacobs was going to be ‚Äúpositive.‚ÄĚ
If so, Watkins said, the Bruins might be interested in buying a series of ads. If not, however, the deal would be unlikely."
The magazine turned down the deal.
Compare and contrast, if you will, to this shameful episode.
Beliefnet editor Steve Waldman, whose spiritual Ellie-award winning site just got sold to News Corp., posted a note and YouTube message to his faithful readers this morning:"We've been getting interest from would-be acquirers for a few years. We were in no rush to sell but I've always believed that Beliefnet would fully blossom with the help of a major media partner. In assessing acquirers, what did we look for? Though we wanted to obtain a fair price, as big a factor in our deliberations was whether, by selling, we could better meet our mission. We created Beliefnet primarily to make a difference, not a killing. As I explored the possibilities with News Corp., it became clear that, with their help, Beliefnet would be able to take quantum leap in what we can do. The best spiritual and religious teachers ‚Äď from Rick Warren to the Dalai Lama -- pass through News Corp doors (through Harper Collins, Zondervan, Harper One and others). News Corp's reach is enormous. Its proficiency in the areas of video, social networking and media in general is unsurpassed."More of Waldman's memo here ...
Read the Beliefnet press release here ...
Over at Media Life, Rachel, the chatty career advice columnist, gives her best advice for migrating to new media to those "Stuck in Traditional Media."
It seems that for people on the selling side, migrating to new media is less stressful. No need to change jobs as for we sellers the media comes to us! Most often it is just handed to us to be integrated into our product mix.
But when you read Rachel's column it is clear that some view interactive media buying as a fundamentally different skill set from buying traditional media:
"'Some interactive agencies will value your 10 years of (traditional) media experience and will consider you for an online media supervisor position,' says Marlene Kruelle, associate online media planner for Atlanta‚Äôs Definition 6.
But then again, maybe not.
'Other interactive agencies will see that you have no online media experience and will tell you to look for an online media planner position,' says Kruelle."
If many view interactive media buying as a fundamentally different skill set, should we sellers view the sales side the same?
Both Yahoo and Google have released their answers to magazine editors' fun-yet-ultimately-meaningless year-end lists: the Top 10 Search Terms of 2007. And, in what qualifies as a non-shocker, no magazine-specific terms apply. (Although celebrity magazine publishers are no doubt thrilled to learn that "TMZ" was the #3 most Googled of 2007, ahead of YouTube, MySpace and Facebook.)The lists:
1. Britney Spears2. WWE3. Paris Hilton4. Naruto5. Beyonce6. Lindsay Lohan7. Rune Scape8. Fantasy Football9. Fergie10. Jessica Alba
1. iphone2. webkinz3. tmz4. transformers5. youtube6. club penguin7. myspace8. heroes9. facebook10. anna nicole smith
I looked at NYTimes.com briefly this morning before leaving for work. Nothing interesting. Some bishops. Then I got to the Cold Spring Harbor Deli and glanced at the physical print edition of the Times and was surprised to see the headlines on Iran‚Äôs nuclear program screaming out at me. READ ME, it said. This is IMPORTANT!
And I did read it. And it was important. If I only read the Times online, it would have just flown right by. Print is really good at providing context. The Internet is not.If you are selling print, you need to pay attention to these examples as they come up and use them to hammer home the unique benefits of print.I‚Äôm not against online‚Äďwe sell tons of online products. I just feel the jump to online marketing has gone overboard and there are few voices reminding us why and how print still works.
We've all gotten used to the idea of the e-mail interview, the interview via instant messenger (the "IMterview"), even cover story interview conducted via Blackberry (see: Lindsay Lohan, GQ et al). But what about using the Blackberry logs to back up investigative reporting? Definitely never thought I'd type this sentence, but here goes: It appears as though In Touch magazine has become the first major magazine to reprint photo evidence of a Blackberry text message exchange to back up claims in a reported story-specifically, that Britney Spears is pregnant:
Contrary to the statement J.R. Rotem released on November 28, In Touch has documented proof that on Monday, November 26, the music producer did indeed confirm in these text messages that Britney is pregnant and that he is the father. When asked about rumors about Britney's pregnancy and whether he is the father, J.R. texted, "It's true." And when questioned about Britney's intentions regarding her unborn baby, he responded, "No clue on what she will do. She is unpredictable."
Ahh, the intersection of technology and celebrity journalism.