schneiderism

Matt Dickman recently conducted a really interesting reader poll over at his blog Techno//Marketer to get a sense of what people felt the most influential medium might be. The results are presented in the graph above. I believe it is a safe bet that his readers skew massively to the internet, but I believe they are still representative of the paradigmatic changes that have occurred in the greater media landscape. The broader theme here, that the ways in which people interact with information is changing, is something I am actively exploring myself. What is absolutely not surprising from Matt’s survey is the incredibly low performance of newspapers and radio. The EBITDA of newspapers has been trending down for years, and many historically prominent rags are facing irrelevancy to their audiences. Audience preferences and expectations with regards to how they engage information is changing, this interaction is very fluid, and while some struggle to adapt to this reality others have been slow to respond and are suffering the consequences of a dwindling subscription base and shrinking advertising revenues. That spells doom for those newspapers. The same is happening in radio, and the EBITDA of radio is tracking similarly to that of newspapers. At the heart of this is the reality that we are increasingly moving away from having things pushed at us, and increasing moving toward technologies and mediums that allow us to engage media and information in ways that are dynamic and customizable to our preferences. Also, there is an informational frequency issue and newspapers, especailly, have struggled to compete with the 24/7 nature of the informational engagement model of the web. Those that have moved to a comprehensive web strategy have struggled to find an appropriate revenue model, especially one that can scale. We are watching media evolution and the survival of the fittest, of the most innovative.

Going back perhaps a decade, many newspaper publishers failed to appropriately survey the landscape for strategic risk to their organizations. As a result, they missed important opportunities to substantively investigate and innovate their business models. The web has moved incredibly quickly and efficiently in becoming pervasive in our society, in our culture, and many publishers now face the incredible challenge of trying to change a business model when it is absolutely too late.

Discussions around the demise of print continue to intensify. Just last week I posted some of my thoughts on this matter, motivated to do so by the confluence of increased speculation as to the future of printed media. Then, yesterday, BAM! Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, in an interview in the Washington Post, speaks his mind on the issue when asked for his outlook on the future of media:

“In the next 10 years, the whole world of media, communications and advertising are going to be turned upside down — my opinion.

Here are the premises I have. Number one, there will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.”

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft

Video of the Ballmer interview:

I am not one to follow closely the predictions and strategies of Ballmer, or Microsoft, but this statement made my jaw drop. Fact: Microsoft is a force in the future of whatever media becomes. Fact: Microsoft devotes tremendous resources out of its tremendous resources to guide this future in a way that benefits Microsoft. Fact: Steve Ballmer is closer to this issue, in many ways, than the rest of us as he is leading Microsoft’s strategy with regards to media. Does his opinion have merit? Most definitely. He even points out that it might be eight years or it might be 15 years, the timing doesn’t really matter as the reality is that the result is inevitable.

Then, this morning via Twitter I come across a new post at FastCompany that approaches the issue from a slightly different angle, that the demise in print media is also being driven by huge changes happening in journalism. Newsrooms are shrinking, news media subscriptions are collapsing, and increasingly reporters are getting their information and tips from public web forums. That would make the big news media companies middle men for the news, with the end result being that the public gets this and prefers going direct to the source. Leaders at media institutions like the New York Times are in total confusion as to what is happening and what will happen next, and the New York Times has actually been a vanguard in pursuing the online media channel. Ten years ago the public needed the resources provided by the Newsweeks, NYT’s, and the myriad other special interest publications. The printed manifestation of this resource was the only interaction option. Following the change in that interaction, from the reliance on the printed piece to the irrefutable dominance of the online channel, is an exercise in realizing how traditional media outlets have been inept at surveying strategic risk and changing with the times.

The convergence of seemingly random events (the Print is Dead blog, this t-shirt, Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernhoff, and this presentation by Lynne d Johnson) has put the “Print is Dead” mantra in front of me several times in the last week. Oddly coincidental or representative of a growing sentiment, you decide. Obviously, print is still very much alive, but how we use print has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. Dramatically. The reality is that for some, print is in fact very dead. For others it is dying, and for a shrinking portion of the population… print is all there is. Print isn’t dead, but it is pretty ill and the prognosis is not good. You would be hard pressed to argue otherwise, that print is alive and well, as there is so much happening that clearly supports the hard reality that the ways in which we interact with information has quickly tilted to the digital.

Our mobile technology increasingly breaks down the usability barriers between where we are and the content we want. This is not just about convenience, either, it is very much about connectivity and the ease with which we can leverage diffuse networks to find what we want. How can the printed page compete with that? Print publishers are struggling with this reality, and working hard to figure out how to transition their content assets in a meaningful way to the array of digital channels before them. Some have pioneered great strategies for this, and benefit from not just increased audiences, but from the concept of content adoption. That’s what we do on the web, we adopt content and send it around. We point people to it. We fold it into how we navigate information, and personalize its place in our information networks. This is incredibly useful, and is the reason why I no longer subscribe to a physical newspaper and only a few printed magazines (that I subscribe to because I like them and there is not yet an online channel for that content). I don’t even hit most newspaper and periodical websites anymore as the content I want finds me through a myriad of personal technologies that do all of the work of searching for me. Popular and free technologies like RSS and Twitter. I have always been a reader, but I have never read as much as I have the last few years and I would say that close to 90% of what I read is online. Garrick Van Buren wrote a somewhat related post about this a few weeks back, and in that post he passed on a line that is unforgettable to me from an article in the New York Times:

“If the news is important, it will find me.”

Print is the opposite of that.

This interview with Hugh MacLeod by Shel Israel, which I came across because I follow Hugh on Twitter, is reinforcing of a conversation I had last evening about how companies might begin thinking about social media, and how social media might be helpful in building strong connections with their audiences. Specifically, we were discussing a company that produces outstanding content that people pay for, that when they find they generally love. Content that stands qualitatively above comparable content from most all of their competitors, but content that is ultimately difficult to find unless you are specifically looking for it. This company has no active digital strategy, that I can tell, and has not begun considering the benefits of meeting their audiences on their own turf. Imagine if they did? The really cool thing here, for this company in particular, is that there is virtually no risk and minimal cost for beginning to experiment with this. But there is a tremendous amount to gain, and to be gained in a way that is authentic and meaningful for those who seek such a connection and value the content that they create. That’s cool. And exciting. And potentially a wasted opportunity.

That’s a line from a really excellent slide presentation by David Armano and via FutureLab that succinctly summarizes some of the best opportunities for companies today as they contemplate their interactive marketing strategy, and how best to connect with their audience(s).

Three of his points here that are especially meaningful to me:

• Leverage the WordPress Content Management System - Huge value here, especially when combined with a thoughtful content strategy, analytics, and the focus to continuously improve and help audiences get the information that they seek. You’re only as good as your content is fresh. I am an enormous proponent of Wordpress as not only is schneiderism built with it, but two sites I am currently involved with are also taking advantage of what Wordpress offers. It has become a powerful technology for efficiently building effective websites and is very customizable from an interface design standpoint.

• Combine technologies for a stronger strategy - Like using Twitter to promote new content or priority links to people that choose to follow you. Effectively combining micro-marketing technologies can create an incredibly macro effect by making it incredibly easy for people to find you, your company, or your perspective and to help you communicate to a much broader audience very quickly, efficiently and cost effectively.

• Orchestrate infinite touchpoints - This is perhaps the most powerful slide in Armano’s presentation, and it relates very directly to the effective combination of technologies. Your messages can and should manifest themselves in a number of ways, and in a number of places. Starting with an effective website, also think about a mobile strategy, how you should use online social networks, and sites like Slideshare, YouTube, and Twitter. Effectively combining these into a range of audience touchpoints is powerful, and ultimately worth spreading your investment. In terms of platforms, it would seem shortsighted to invest in only one (like a website) when a little additional effort can position you with a range of effective communications technologies, and the technologies that your audiences are using to get information. This would be the embodiment of the whole “meet them on their turf” strategy.

Another great line from the presentation is “make the participant the star.” Armano presents a total of ten points related to investigating your interactive marketing strategy, and they are all pretty tight so I suggest taking a moment to view the entire presentation.

I just read that a new study from Informa has revealed there are now 3.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions world-wide. Yes, this number is misleading as more than a couple countries showed subscription rates in excess of 100%. But still, just last month it was reported that mobile phone subscriptions had reached nearly the level of 2.7 billion people world-wide. Either way, we are talking about roughly half the world population having mobile phones. That should give all of us pause, at least for a moment. If you have avoided thinking about a mobile marketing strategy, and you know who you are (!), maybe now is a time to broach the topic. Nothing says I love you like half the world’s population.

via Engadget

A former colleague, now working in publishing, and I have been trading emails on the future of print publishing and the implication of hesitating to actively engage an online publishing strategy.

That’s just how we roll.

Anyway, this dialog is motivated by conversations I have had recently with a couple people intimately ensconced in the traditional print world and who are struggling with how they might begin changing their model. They know that there are quality opportunities for them by engaging an online strategy, they are just profoundly unsure on where to start and what to do. Generally, I think it is safe to say that most people in print publishing accept that online communications are increasingly dominant over printed communications. This may scare them, but it is being increasingly accepted as the way things are going. There is an exponential effect at play here. For traditionally print based organizations, the transition from a print model to an online model is incredibly difficult, despite the potentially massive opportunity. The difficulty is largely from the perceived threat of online publishing within these organizations as those whose entire career has been based on print, despite most probably having a place in a company that also pursues an online strategy, will resist change, progress and the future. This can be said for so, so many industries. My colleague pointed out what we have all seen before, that when people feel threatened they do funny and irrational things… And this is the situation the two people I mentioned before are faced with. They know they need to change. They know that the future of their organization lies with a smart online strategy. They are prevented from the first steps of even investigating their options by the legacy notions of what print publishing is all about. They are being held back by the inability of their own people to grasp the importance, and the inevitability, of this future. Perhaps the internet is just a fad.

My friend also correctly states that if print publications are not smart enough to adapt on their own they will eventually be forced to adapt through the demands of their advertisers. We’re already seeing this as requests for online advertising opportunities begin to out pace an organization’s ability to deliver them. The big question is… Will these companies be irrelevant by the time they catch up with demand? Will they be beaten to their audiences by somebody faster and more nimble? It can be very difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, but audiences increasingly want to control when and how they access content. And all of this, sadly, doesn’t even touch on the opportunities related to social networks, user generated content, etc… This is especially threatening to an organization that has always maintained total control of its communications. The thought of giving power back to the people is enough to cause seizures among many a management group.

It is easy to see how legacy issues anchor publishing based organizations in a 1980’s mindset, it’s happening everywhere and old habits die very, very hard. The future is inevitable, though, and I surmise those publications that are at the vanguard of merging their online and offline editorial (think about BusinessWeek, Fast Company, Forbes etc.) in a COMPLIMENTARY way are the ones that are still going to be around in 15-20 years. Outside of the infrastructure limitations of print, there is the whole access to customer/audience quotient that newstands and subscriptions just cannot touch. Also, proportionally leveraging the web and interactive marketing opportunities potentially far surpasses the traditional arcane reliance on direct marketing for subscriptions.

In orgs that predate the advent of the internet I suppose one way of bending the corporate agenda is to be non-threatening. Approaching the re-purposing of content, the marketing via the web, and the creation of interactive channels that give customers the information they want, when and how they want it, is something that can be proffered as an “enhancement” of traditional business practices. Over time, though, the results will be a vastly changed situation.