Posts Tagged ‘publishers’

  • News, publishers, print and digital: an update

    A couple of weeks ago I had a little rant about the three things I think publishers need to do if they want to thrive in a beyond-print era. The survival of news media is a big issue right now, and so it should be — the quality reportage of news is critical to the health of our society.

    In the time since posting my argument, I’ve spotted a few new developments I think are worth sharing. Unsurprisingly, they all have a lot to do with content and the contradiction of digital content: expensive to produce (or at least, the good stuff often is) but more often than not, free to consume. Highly valuable, then, but cursed with a changeable value.

    Revisioning an economy around forces like these isn’t going to be easy, but I believe it can be done. Here’s what’s happening, and why I think it matters.

    pulp Read full post

  • The Micropayments Are Coming

    I’ve been meaning to write a response to William’s blog post of a few weeks ago about the news that some publishers (including Rupert Murdoch) are preparing to start charging for some of their content. I agree with William that people will be unlikely to buy a subscription to, for example, The Sun or Times Online but I’m not sure that is what is being proposed.

    As William says in his blog post:

    I don’t buy my internet news in a newspaper, I pick it out from a broad and fast-moving stream of fragments and favourites and recommendations garnered from twitter, blogs, feeds and aggregators and it’s all free. I might want one little piece of the Guardian one day, two little pieces of the Times the next, I don’t want either all the time so why should I buy 12 month’s worth?

    That’s how I consume content as well – piece by piece, fragments from a large number of websites. This, it seems to me, is the key issue: people don’t mind paying tiny amounts of cash for little pieces of content, it’s just that there isn’t an easy-to-use, trusted third party system like that in place for news content.

    There are in music and movies. iTunes and NetFlix, and LoveFilm in the UK, all provide users with the ability use a single system to buy movies and music (and games and apps) from many different publishers. Xbox users can use NetFlix on a subscription basis, and last week Virgin and Universal made the announcement that they are launching an eat-as-much-as-you-like service for MP3s.

    So, there are models out there that seem to work, or look extremely promising, and it’s clear that people will pay for certain types of content if you make the experience seamless and brainlessly easy.

    Now, it appears that similar services may exist for newspaper and magazine publishers. Journalism Online are launching a service will provide users with a password-protected website where they can buy subscriptions that work across multiple sites, and individual articles from many publishers. The Publisher has some control over setting the price and  Journalism Online will add value by negotiating licensing and royalty fees with intermediaries provide insight data that will help publishers optimise circulation revenue and maintain traffic to support advertising revenue.

    That sounds pretty interesting.

    Just to be clear, I think it would be madness for newspapers to try and put everything back behind a pay wall. The most likely model to emerge is a hybrid one where I continue to enjoy a lot of free content and the conversations that exist around that content, but when I want to go deeper or consume richer content then *sometimes* I should expect to pay a small amount for it.

    After years of getting it for free on the Web, it won’t be easy for publishers to start charging for even some of their content but there may be no choice. Personally, I am willing to pay a small amount to make sure that I am properly informed, and although I think citizen media is often quicker than traditional media I still want to live in a world where there are professional – and accountable – news organisations. I know this is not a view that everyone will subscribe to, but it’s not clear how else news media in particular will be able to remain in business.

    The answer is almost certainly a bit of everything:

    • Ecommerce – newspapers and magazines already sell directly to their readers, but could do a lot more of this, including providing more paid-for online services. The role of online community in this is obvious
    • Micropayments and subscription – along the lines envisaged by Journalism Online
    • Advertising and sponsorship – an important but smaller part of the mix

    Anyway – these are my half-formed thoughts. I’m willing to be persuaded either way. I’ve also heard that the new iPhone SDK makes it easy for developers to build micropayments into the apps they make. Not sure if this is true but does this hold out the tantalising possibility that the iPhone and iTunes could be the digital wallet we’re all waiting for? I already find it a bit too easy to spend money on iTunes!

  • Time to change

    Randall Rothenberg’s recent blog post, “‘A Bigger Idea’: A Manifesto on Interactive Advertising Creativity“, about the state of interactive advertising is really inspiring. It’s been open in one of my 27 browser tabs for about 2 weeks now and I’ve been dipping in and out and slowly digesting. That’s because it’s an exceptionally rich and filling meal. It’s 5,000 words, not 140 characters.

    He calls it a manifesto, but it’s an urgent war cry for a new model of creativity in digital and advertising agencies. He starts by setting out the historical context of ‘how we got here’ brilliantly, describing the current dearth of creativity in online advertising as a “creative crisis” rooted in a “direct response culture”. This culture, he explains, is a legacy of the way the online advertising market evolved. The apparatus and thinking required to monetise online advertising in the years that followed the dot com bust – innovations such as standardised formats and standards of measurement and accountability – has ultimately led to an ossification of creativity and is now retarding development and actively preventing advertising agencies and online publishers from spotting and exploiting the awesome creative opportunities of the new, richer, personal, social, federated, ubiquitous Web.

    The passing of ‘the old world’, the simple world of banners and buttons and direct response, has been accelerated by the recession and many are dangerously unprepared for this new phase of the Web. His argument is common sense: in this richer and more connected world, we need to involve techies at the top table of creative idea-making. As difficult as it is, we must put the image of techies as ‘hairy-arsed-guys-with-screwdrivers’ out of our minds. A new breed of creative technologists is required to help us re-make the Web, but we first need to re-set our thinking about ‘creativity’ online at a general level.

    There is so much in his post that it’s difficult to do it justice. The stuff about the need to involve technologists and the different mindsets within traditional creative agencies resonates most for us here at Made by Many, not least because set up inside an ad agency in Sept 2007 (as a completely independent entity) and many of our clients are publishers. Before Made by Many, we’d all worked at the application development and user experience end of the spectrum – creating new services and brands rather than banners and buttons. As such, we’ve always been involved in the strategic vision part of online creative work, and when we compared notes recently the bizarre thing we discovered is that none of us have *ever* worked on digital advertising campaigns – not by accident, but because we knew it just wasn’t what made us valuable.

    Weirdly enough, we set out 18 months ago to prove the new model digital agency didn’t need a big team of developers. We reasoned that having one or two really excellent technologists with superb communication skills and broad knowledge across many technologies was where the word was heading. This was a reaction to coming from design and build agencies with big dev teams using very limited palettes of technologies and proprietary agency software. Instead, we wanted to partner with the best techies using the best technologies wherever they were, and we would act as a strategic design and management interface for the client. That kind of works, but we’re now in the process of recruiting more of these uber-techies and are starting our first big development project. We’ve also found that partnering is great – and we have brilliant partners in this respect – but you can never do enough to share the creative vision, and not all techies get it. It takes a very special kind of technically skilled all-rounder.

    On the other hand, we’ve also discovered that many above-the-line creative types from traditional backgrounds really struggle to think beyond the campaign. They don’t seem to understand ‘platform’ and ‘application’. Their idea of a technologist is limited to someone who can program Flash. They have traditionally seen web technologists as a kind of production phase specialists, useful only in translating their creative vision. Having said all that – and this should give Mr Rothenberg heart – we’ve also observed how rapidly this situation is now changing. The best ad agencies are filled with smart people and they know what time it is.

    Randall’s piece is a must-read for anyone who wants to use online media to move people, to quicken the heartbeat, to make people react emotionally, to make magic. Finally, it’s about more than clicks again.

Our latest tweets

Categories

Archives

Find us on the web