When Losers Write History: Why...media reporters get their own industry so wrong

I don't think promoting the civic worth of the news matters one whit. If generalist news publications and organizations are going to survive outside of a few consolidated megaliths -- and survive without charging a whole lot more for their product, something the public likely won't go along with, since 99 percent of all printed news does not rise to the level of food or gas or even basic cable -- they need to figure out a way to use the cheap stuff that makes money because people want to read it (Quarter Pounders, Real Housewives gossip, sports coverage to an extent) to subsidize expensive stuff that doesn't because people mostly don't (lots of, but not all, important civic-minded stuff).

Ridgeway's point is very well taken.

I sometimes think the dumbest thing newspapers have done on the Internet is not aggressively create or snap up sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton, and/or ramp up lower cost aggregated content production. Not everyone can have Kaplan or a wealthy benefactor cover for loss-leading news production.

 

I generally agree with you, but if newspapers don't even try -- and historically, they rarely have -- to explain their function as a watchdog in a democratic society, they're going to become extinct a hell of a sooner than they think they are. No matter what line of work you're in, you ought to at least go down swinging.

The public sees newspapers as part of "the media" -- no different than with the tabloids, blogs, TMZ, Entertainment Tonight and Dateline NBC. So how about getting some of the industry's marketing geniuses together and refreshing public opinion about what newspapers actually do, why they're different and why they do it?

Who knows? At worst, a public reminder of the things a free press does for society might -- might -- keep the lights on for a little while longer. The best part is, this kind of marketing doesn't cost a dime.

My point: At least try, goddammit. Try something different, anyway. Because the current plan ain't working.

And if you can't get it up for something this important, maybe it's time to go ahead and turn out the lights and lock the doors.

 

Here's the thing -- I don't buy that the content is the problem. Readership of newspapers PLUS readership of newspaper sites = pretty good readership.

Problems are on the ad side.

And I'll never understand how people can make money on radio (where people zap around to other stations whenever there's a bad song OR a commercial) or TV (DVR, fast-forward, etc.) but not online media, where you can hammer people with ads. I'm looking at one for "zulily" as I type!

 

TV I'm with you, but people don't zap away from radio stations all that much. Certainly not AM talk and usually I'm guessing not much on FM music either. Its just white noise unless they really, really hate the song that's on.

If I had one medium to choose to advertise, it'd be radio. People are captive in their cars and it's the one place where by and large people still consume the familiar product (satellite really hasn't happened the way we were led to believe it would).

 

Can't claim any first-hand knowledge, but a few hypothesis:

-- Basic supply and demand. Radio and TV ad space is finite. Web space is not. The marginal cost is essentially 0--allowing prices to be pushed down. I find it interesting that a website like the New York Times sells ads to various companies all over its pages, whereas Grantland appears to sell a very limited number of "sponsorships" to its website. I wonder if a much tighter artificial constraint like that might be more effective for websites.

-- Knowledge about effectiveness. The Internet (presumably) provides better data about the effectiveness--or rather ineffectiveness--of advertising. Ad buyers have more leverage when they know whether or not ads are actually working.

-- Audience. Radio and TV shows might have more homogenous audiences than general newspaper websites. Advertisers might value targeted ads more than general ones. This could explain the success of Leo Laporte's technology podcast network, Brian Cook's MGoBlog, etc.

-- Industry bias. People might simply have a personal enjoyment in things like TV ads. Cooler for a brand manager to see his product during a sporting event than on a website. Neater for a marketing agency to design a TV ad than a web ad.

Also, I'm pretty sure the market has responded to things like DVR. Product placements is always cited as something becoming more prominent. And live sporting events have become extraordinarily valuable for advertisers because they're one of the few shows people are unlikely to tape for later.

 

This is the big one.

In the past, newspapers, TV, radio could talk about how many people were exposed to your ad. And, it was hard to figure out how many people were moved to purchase based on your ad.

It also took a while to know if you had a good ad campaign.

In the early days of the internet, you paid for eyeballs. Now people want click throughs at a minimum. What they really want is customer acquisition/sales.

The ability to track internet advertising and email direct mail campaigns is vastly superior to any other type of ad campaign.

And, when you know the results, no one is going to overpay for the advertising.

You can't sell on how many people will see your ad. You need to move the needle.

When we launched direct mail campaigns at Continental Airlines, we could watch the results pour in. And, when you're targeting your own customers, who have opted in to receive offers, it costs you nothing.

 

Which actually reminds me of a related point. Many advertisers paid for the delivery system, not the exposure. Retailers that stuffed papers with circulars don't need to inform their customers of sales through newspapers--or newspaper websites--anymore--shoppers can easily go to their websites. Wal-Mart kept advertising costs down in a similar way--by having "always low prices", they had less need to advertise sales through circulars.