Posted by Keegan Skidmore on Mon, Jan 11, 2010
So the other day I read an interesting article (online) that explained what a few media industry thought leaders were wishing for in 2010. Now, despite my initial annoyance at somehow being overlooked for this article (I mean, what else am I if not a thought leader? Thought pioneer? Inventor? Follower?) I was still intrigued by what many of them had to say. Some wanted quality content; while others felt quality content would only come with quality journalists. One guy didn't wish for anything, which didn't seem helpful at all. But most, thought above all else, collaboration was the biggest need for the industry in 2010. That in order to overcome some of their greatest obstacles media companies had to stop squabbling amongst themselves and start working together to finally take advantage of the limitless possibilities being offered to them. Possibilities, I think meaning, the Internet.
Though hating to tag along with other's ideas, instead of coming up with something new and earth-shattering, I found it difficult not to agree. How can collaboration go wrong? It worked for WWII, Woodstock (the first edition, not that thing Pepsi put on in the 90's) and in Remember the Titans. It just seems that if newspapers can start building initiatives together, the entire industry will benefit.
One example that immediately jumped into my mind was online classified ads. Some statistics: In 2009, 49 percent of Internet users said they used online classified sites, compared to 22 percent in 2005. That's according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project. The same study revealed that on any given day 9 percent of Internet users visit an online classified site, up from just 4 percent in 2005. Another study explained how for the first time in history online advertising spend surpassed TV spend in the United Kingdom. That was according to IAB U.K. and PricewaterhouseCoopers, which also said that online classifieds were growing at 10.6 percent.
Despite these grand statistics many newspapers are failing to capitalize. It might be Craigslist or a misdirected business model, but the industry as a whole, could really benefit from some togetherness aimed at building a larger presence for their online classified ads. That might be my wish. Right after peace on earth and the ability to fly, I'd like newspapers to work together to claim a larger part of the online classified pie. Noble, I know, but also practical. Think of all the people that would benefit.
I'm not exactly sure how to go about this, though, technology should not be a problem. There are a numerous vendors currently offering tools to help newspapers build their online classified communities. With features like real time ad previews, batch photo uploading, and relationship-oriented search; competing technologically with the likes of Craigslist really isn't the problem.
But building a trusted and loyal online audience is. This has always been the problem for most newspaper as they juggle the idea of charging less to attract more listings. Many have relented, now offering their most basic ads for free in certain categories. This might be the greatest a benefit of collaboration. If newspapers are able to unite under one service that gives them national or global reach, they can make their classified ads available to a much larger audience.
A larger audience increases the likelihood of upsells-a staple of newspaper advertising for years and a trend that will only continue to evolve. Functionality like serving classified ads next to relevant print or digital content and giving an ad click-to-call functionality on Smartphones are both features that should make a newspaper's offering more attractive and profitable. They just have to make sure they employ a system that allows it.
But no matter how you look at it, upsells really are not that important if there isn't an audience to buy them. And that's where newspapers should start. Work together to convince people trying to sell their cat or car or houseboat that newspapers are a viable alternative to the other communities out there.
I don't think that's too much to wish for-a little harmony in 2010 and the ability to fly. Come on, I could have been that guy who asked for nothing. But where's the fun in that?
Posted by Keegan Skidmore on Mon, Nov 23, 2009
So the other day I read an interesting article that explained how France wants to give away newspapers-for free. Not fake newspapers or pieces of a newspaper, and not for a day or a week or a month, but real life genuine newspapers, with news, which will be given out for an entire year. The idea is all part of this grand scheme to attract more people in a key demographic that isn't exactly leading the lines to the daily news stand. That demographic of course is young people.
What an idea! Here you have a struggling industry, trying to rejuvenate itself by going after the group of people who have the potential to use them the longest, but coincidentally, are currently using them the least. It's kind of a ‘hook ‘em young; hook ‘em for life' type of strategy, one that's worked for numerous other industries from cigarettes to soda. But instead of enticing a kid with carbonated syrup water or smoke, newspapers are simply trying to get them to read and reading is much better than cavities and cancer. Unfortunately, reading has been annoyingly difficult to get kids to do, especially for newspapers and especially in France where the percentage of 15- to 24-year-olds who read the paid for newspaper is down 20 percent since 1997. In the US, the numbers are not much more encouraging, with only 31 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds reading the newspaper, a drop of two percentage points from the previous year according to World Press Trends 2009, a study on the state of newspapers around the world completed by WAN.
The big question then, is if giving away free newspapers will be enough to get young people in the habit of reading the newspaper? That's a tough one. Giving the papers away almost assumes that the reason young people aren't reading papers now, is due to lack of exposure and because papers cost money. But that once young people start reading the paper, they'll be so attracted to what's inside that they'll be willing to pay for it the second their free subscription runs out. Now that's a really interesting idea--that newspapers are filled with all sorts of stuff young people want to read. For some reason I'm thinking if they were, young people would be reading them.
Regardless, there definitely seems to be this idea circulating that the survival of newspapers somehow depends on young people. In the US, this seems especially true, with numerous studies having been done to try and figure out what it is that young people want or don't want from a newspaper. And though the opinions are varied: Is it the format? The cost? The availability? The ink? Do young people read? Can they read? A definitive conclusion has been hard to find.
Although print newspapers have watched a decline in younger readers, it looks like the opposite is true for online media. With sleek websites that take advantage of social networking sites and community features as well as mobile applications, newspapers have seen their online audience of 18- to 24-year-olds grow 9 percent between January and December of 2005.
Unfortunately, print newspapers haven't shown the same flexibility or can't show the same flexibility as their Web-based counterparts, which might be a greater concern as publishers try to attract more young people. Really when you think about it, the print newspaper has pretty much remained unchanged since, I think, dinosaurs roamed the earth. For all I can tell, what I pick up today to see what Manohla Dargis has to say about the The Men Who Stare at Goats, is the same thing my grandpa picked up to see what H.L. Menken had to say about democracy. Though the writers may have changed, the format really hasn't, and newspapers are basically asking me to enjoy the same thing my grandpa did. Considering the other things my grandpa enjoyed when he was my age; radio programs and a phone made of wood; it's a wonder newspapers have held on so long. Of course, now the Internet has changed all that-offering the same content (more or less) but now in a more attractive, interactive format.
This isn't to insinuate that newspapers are on their way out completely. They might simply be something that young people can't appreciate yet-more of an acquired taste, like wine or waking up before 11. If this is the case, then newspapers might want to target the people they've always targeted-a group that should be a little easier to grab because it's at least shown interest in the past. If I had free papers that's who I'd be giving them to-people that were once the newspaper's stalwarts, its champions, because unfortunately their numbers are declining too-at a worst pace according to the WAN study. Between 2000 and 2008, the percentage of readers 55 to 64 has dropped 7 percentage points while the percent or readers 65-years and older has dropped 9 points for the same time period.
So maybe the best question newspaper should consider is the lengths they should go to attract young people in the first place? Or a corollary to that: Should they keep trying to attract them with the same product they've always used?