I am [spoiler alert!] a woman. But womenâ€™s magazines have nothing for me. Theyâ€™re great when Iâ€™m in the salon, but when it comes to reading magazines with bones, with guts, with something to say, the men take it every time. Iâ€™m not talking about lad mags, those British imports from 15 years ago. Iâ€™m talking about â€śgentlemenâ€™s magazinesâ€ť: namely Esquire and GQ, but I also love Details, the dandier kid brother of the other two.I have subscribed to these Big Three for years. I first started reading my fatherâ€™s Esquire when I was a teenager. Its commentary on music, film and literature was second to none, and its tone was hilarious. Plus it was so cleverly wrapped: a high-end glossy chock full of honest, no-nonsense stuff that I felt smarter for knowing. Sure, it was peppered with self-indulgent photos of female celebrities barely concealing their ladyparts. But to me, it was an obvious statement on American consumerism: that to get people to read smart content, youâ€™re going to have to sell it with sex.
My girlfriends were engulfed in the world of Self, Glamour and Marie Claire. Some of us even dabbled with Sassy, and later, Jane and Bust. They were the cool smart chicks of the bunch, but I always felt they were just...lacking. Sassy and Jane fell under (but Jane Pratt is going strong on xojane, and though Bust is still chugging along, its voice has gotten younger, cheekier and hipster. It may be the major magazine for a good pop-feminist read, but Iâ€™ve outgrown it.Consider the sequence of a typical womenâ€™s magazine: letters, trends, fashion spreads, maybe an interview with a celebrity, more on trends (fashion, beauty, exercise), some obligatory group of â€ślightâ€ť recipes, along with a longer editorial on A Serious Topic like genital mutilation or being catfished by a prisoner. Itâ€™s content crafted to make women feel guilty for not knowing whatâ€™s hot, smart for knowing that this magazine will reveal it, then ashamed for not being able to afford whatever this magazine has revealed. Itâ€™s cyclical, and itâ€™s boring. I thought perhaps I was in the minority, being a woman who loves menâ€™s magazines. All of the Big Threeâ€™s media kits boast audiences with 30 percent women, so Iâ€™m clearly not the only one. Do women read menâ€™s magazines differently from men? In a very unscientific survey (of my two brothers in their twenties and my friend Greg, in his forties), I asked what they liked about Esquire and GQ. My brothers prefer GQ and its fashion tips, the profiles of the women and food. Greg only reads Esquire. As he puts it, â€śEsquire is not about being a well-dressed, cool man. Itâ€™s about being the best man you can be. And even though you can't necessarily glean any of that knowledge from a magazine, it does a valiant job of trying.â€ťMenâ€™s magazines revolve around cultivating taste: fashion, music, film, books, food, celebrity, sports, cars and (in Detailsâ€™ case) design. They review where weâ€™ve been and where weâ€™re going, culturally speaking. Theyâ€™d do better to incorporate more female writersâ€”Stacey Grenrock Woods is a shining example of excellent menâ€™s writing by a female and Jessica Pressler has pushed out some decent profiles for GQ. They donâ€™t always get it right, but the point is: they dare. Yes, they, like womenâ€™s magazines, often commoditize gender and make money on reinforcing certain gender stereotypes. But theyâ€™re just so glib about it. Where womenâ€™s magazines champion us, trying to help us channel our inner sisterhood and answer our Burning Questions, menâ€™s wryly acknowledge that, like most Americans, theyâ€™re just stumbling through this crazy mixed-up world, and even they donâ€™t have all the answers. I have plenty of female friends who read womenâ€™s mags because theyâ€™re mindless entertainment, and I get that. More than anything, Iâ€™m an advocate of reading what you enjoy.But thatâ€™s just the point that menâ€™s magazines make: entertainment neednâ€™t be mindless.Menâ€™s magazines donâ€™t curate culture; they curate content. They tell me whatâ€™s going on culturally and how they feel about it. Womenâ€™s magazines ignore whatâ€™s going on, because they themselves donâ€™t know how to feel about it. They seem stunted, like the world is just too big for them to comment onâ€”or worse!â€”that we wonâ€™t appreciate a woman magazineâ€™s commentary on larger cultural paradigms. So womenâ€™s magazines overcompensate for telling us nothing by telling us everything about nothing (the healing powers of purple fruits! animal prints!). Menâ€™s magazines have their share of frivolity, but they give me the thought stuff tooâ€”the national budget, war and PTSD, robotics, a profile of the Vice President. One of the best articles I read was Chris Heathâ€™s coverage in GQ about the massacre of the escaped exotic animals in Zanesville, Ohio. It was a tragic story brilliantly told; and the story of the war between GQ and Esquire competing for the story was just as good. Both magazines published accounts of tragedy; both had writers (Chris Jones for Esquire) on site in the same hotel chasing the same story; both ran in eachâ€™s March 2012 issue. I read both articles voraciously, and came out in favor of GQâ€™s coverage. To my happiness, GQ got an ASME nomination for its story; Esquire didnâ€™t. Thatâ€™s the other thing I like about menâ€™s magazines: theyâ€™re nominated for awards for their journalism, like actual awards, against giants such as The New Yorker, the Atlantic and Rolling Stone. GQ and Esquire are for literary-minded people, for people who care about the actual words on the page. Womenâ€™s magazines donâ€™t say anything interesting about the state of culture, they just buy into it. They donâ€™t have a sense of humor about themselves.Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™m sticking with the menâ€”theyâ€™re funny, self-effacing and have some of the best editorial content around. None are offering the keys to the universe, but they have a good time trying.
Like most show managers, you probably view sponsorship sales as an opportunity to increase revenue for your event. As we all know, well-positioned sponsorships can enhance the look and feel of your event and, at times, impact attendee perceptions of your event. This is especially true when you think of banners in common areas that can impact how an attendee views your event before even setting foot on the showfloor.
In understanding the importance of sponsorships, are you thinking strategically about the development and fulfillment of your sponsor offerings? Have you taken a close look at your approach to sponsorship sales? Here are a few things you should consider before your next event:
â€˘ Have you reviewed your menu of opportunities recently?Â You should review your past sponsorship menu and pull off items that have run their course or that no one is buying. In this case, less really is more.
You should direct your customers to the items that are most popular and most profitable. You can always bring things out of the vault if there is an opportunity, but overall you should keep it simple.
â€˘ Have you recently reviewed your pricing model? Is it high or low, based on the health of your event and competitive set? Are you only charging rights fees, or are you positing your offerings as a turnkey program?
You never want to gouge your customers, but donâ€™t be afraid to publish your offerings at a premium. It is always easier to go down in price instead of up midway through a cycle.
You should strive to charge a â€śrights fee onlyâ€ť for as many of your offerings as possible to avoid variable costs like printing, materials and installation. If the customer wants a turnkey program, you need to charge a premium for that service, as it will require resources to fulfill.
â€˘ When creating a custom program for an exhibitor, what sort of elements do you include? Of course, you want to create an offering that meets the customerâ€™s specific needs, but consider adding elements that carry little additional cost to your event P&L.
This could include logos on kick panels, directory advertising, list rentals, publication distribution, blog posts, etc. If planned properly with enough lead time, you can leverage these low- or no-cost items and maximize your return.
â€˘ Often overlooked are programs and offerings for the smaller exhibitor. While not the big-ticket items, a few modest program offerings can drive new revenue streams from your customers with smaller budgets.
Take another look at your sponsor offerings and their price points. They can have a significant impact on sponsorship revenues at your next event.
Brian Pagel is a vice president at Emerald Expositions, where he runs The Kitchen and Bath Industry Show. Since re-joining Emerald Expositions (formerly Nielsen) in 2001, Pagel has also served as a vice president in the Decorated Apparel Group. A 15-year veteran of the publishing, convention and exposition industries, Pagel has also held senior account executive positions with Leader Publishing and Bill Communications. He can be reached at Brian.Pagel@Emeraldexpo.com.
While the evolution of the magazine media business often rests on the shoulders of experienced executives, the younger generation is a constant source of innovation and change. Here at FOLIO:, we're always on the lookout for new ideas that change the way magazine publishers do business and in that spirit it's time once again to turn the spotlight on the younger set with our 15 Under 30 list.Â With this annual recognition franchise, we profile selected rising stars and innovators across traditional publishing roles, never-before-seen positions in new lines of business, and market-shaping start-ups. Last year's list featured a cross-section of talent responsible for ad ops, editing, technology and design.Tell us who you think deserves to be on the list by filling out our simple online form. Our list-makers will appear in the October issue.The only catch? All nominees must be younger than 30.The deadline for nominations is August 30. Good luck and thanks for participating!
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, Menâ€™s Health, Womenâ€™s Health, and media agency Huge. Here are the five common themes that emerged. 1. Pin During Active TimesRather than dumping 30 pins into Pinterestâ€™s 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 Youâ€™ll 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 â€śpin it to win itâ€ť contests are popular, look for meaningful ways to activate your most influential or active pinners. The goal is always more re-pinsâ€”theyâ€™re like a simple yet powerful social â€śthumbs up.â€ť 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 Facebookâ€™s 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 strangerâ€™s board, not a brand or retailer. This suggests the power of a brand placement on an editorial board or, better yet, a Pinterest userâ€™s board. Your editors also play a role here when recommending a product on their personal boards. And itâ€™s 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 thatâ€™s where we are moving and itâ€™s 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, Iâ€™ll 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: Itâ€™s 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 donâ€™t 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. Thatâ€™s 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 platformsâ€”and in turn reduce the auditing hours that this will likely bring. As of today, we have BPAâ€™s approval on the report, but we will not know how good it is until it passes through an audit. Iâ€™ll be sure to let everyone know how it does.Â Â Next Time:Iâ€™ll talk about metric reports, what they should have and why they are important to almost everyone in the company.Until thenâ€¦
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, Iâ€™d pulled together all the subscribers from forty-some magazines and email newsletters into one consolidated database.Â â€śLook at this!â€ť I told the sales and marketing groups working with surveys and events and webinars. â€śRather 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€ť The response was pretty much:â€śWow, thatâ€™s great! But for this particular effort, we only want to focus on remodelers. So letâ€™s just use the remodeler magazine list.â€ťYes, 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 itâ€™s because weâ€™ve done such a good job of establishing brand identity for advertisersâ€”â€śIf you want to reach Group A, you have to use our Magazine A!â€ťâ€”thatÂ 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. Iâ€™ve 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 youâ€™ll 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 â€śunifiedâ€ť structure, as distinguished from an â€śintegratedâ€ť 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 characteristicâ€”everyone in certain states or with a valid emailâ€”regardless 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 sourcesâ€”a big help for media companies struggling to combine contacts and registrations from different channels. You donâ€™t 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 â€ślist firstâ€ť 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 needsâ€”and 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 wonâ€™t 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 individualâ€™s 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 donâ€™t 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 agoâ€”if 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 itâ€™s 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 frictionâ€”mere seconds elapse between furious keystroking and posting to the worldâ€”can 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 whatâ€™s 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 â€śmean-spirited, and at times hateful commentsâ€ť that last month it pulled the plug.Â â€śThese comments provide no value to our readers and are time-consuming to moderate,â€ť wrote the stationâ€™s director of new media. Thereâ€™s 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. Itâ€™s nice to think weâ€™ll just let a thousand flowers bloom; in reality the garden needs to be weeded. But whoâ€™s 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. Thatâ€™s untenableâ€”though, it must be said, Coatesâ€™s 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 believeâ€”as I doâ€”that comment sections can be good when aggressively moderated, but you donâ€™t â€”as we donâ€™tâ€”have the human resources to undertake that moderating, whatâ€™s the answer? There are software solutions out there, like up/down voting systems that privilege the â€śbestâ€ť 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, weâ€™re also trying something more radical. Earlier this year, we deputized two of Coatesâ€™s 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 â€świseâ€ť and who had already â€śdone the work of moderating by cooling down threads that were on the cusp of becoming knife fights.â€ť The verdict: So far, so good. Weâ€™re watching this experiment closely, wondering if it can scale to other parts of our sites.Thereâ€™s 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 Iâ€™m 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, Iâ€™m talking about publishers making sure theyâ€™re not losing money on every page view and that theyâ€™re getting the most out of every site visit.Â Iâ€™ve heard Steve Horowitz, COO of Ziff Davis, liken visitors coming to websites as a game of â€śPlinko for publishers.â€ť 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, itâ€™s the $1 slot. Itâ€™s 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, theyâ€™re 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 theyâ€™ll 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 Hereâ€™s 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 publisherâ€™s 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 thisâ€”6 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 youâ€™re 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 publisherâ€™s website and generate page views. However, itâ€™s 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: â€śYou're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?â€ť because it was incendiary. FoxNews knows who is not its audience as well as who is its audience, and if theyâ€™re 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, â€śCraaaap... is Rupert really losing that much money?â€ťAslan 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€ś... [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...â€ťAccording 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. Itâ€™s 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 discoveredâ€”and 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.
Tuesday, December 09, 2014 -- Join this upcoming Folio: Webinar to discuss the survey findings, and to learn
how one publisher, Advanstar, streamlined their process to intensify the focus
on audience engagement strategies.