Given the changing landscape of content publishing, it's no surprise that a social media community like Pinterest has emerged as a power player for driving traffic, growing communities and fostering reader engagement. For some, Pinterest drives more than 20 percent of website traffic, topping legacy referrers such as Google and Yahoo. Others are seeing follower acquisition on Pinterest increase at a strong-and-steady 15 percent month-over-month.Â Recently I participated in a Pinterest webinar with social editors from Martha Stewart Living, Menâs Health, Womenâs Health, and media agency Huge. Here are the five common themes that emerged. 1. Pin During Active TimesRather than dumping 30 pins into Pinterestâs news feed a couple times a day, use a tool such as Piqora or Curalate to schedule 10 to 12 pins across several time zones. This way, content is surfacing when users are most engaged. For example, when I shifted pin times for SELF, we were able toÂ increase re-pins and click-through rates by nearly 30 percent. 2. Collaborate and Co-pinConnect with on-brand partners, whether a celebrity cover star, a contributing blogger, a chef or an entertaining expert, on a co-branded board.Â Youâll leverage the built-in followers from their Pinterest footprint and expand both profiles. Also consider organic co-pin opportunities with advertisers and brand sponsors. While âpin it to win itâ contests are popular, look for meaningful ways to activate your most influential or active pinners. The goal is always more re-pinsâtheyâre like a simple yet powerful social âthumbs up.â 3. Realize the Lifespan of a PinA pin lives longer than any other piece of social content. A Tweet can disappear within minutes, and thanks to Facebookâs algorithms, a post might not even be seen by 70 percent of your audience. But with Pinterest, a site might experience a spike in traffic from content pinned 30 days ago.Â 4. Pinning Indicates Purchase IntentIn a recent survey, about 35 percent of users under 35 said that pinning led to a purchase and 24 percent said they found the item they eventually purchased on a strangerâs board, not a brand or retailer. This suggests the power of a brand placement on an editorial board or, better yet, a Pinterest userâs board. Your editors also play a role here when recommending a product on their personal boards. And itâs worth thinking about what Pinterest can do for ad partnerships or value adds. 5. Leverage Insights to Inform Editorial ContentTake a cue from top-performing pins and incorporate them on your site, either within a newsletter or as a slideshow (with proper crediting back to the original source). You can also think of Pinterest as another avenue for A/B testing. Trying to decide whether to lead with a food or a fashion image? Look at the native Pinterest analytics or those within your third-party tools to help you make that choice.
A few weeks ago, we reviewed some of the things you can do with gift offers, especially within your own magazine, and it can be very easy to lose sight of what you are trying to achieve.
Offering a gift subscription is not the same as creating a house offer, although many people do fall foul of this. When creating a house offer, be it an off-the-page advertisement, blow in or bind in card, you are trying to sell the magazine to the person reading your promotion; when creating a gift offer, you are selling the idea of giving someone a gift-the offers are not the same.
Copy for a gift promotion should be about the product and why your gift will give pleasure to the recipient, so avoid words like "you" and use "they" instead. A little flattery never hurts either, so copy such as "...they'll thank you for your generous gift all year long" could certainly be in order. And gift acknowledgement cards sent toÂ recipients are much prized by gift givers, so be sure you mention that you send them to recipients in the donor's name. It you have price savings for multiple gifts, be sure to mention that in your gift ad, as well as how to enter multiple orders by phone.
The gift offer should not be over-designed (actually, nothing should ever be over-designed, but you know what I mean). The important things on a blow in card are the "from" and "to" address boxes, an offer that is clear, concise, easy to understand and an uncluttered form. You do not need covers galore, in most cases you don't need a cover at all-which is just as well, because there is not much room on a card measuring 4.25 x 6 inches.
Because of the information you have to include on the form, avoid using too much reversed-out copy. Stock for blow in and bind cards can soak up ink like crazy and with fonts tending to be smaller size, you can end with a fuzzy mess on your hands. If you are running an advert in your magazine, just about the reverse is true. You can drop out copy because fonts are generally larger and the paper stock usually better.
Bind in cards can be stacked so that you can have at least two cards andÂ even three gift cards if you wish. Design the bind in so the bottom of your card gets trimmed off. That means there is one less perforation you have to worry about. Your run-of-the-page advertisement, blow in and bind in cards do not all have to have the same design, they can all be different.
Recognize the difference between gift ads and house ads, otherwise you may lose out on a lot of orders and at a time of giving, who wants to do that?
How do you decide whether to bundle print and digital subscriptions? Some say that we need to stop offering separate print and digital subscriptions so the audience can get used to the idea of reading magazines digitally. Why? Because thatâs where we are moving and itâs our job to get our readers comfortable with the idea that they can get the same value out of reading a magazine on a desktop, tablet or smartphone. So how do you decide what to offer?Here, Iâll discuss the different subscription models that we have at NewBay Media and the pros and cons of each; plus what we do to keep track of our digital circulation in all the different platforms in order to report them as qualified circulation in the BPA and AAM statements.All of our Kindle, Nook and Google Play editions have a paid model. However, our Apple editions are more complex. We have 14 magazines with a paid model and 9 with a log-in for free activation.Â Paid Model: Apps OnlyUnder this model the magazines do not offer a combined print/digital subscription offer. When we refer to digital under this model; we are only referring to digital on the Apple, Kindle, Nook or Google Play editions. This model is straightforward. We have 3 offers: Single copies, one-month and one-year subscriptions.Pros: Itâs simple to execute. Offering one delivery method; subscribers get it on their smart devices. No programming expense to communicate with your subscriber database.Cons: Subscribers complain about wanting a bundle subscription or they want to transfer their print subscription to a digital subscription on one of these devices.Paid Model: BundleWe currently have two magazines under this model. The subscriber is offered a print bundle that includes an all-access plan where they get the print, the desktop edition, iPad/iPhone edition and online access to the website. Or they can opt to get everything except the print.Pros: Subscribers use the form that is attached to our database. We have a handle on how the offers are doing and how our audience is reacting to the print bundles versus the digital-only access.Cons: There is a lot of programming that needs to be done up front to create a log-in process within the app that pings our database when a subscriber wants to activate an account. Sometimes the log-in process is not very user friendly, which results in higher customer service calls or emails in the first couple of months.Free (Activation Required) Model: One-Year Subs OnlyThis is one of the most involved models. We currently have 7 controlled magazines that offer free access to the iPad/iPhone edition, but the subscriber needs to authenticate a print subscription. This model works almost identically to the Paid Bundle Model referenced above; with the difference that we only allow free access to those controlled one-year subscribers on the file at the time they activate their subscription.Â This was set up with some programming between our fulfillment house and the app vendor. Immediate access is granted to one-year subscribers when they activate their iPad account. But two-year or older subscribers see an error message that tells them to fill out a form, available within the app. Once they fill out the form it feeds directly to our fulfillment database and grants access.Pros: Our fulfillment house is able to flag the subscribers that activate their accounts and those that renew their subscription, which means we know exactly who those readers are. And we now have a new benefit to offer our readers to get them to requalify sooner.Cons: The programming involved to get this to work properly. The log-in process asks for an email address to log in. If they donât have an email address on file with us then they need to contact customer service to have it added in order to grant them access.As you can probably imagine, keeping track of all these apps and the different models takes time and a good detailed BPA approved report. Thatâs why we had to invest many hours to create a report that provides all of this information in one place. The report has been set up to feed from the raw data provided by all the vendors and our goal is to supply this report to the auditors so they can have a one stop shop of all the data they need to verify the digital circulation for all of these platformsâand in turn reduce the auditing hours that this will likely bring. As of today, we have BPAâs approval on the report, but we will not know how good it is until it passes through an audit. Iâll be sure to let everyone know how it does.Â Â Next Time:Iâll talk about metric reports, what they should have and why they are important to almost everyone in the company.Until thenâŚ
Back in 2005, I proudly debuted my first audience database for a b-to-b media company focused on residential construction. Working with our fulfillment company, Iâd pulled together all the subscribers from forty-some magazines and email newsletters into one consolidated database.Â âLook at this!â I told the sales and marketing groups working with surveys and events and webinars. âRather than just pull a list for our home builder magazine versus our remodeler magazine versus our architect magazine, we can identify all the builders and remodelers and architects we reach across all our products.â The response was pretty much:âWow, thatâs great! But for this particular effort, we only want to focus on remodelers. So letâs just use the remodeler magazine list.âYes, for all our hype about audience integration, many b-to-b marketers still think of audience as a mailing list or email list for each product and brand. Maybe itâs because weâve done such a good job of establishing brand identity for advertisersââIf you want to reach Group A, you have to use our Magazine A!ââthatÂ we find it hard to look beyond brand and see our audience as one pool of customers whom we touch through multiple channels.Even many of the new integrated database systems being offered by fulfillment and email vendors focus on audience as a collection of lists. Iâve worked with several systems that simply compile multiple lists, so that an individual involved with several products ends up with multiple separate records. Yes, those individual records are matched up, so when you combine lists youâll get a de-duplicated total. But the database is essentially just a big merge-purge, with no real integration of the records.That type of database is sometimes called a âunifiedâ structure, as distinguished from an âintegratedâ structure that builds a single consolidated record per individual. On a practical level, you can see the difference in the actual process of building a selection. Can you start by selecting all customers with a particular characteristicâeveryone in certain states or with a valid emailâregardless of what list they are in? Or must you always start by selecting List A and then List B and then List C, and combining the three for a de-duplicated total?Both approaches have their advantages. A unified database is generally simpler to set up and manage. The structure makes it very easy to add new lists from multiple sourcesâa big help for media companies struggling to combine contacts and registrations from different channels. You donât have to map each new source to update a consolidated individual record, with endless business rules for when one mailing address should override another or which business demographics have priority. The âlist firstâ query process of a unified structure also matches the way many of us think about list selection. In fact, if all you really need from your audience database is the ability to create targeted lists for promotions, a unified database will more than meet your needsâand probably cost substantially less in both time and money.However, if your company is looking beyond easier list creation, and hopes to move into the big data world of communication and advertising targeted by individual behavior, then a simple unified list of lists wonât take you too far. You will need a true integrated database structured around the individual audience member, with a single record that ties together all of that individualâs registrations and history and activity. I think most b-to-b media companies are still struggling to find big data business models that work in our small industry-specific niches. Most donât need a true integrated audience database right now. But if you are picking a database solution today, keep in mind the structure you may need tomorrow.
One of the great promises of digital journalism is that it breaks down barriers between publications and readers. Consider print: You publish a story, wait for the reader emails to arrive, choose the most interesting, run a fraction of those (heavily edited for space) in a letters-to-the-editor section, then wait for readers to see your selections in their next encounters with your magazine or newspaper. (If that sounds cumbersome, recall that as recently as two decades ago those letters came not by email but as dead-tree contributions.) Sometimes even the best letters can be confusing to readers, since they respond to articles that may have been read days or weeks agoâif they were read at all.Now consider digital: You publish a story, make it possible for readers to write comments that appear directly beneath the article, and encourage them to respond to each other as well as to the author of the piece. All in real-time; at Atlantic sites, as at other web properties, comments typically start appearing minutes after a story is published. The average post may attract a dozen or two comments, but itâs not at all uncommon for a post to have hundreds. Or (less commonly) thousands. At their best, comment threads can put topics in a new light, stir discussions, create community, even uncover new talent. Richard Lawson, now a senior writer at The Atlantic Wire, rose through the Gawker ranks from anonymous commenter to star writer. At The Atlantic, senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates had a particularly incisive commenter who went by the handle Cynic. We thought his observations in the comments section were so good that we asked him to contribute to the site under his own name. Now Yoni Appelbaum, a doctoral candidate at Brandeis, writes for us on everything from the Civil War to presidential politics to Amtrak.Of course, commenters frequently are not at their best. Too often, comment sections are cesspools of vitriol, magnets for haters and trolls and spammers. Threads get hijacked so they are only tangentially connected to the topic of the underlying post. The lack of frictionâmere seconds elapse between furious keystroking and posting to the worldâcan privilege snark over enlightenment. The main issue here is whether comments create such a negative environment that they detract from the reading experience, a proposition to which many would answer yes. But some researchers fear the problem is deeper than that. A study by professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that people who read a neutral article about nanotechnology followed by uncivil comments were more likely to perceive risks with the technology than people who read the exact same article with civil comments appended. The alarming implication here is that the comments affect how readers understand the journalism. So whatâs a publisher supposed to do in the standoff between the world of good and bad comments? Some are, understandably, giving up. The ABC affiliate in Washington, D.C., became so exasperated by the âmean-spirited, and at times hateful commentsâ that last month it pulled the plug.Â âThese comments provide no value to our readers and are time-consuming to moderate,â wrote the stationâs director of new media. Thereâs the rub. It takes a lot of moderating time to foster a positive commenting section. Writers or editors have to jump into the conversation to keep it on track, or to mete out justice by removing comments or even banning the worst offenders. Itâs nice to think weâll just let a thousand flowers bloom; in reality the garden needs to be weeded. But whoâs got the resources? Coates says that at one point he was spending as much time moderating his comments section as he was writing posts for the site. Thatâs untenableâthough, it must be said, Coatesâs hard work created a terrific environment for readers and for himself. (When Ta-Nehisi won a National Magazine Award earlier this year for his magazine essay, Fear of a Black President, he thanked his commenters for the good suggestions they had made as he reported and wrote the piece.) So if you believeâas I doâthat comment sections can be good when aggressively moderated, but you donât âas we donâtâhave the human resources to undertake that moderating, whatâs the answer? There are software solutions out there, like up/down voting systems that privilege the âbestâ comments by promoting them higher in the thread.Â Likewise, publishers have tried various star systems to reward the best commenters and algorithms to identify and promote Most Favored Commenters, so the good stuff stays at the top and the bad stuff recedes. Some sites require commenters to register with their real names, a solution that can certainly promote civility but has its own costs. At The Atlantic, weâre also trying something more radical. Earlier this year, we deputized two of Coatesâs most faithful readers, giving them the keys to the site and assigning them to moderate his comments. They have the power to discipline and even ban. Ta-Nehisi says he chose readers who are âwiseâ and who had already âdone the work of moderating by cooling down threads that were on the cusp of becoming knife fights.â The verdict: So far, so good. Weâre watching this experiment closely, wondering if it can scale to other parts of our sites.Thereâs an argument, of course, that in the age of social media, traditional commenting threads are archaic. If the purpose of a comments section is to foster discussion by amplifying reader feedback to an article or column, certainly much of the worthwhile discussion is taking place on Facebook and Twitter, not just at the bottom of a post. So a better system might integrate social media with traditional commenting. New technologies and creative thinking will no doubt combine to build a better commenting system. In the meantime, publishers and readers alike have to decide whether our current imperfect system adds or subtracts to the journalism.
You buy a home and you get insurance to protect it. You buy a car and immediately sign up for insurance coverage. But, how many web publishers are insuring their content, which is their most important asset? The stark truth is none, or at least very few.Â Iâm not referring to insurance that protects media companies from hackers stealing their information or people re-using content on their own websites without permission. Rather, Iâm talking about publishers making sure theyâre not losing money on every page view and that theyâre getting the most out of every site visit.Â Iâve heard Steve Horowitz, COO of Ziff Davis, liken visitors coming to websites as a game of âPlinko for publishers.â Users come in, bounce around and fall into a slot. If the chip falls correctly, they land in the $100 slot, but, more often than not, itâs the $1 slot. Itâs a complete game of chance. And this is a very risky game, now more than ever, as publishers and marketers find themselves shifting more of their budget from SEO to traffic acquisition. Â Risky why? SEO has helped publishers yield readership for more than a decade. The rule was you spend a $1 on SEO, and you could predict the return. The recent changes in search algorithms (e.g., Panda and Penguin 2.0) have turned this upside down for publishers, effectively shaking this very predictable model to its core. Enter content marketing and other direct traffic-acquisition models. While these new techniques are a more stable and predictable way for publishers to spend money on readership acquisition, theyâre also producing smaller margins. Â To succeed in the Plinko analogy, publishers need to do their due diligence before acquiring readers and bringing them to the site to ensure theyâll remain engaged once they get there. This includes optimizing them for engagement, and instituting a process to funnel visitors to their most valuable pages and sections. Without this forethought, they can quickly find themselves with a bleeding budget. Â Hereâs an example: A publisher named someawesomesite.com gets traffic on their site organically. They make a $20 RPM from ads or other monetization strategies, which equates to 2 cents per page view. Each visitor spends about three pages per visit (PPV), which puts 6 cents into the publisherâs pocket. If it costs them 4 cents to build their content and keep their site running, their profit is 2 cents or a 33 percent margin. Not bad. Â But, if they are also buying some of their traffic, then this formula could quickly go sideways into the gutter of unprofitability. Think about thisâ6 cents in revenue, 4 cents in cost, and now 4 cents to purchase a visit? They just instituted a program that could cause them lose 2 cents on every visit. Ouch. This is actually a common occurrence within larger companies that have disparate teams responsible for purchasing traffic, operating the site and selling ad unit space. Â So what about this insurance idea? How can publishers safeguard against losing money when rolling out their traffic-acquisition strategy? First and foremost, before any publisher decides to launch a traffic-acquisition program, they need to take a hard look at their website and figure out how to squeeze every ounce of engagement they can out of each visit. A/B testing must be employed to peer into the effectiveness of changes made to page architectures and layout, in addition to analyzing which content performs better than others. Are visitors drawn to video, slideshows or text articles with photos? What are they inclined to touch or click on to go deeper? Are in-content text links, interstitial or sidebar units effectively guiding readers to other high-quality pages? It must be balanced to ensure youâre upholding a premium reader experience, yet tested to determine the best efficacy with the audience itself. Rinse and repeat when the analytical tealeaves show their pattern. Â By optimizing their websites, publishers can ensure that their marketing dollars are stretched to the limit. The math starts getting better too. If our publisher someawesomesite.com can increase each user visit from three page views to four, the 2-cent loss they were seeing now turns to break even. And, if they can stretch this to 4.5 or five pages per visit (not impossible), they are back in the black.Â Traffic acquisition should be one of several techniques to increase awareness of a publisherâs website and generate page views. However, itâs exceedingly important that publishers and marketers take the time to optimize their websites before they acquire traffic or they risk quickly losing money on every visit. In essence, insuring their content to protect their profits.
Here's the thing with Lauren Green's interview with Reza Aslan about his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth that aired on FoxNews.com, which you've absolutely seen passed around Buzzfeed and Facebook like a cheerleader's slambook post-prom: It's 'gotcha' journalism. It wasn't meant to inform or engage (that is still the goal of journalism, right?). It wasn't meant to be thought provoking or to inspire debate.
FoxNews.com brought Reza Aslan on for an interview to boost ratings, period. He was asked that first question: âYou're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?â because it was incendiary. FoxNews knows who is not its audience as well as who is its audience, and if theyâre not going to make money off you for clicking a story because you like them, then they may as well make money off you for clicking a story because you don't like them. The network wanted a viral story, something with bite even if it had no teeth, because crazy press is bad journalism, and bad journalism equals good press, and all press leads to clicks, which leads to those sweet dollar bills, y'all. I mean, the first thing I thought was, âCraaaap... is Rupert really losing that much money?âAslan has over twenty years of experience researching religion and history. He is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, putting him the ranks of those other rabble-rousers, Horatio Alger and R.W. Emerson. Saying Reza Aslan, a known scholar of religion, shouldn't write a book about Christianity because he's Muslim is like saying Paul McCartney shouldn't write a book about vocal harmonies because he's a guitarist. [Did that make sense to you? No? Good.]Let's be honest: No one really cares that Reza Aslan wrote a book aboutÂ Jesus even though Aslan is a Muslim. Murdoch doesn't care. Ailes doesn'tÂ care. Lauren Green didn't even care enough to read the second page ofÂ Aslan's book where he notes his Islamic faith. And the bravado with which she goes after him is alarming, considering that she herself is a Christian who, as noted by Eric Hananoki at Media Matters, frequently reports on Islam.The people who care about the Aslan-writing-about-Jesus bit are those easily-manipulated, fear-mongering Americans, because FoxNews has told them to care, and it's spent a decade building an empire that depends on a good chunk of its audience being afraid of Muslims.In an interview with John Oliver on The Daily Show, Aslan talked about who Jesus really was, in the context of his time: â... [he] stood up for the weak and the powerless, the outcast and dispossessed... [Jesus] went to the cross on behalf of these outcasts he was fighting for...âAccording to Aslan, Jesus was a rebel badass. And FoxNews can't have you agree because FoxNews doesn't make money if you agree. Jesus loved the underdogs so much, that he went to bat for every single one of them. Itâs pretty hard to find controversy in a selfless Jesus, regardless of your religion. So instead, FoxNews switches the focus to the seemingly incongruous notion of a Muslim writing a book about Christianity. Otherwise, the network doesn't have a story, its audience doesn't have anything to get worked up about and the rest of the media has nothing to jump on.So is FoxNews' crappy journalism a pretty genius marketing move? Only their ad team knows for sure. But given that Aslan's book just hit number two on the New York Times bestseller list, I'd bet they're happy to argue all the way to the bank.
If you're like most b-to-b publishers, you're delivering a PC-optimized Web experience in a soon to be post-PC world.So it's time to migrate your website(s) to responsive design: Displaying content that arranges automatically based on the device and screen size of the viewer. Â This lets you provide optimal reading, navigating, and viewing from any device, from a desktop PC to a mobile phone.In this post, I'll tell you about the transformation underway at GreenBiz to mobile-first, what we've discoveredâand what we have yet to learn.It's true that most b-to-b users are still using PCs to browse websites, but that's rapidly changing. In fact, PC shipments are forecast to drop 7.8% worldwide in 2013, IDC reports.So it makes sense that Mashable declared 2013 the year of responsive design (conveniently announced shortly after launching its own responsive-design site). With the rise of technology to support multiple platforms, you'd think every publisher would have made the switch by now.The diminishing clout of the PC is further highlighted by the dramatic rise in mobile traffic:
Tablets are clearly picking up ground. They have so far surpassed laptop sales in 2013, and are projected to outsell all PCs by 2015. And smartphones appear unstoppable, on pace to sell nearly a billion units this year.
At GreenBiz, our site has won awards for years. We want to continue winning awards, and so we are midway through a site overhaul, having drunk the Kool-Aid for adopting a mobile-first strategy. But like many things in life, what seemed like a no-brainer decision still presents a few challenges.
What we are finding:
Brands get a lot of power from metrics, and everyone should take advantage of useful quantitative data. But although they're key indicators of brand health, page views and unique visits aren't everything. Social media should absolutely be part of your 360-degree view.
Why? Because social media creates a consumer narrative, telling you where users are coming from, what they're doing and what they're saying when they get there. This kind of qualitative data can fill gaps in your brand strategy.
A monitoring tool such as Adobe Social, Hootsuite, Chartbeat, or any of the Salesforce products (like Radian 6) will help you craft your social consumer narrative. And there are five critical metrics (often overlooked!) that you should focus on:
1. Social Referral ActivityDo your Twitter followers behave differently than Facebook fans once they land on site? For those coming in via Pinterest, are they consuming more pages than those who came in from Tumblr? Pinpointing what social followers are doing on-site allows you to anticipate consumer needs and will help inform your editorial calendar.
2. Quality of Your FollowersSure, you may have 200,000 likes on Facebook, but how many of these users liked your page to get a deal or as part of a sweepstakes entry? (And complicating matters, less than 15 percent of them sees your Facebook posts thanks to Facebook Edge Rank). I'd argue that it's more valuable to have a small, highly engaged social following than a large, flat number-especially if advertisers want to see click-throughs, conversions and comments.
3. On-Site Social EngagementHaving a grasp on the most pinned, liked and tweeted content is important because it indicates what stories have the most virality. Include share buttons on slideshows and blog posts and pin-it buttons on all images. Encourage readers to share, comment, tweet and pin on every page. And when you discover something's hot, by all means, repurpose it: Consider leading your weekly newsletter with one of your most-pinned images, or incorporate copy from the most-tweeted blog post as part of a subject line, then monitor open-rates.
4. Share of VoiceHow does your brand perform during a key moment in time? Whether it's a b-to-b trade show or a red carpet event such as the Oscars, is your brand surfacing as an authority in its space? Set metrics that will demonstrate how your social media presence boosted the number of @ mentions on Twitter, lead to heightened activity on Pinterest, increased tags and followers on Instagram or influenced more connections on LinkedIn.
5. New and Returning Visitors Consider your seven-day and 30-day visitors. There may be a loyal following that returns to the site every day, but how long can you depend on that traffic? Are returning visitors exploring new sections or coming back to a specific page or tool? If your brand's audience refreshes seasonally (Bridal magazines, for example), it's important to have social strategies in place to keep unique traffic consistent.
What do you think? Tweet me the most over (or under) rated metricsÂ @StephaniePaige.
The second story onÂ BuzzFeedâsÂ website Friday morning wasâŚwait for itâŚâ12 Comebacks We Can All Agree With.â(I say âwait for itâ because anyone who knows BuzzFeedâs editorial approach knows its love for lists.)
It was a sponsored storyâpaid advertisingâposted on behalf of Hostess, whoseÂ Twinkies and other brands are back after the production ceased and the company downsized nearly out of existence last year.But the comebacks listed in the BuzzFeed story never once mentioned Hostess. It was all about other stuff.It was actually a pretty good list, and pretty funny, too, despite small errors and its âintern-pulled-the-factoids-off-Wikipediaâ feel. So were the comments, not all of which were complimentary. âUh, Arrested Development was canceled in Feb 2006, and the new season, specifically for Netflix, had 15 episodes. It really isnât hard to check up on simple facts before submitting an âarticle,ââ went one.At the FOLIO: andÂ MinÂ MediaMashup event in April, one of the speakers was asked to define native advertising. âAdvertising that doesnât suck,â he said.Thatâs an awesome description, for native or traditional forms. But with native, there are new ways to create superior value for an advertiser (and reader/user) and also new ways to mess things up.Check outÂ QZ.comÂ for a clean, elegant way to do in-stream native advertising. Consider that the advertising is in the form of storytelling. Not a marketing pitch. Think too about the value provided to an advertiser to be fully integrated into a siteâs content streamâwhere you see the ad as you scroll, and the adâs content comes up in a search. Thatâs incredible advertising value.But then thereâs the flip side: Done poorly, native advertising in a content stream can seem spammy. It can disrupt the flow of content, not enhance it. It can make your page look like a dissonant cacophony, and put your credibility at risk when people open aÂ pageÂ and see yellow-tinted ads where you think they shouldnât be.Itâs a double-edged sword, and I admit that Iâm not sure I like everything BuzzFeed is doing. That might be, though, that their formulaic approach kind of gets old quick. The fun of media consumption is in being surprised, and even delighted, in unexpected ways.
One of the more striking elements of Rolling Stone's latest cover story image is how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev looks like the kid next door. In a sense it has achieved a goal magazine publishers either embrace or run away from, attracting loud and impassioned criticism which leads to an enormous amount of coverage in mainstream and social media. Some of the discussion focuses on giving an accused murderer the celebrity treatmentâan aspect that's not to be downplayed. Rolling Stone does have a dual cover story approach that alternates between its celebrity coverage and more serious investigative pieces, but it appears many only remember its celeb covers. At least that's what CVS, Walgreens and other retailers have decided when they banned the issue from their newsstands. The rest of the debate reminds us that the cover is an alarming, journalistic, but honest, depiction of a face of terrorism we're not used to seeing. A microcosm of this conversation is happening now at FOLIO:'s Facebook page. Here's Rolling Stone's statement in reply to all the coverage:Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stoneâs long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. âTHE EDITORSIn the meantime, here's a range of outlets that have weighed in on the cover:Boston.comThe Boston Marathon bomber is a rock star, says 'Rolling Stone'The New YorkerThe Inconvenient Image of Dzhokhar TsarnaevChristian Science MonitorRolling Stone cover: Are stores going too far in pulling the magazine?USA TodayDon't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber coverSlateRolling Stoneâs Boston Bomber Cover Is BrilliantHuffington PostRolling Stone Boston Bomber Cover Story: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Image Stirs Controversy, Boycotts
In prior postings, I laid out a high-level framework for turning your company into a digital first publisher. Now, I'll discuss one of the key drivers of digital success in more detail: the editorial e-newsletter.
Email is the number one way in which people sample content; at ALM, we've learned that the e-newsletter is in many ways the product. This is where most subscribers first experience and interact with our brand. If their email experience is bad, we've lost that reader, they will never click-through to our site to read our content. This makes intuitive sense.
With our printed magazine, we take the time to ensure that the cover is outstanding: It has a great photo, a beautiful layout and engaging calls to action, so that subscribers don't trash it with junk mail and are drawn to open it up and read it. Now, we put that same level of thought and effort into our e-newsletters.
So, where did we start? The first step was to evaluate whether we had the right e-newsletter platform partner, because technology is a big driver of the digital experience.
At ALM we identified five key attributes that we require from our e-newsletter platform:
â˘ White-Listed Providerâ˘ Mobile optimization optionsâ˘ Personalization toolsâ˘ Excellent tracking and metricsâ˘ A/B testing
I'd like to highlight the two that have been critical in our success to date (that's two months since launch) - having a white-listed provider and having mobile optimization options. These two are the most crucial components of ensuring that your e-newsletter is delivered and readable. In later posts, I'll talk about how you can use the other three categories to create a highly personalized, relevant e-newsletter for each of your readers, once they're receiving the emails.
What is a white-listed provider? It's a trusted mail carrier. This means that e-newsletter platforms, like USPS or FedEx, have technical reputations, and you want to use a provider that is white-listed by all the major ISPs. Think of it like being on the VIP list at the club. You want to be the guy who can slip right in, not have to wait outside in the line and hope you get in.
If you use a white-listed provider, you are working with a company who is recognized for sending trustworthy emails. This means that when Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and other email platforms see email coming from these providers, they trust it. Their servers look at the IP address(es) that your emails are coming from and examine whether they are on the white list. Since your IPs are white-listed, you give yourself the best possible opportunity to get that newsletter into the inbox. By contrast, if you use a non-white-listed provider, your emails will get through if you're lucky, but more likely than not, they'll end up in a junk folder or they'll bounce.
Our hard bounce rate is 0.5 percent (a typical media bounce rate is about 0.7 percent). We've been able to get it down below the average because our provider's IPs are widely trusted by email servers. This might seem like a tiny difference, but every email that goes through counts tremendously.
Mobile Optimization Options
Once you've ensured that your e-newsletters aren't bouncing, you have to make sure that people can read them. In this day and age, the most important way to make sure that an end-user can access an e-newsletter is to create a mobile-optimized version of every email you send.
The cost of not making e-newsletters easy to access on a smartphone is high and rising. According to Bluehornet's recent survey of more than 2,000 Americans, 80 percent of users will delete an email if it is not optimized for their mobile device, up from 70 percent in 2012. Equally as important, the number of people who will unsubscribe from that non-optimized mobile e-newsletter has nearly doubled in the last year (from 18 percent to 30.2 percent). WithÂ more than 36 percentÂ of readers opening emails on their smartphones, having a mobile optimized email is not a nice-to-have-it is a must-have.
In thinking about the presentation on a mobile optimized device,Â YesMail identified three important factorsÂ that should be considered (and from our reader reactions, we concur):
â˘ The highest area of consumer frustration with mobile marketing emails is too much scrolling (42 percent)â˘ 29 percent say that the layout of messages is wrong for their mobile deviceâ˘ 27 percent state there is too much content
Not all providers give you the option to create a mobile-optimized version. In vetting any provider you should ask both access their technology capabilities in providing optimized versions and also ask to see sample versions being run by similar companies.
One important caveat, a mobile optimized e-newsletter should be accompanied with a mobile optimized site-there is nothing more frustrating to the reader than going from an optimized experience to a slow-loading, hard-to-read, flash-loaded (i.e., doesn't work on iPhones) made-for-desktop website.
Focusing on just these two concerns over the past two months has yielded incredible results for ALM. Since switching to the Sailthru email platform, a mere three months ago, we've seen the following results:
â˘ Over the past two months, page views driven by e-newsletters are up 33 percent.â˘ Since we launched our e-newsletters as mobile optimized versions we have seen the click-thru traffic from mobile devices rise by an astonishing 72 percent. â˘ On a monthly basis, visits driven by e-newsletters are up 58 percent month-over-month with e-newsletters now responsible for referring nearly 30 percent of all traffic to our sites.
In coming articles, I will further elaborate on the remaining framework structural drivers, as well as provide focus on the ins and outs of personalizing email and performing A/B testing for e-newsletters.