The blog post below, from the Suburban Newspaper Association of America, unintentionally offers the perfect illustration of the illogical thinking of many publications in regards to pay walls on web sites. On one hand, the author, Deb Shaw, points out that newspapers are the primary initiators of local content and that other mediums, including citizen-written efforts and blogs are ill equipped to displace newspapers in this role. On the other hand, the author ominously quotes a survey showing that most Americans want their news for free and would search elsewhere for content if it was not given away free by publications.

Search where? If local newspapers are not writing it, readers can search all they want, it won't exist. I want a new car to be free but no matter how many auto dealers I go to the darn things still cost money. Besides, am I missing something, hasn't the last 10 years taught publications that the cost of creating content and distributing it free on websites outweighs the revenue that can be generated by online ads of any form? On some level it is supply and demand- online advertisers are buying traffic and there are so many online opportunities that supply online has far outstripped demand, thereby deflating ad rates and that will make it tough for originally produced free content to be paid for entirely by paid advertising anytime in the near future. 

If you disagree with me and want to read more of the "give-it-away-free-because-someday-traffic-will-result-in-revenue" philosophy go to the SNA's website, here.

Weathering The Perfect Storm

From PaidContent.org:

 For the most part, The Washington Post Co. (NYSE: WPO) had a pretty good Q1—except, of course, for the magazine division (i.e., Newsweek), which saw revenue plunge 36 percent to $29.4 million. While Newsweek had a for sale sign hung on it this week, the newspaper division’s troubles have sharply abated. In Q1, newspaper revs declined 3 percent, a vast improvement over last year’s deep 22 percent drop. But the good news on the newspaper publishing side, which is primarily represented by WaPo’s flagship, came from the web, as display revs jumped 17 percent. (For more details on Newsweek’s dismal Q1, see Staci D. Kramer’s piece here.)

Earlier this week, the WaPo’s online-only Slate Group said that its ad revenues were up 52 percent. The positive results at Slate, which is part of the newspaper division, weren’t able to obscure the continued struggles for its print-based sibling as the washingtonpost.com’s classified sales were down 22 percent, hardly better than Q109’s 23 percent fall.

Here’s a snapshot of the newspaper division’s during Q1:

—Print ad revenue at The Washington Post fell 8 percent to $68.7 million, largely due to pullback in general and retail advertising.

—The paper’s daily circ dropped 12.5 percent, while Sunday circulation slid 10.4 percent. The company blamed it on the abnormally higher circ surrounding the news around last year’s presidential inauguration.

—The division posted an operating loss of $13.8 million, considerable improvement over last year’s $53.8 million loss.

Overall, net income was $45.4 million ($4.91 per share) versus the $19.2 million ($2.04 loss per share) net loss in Q109. As usual, the company’s strength came from its cable and education units.

This speech was given by Jedd Gould, of Mediabids, to the Suburban Newspaper Association and Southern Newspaper Publishers Association's Strategic Revenue Summit yesterday.

Advertiser's Expectations Have Changed, So Should You

10 years ago Mediabids launched and we have been doing per-response advertising in addition to our conventional online marketplace sales for the past 4 years.

I have been asked to speak a little bit about response-based advertising and there are specific methods that we have developed at Mediabids to handle the demand we have for per-response advertising in print. Not all of these may be right for your publication but here is how we do it:

-          We typically work with advertisers who are willing to pay for an unlimited amount of response.

-          Response is typically defined as a call, a web visit or a text.

-          Response based advertising is heavily reliant upon tracking of the response generated by an ad. At Mediabids we got into charging advertisers on a per response basis because we saw the need for tracking and better understanding the results that print ads were generating.  

-          Every ad that we place has a unique identifier, so we know what each publication is generating.

o   In 2009 we placed 66,350 per response ads for more than 500,000 total insertions.

o   Every single ad we placed had a unique phone number.

o    We then track using the data generated from 800 numbers to determine what a publication is owed.

o   Advertisers typically pay based on either a per-call or per-sale basis and the amounts vary depending on the type of product and the anticipated volume.

-          We give publications the choice of which advertisers they want to run, we resize the ad to their specifications, insert the unique phone number or url, upload it to the website where the publication can download it and then track the response.

-          As some of you may know, most 800#s are really transparent pass-throughs, allowing you to get the information on the caller and then point the call to wherever the advertiser wants the phone to ring.

-          Because we are not depending on the advertiser to provide us data on tracking, we know that the information we use to measure results and then pay publications is accurate.

Per-response advertising accounts for a small portion of what Mediabids does. We are primarily a marketplace for print in which advertising is bought and sold conventionally, in that advertisers pay for space.

However, what we have learned through per-response has influenced everything we do.

From what has gone on in the marketplace over the past 10 years, it is pretty clear that advertiser’s expectations have shifted faster than publications. However, despite what you may read or even hear at times at a conference like this, there is a lot of reason to be hopeful about the future because fundamentally print works. It is important to keep in mind that advertisers don’t love Google or Yahoo because they have some affinity to search based advertising. They spend billions with these two companies because they deliver measurable response.

At Mediabids we have about 17,000 advertisers who use our website to buy ads and in most cases they are spending more in print today than they did 10 years ago. They are not spending more because we are particularly good at selling (as evidenced by my dynamic speaking style), they are spending more because print delivers results and we can prove it.

Suggestion #1: If you are going to talk to advertisers about response you have to have confidence in your product.

Advertisers never tell publications that their advertising works. Your sales reps, people with years of experience, could probably count on one hand the number of times they have walked into an advertiser’s business or called them on the phone and had that advertiser tell them their ad was working well. The problem is that advertisers might be right, they might be wrong. But no one really knows. The tracking methods that advertisers use are weak. The person answering the phone who is supposed to remember to ask – how did you hear about us? Is not a tracking mechanism.  

This constant state of rejection and negotiation creates a type of institutional insecurity. The result is that many people who work at publications seem to have a sneaking suspicion that their product just does not work because, in most cases, that is what their advertisers are telling them- not showing them mind you, telling them.

If you are going to compete with products like Google and Yahoo, you have to believe your publication can generate results and work to make that happen. You have to understand your readers, their demographics and how that overlays on your advertisers’ products, goods or services.

Suggestion #2: acknowledge that advertisers have changed the rules

Google and Yahoo have let the genie out of the bottle. Advertising is no longer about a real estate style approach to a page  – getting an ad on a good page where people will see it – advertising for most companies is now about response, advertising for the sake of a brand is increasingly obsolete for large and small companies and everyday that goes by it becomes more obsolete. This is true in all mediums. Radio, television and the internet are all mediums which have adopted per-response based models and succeeded with them.

If print continues to suffer, it won’t be because of circulation or because publications cannot figure out a way to monetize content or their websites or deliver the product electronically in a compelling way. If print continues to decline it will be because publications still think they are selling real estate in an age when no one wants to buy. Google and Yahoo do not sell real estate, they sell response and results. Selling space against response to a group of advertisers who do not know how to track their own response is a very difficult thing to do.

I am not suggesting that per response is the only hope, in the sense that advertisers should only pay for the response that is generated. Advertisers have changed the rules, because they have changed their expectations.

Whether you use a per call, per sale or charge for space in a conventional manner, you are selling space to advertisers who now care more about the response they are generating than the benefits of branding. Every time someone buys an ad, there is an expectation of response and, unfortunately, most publications don’t have the tools in place to show advertisers how their ads are working.  When advertising works and you can prove it, how you charge is irrelevant. The method of the monetization is academic.

Suggestion #3: Own your data

If publications are going to thrive in the future they must take ownership of the results generated by their product. This is the biggest difference between newspapers and online offerings like Google and Yahoo.

Compare for a moment two mediums - online and print:

With Google’s Adwords an advertiser has real time access to how much money they have spent, how many clicks they have generated and with a simple software install, how many sales the clicks have resulted in. A quick calculation can determine definitively whether those ads are paying for themselves.

Now think about what an advertiser in a daily newspaper does to try to figure out how an ad is working.  A shocking number of advertisers, who are incredibly sophisticated in measuring other mediums, depend on the same devices that were available to them in the 1950s – coupons…  or worse, asking the customer why they called. If you have ever had the misfortune to listen to phone calls, you know that the average American consumer either is uncomfortable answering this question or has an astonishingly short memory, because few people know. In fact, an advertiser we work with did a test where they asked their operator to give the caller 5 choices of where an advertiser heard about a print ad– 4 real publications where their ad appeared and 1 completely fictitious publication. The fake publication outperformed 2 of the real ones.

Advertisers need to be provided the tools to understand how their ads are performing, regardless of whether they are paying per-response, per-sale, or for space.

Tracking for print should not be something left to the advertiser.

1)      Data is valuable. It can be used in so many ways.

2)      Conventional ad selling is, in large part, a negotiation and data is a very compelling selling tool.

3)      Advertisers are bad at collecting this response data themselves and should not be entrusted with this job. Left to their own devices they rarely track results effectively. Mediabids works with more than 17,000 advertisers and there might be 1% who track effectively on their own.

The problem is that when advertisers don’t track, they suspect the worst. We see this first hand – I started Mediabids 10 years ago because I wanted to figure out a way to sell print ads using the tools available through the internet. Thousands of advertisers use our site to buy print ads and four years ago we started to look into why many of these advertisers were increasing their budgets online and decreasing them in print.

The answer was very clear. Our advertisers were not making any effort to track on their own, we were not providing them with any tools and therefore most of the objections to spending we heard centered around the “my  ad is not working” argument. Nothing to back it up, no data, no proof – just a gut feel, the ad isn’t working.

Mediabids got into per-response advertising because we got into tracking.

Like everyone in this room, at Mediabids we knew- on some level - that print worked but we didn’t have any data, we couldn’t back it up, we were as insecure as our publication clients about results. The problem was.. that we really didn’t have a choice – we were really already selling response based advertising without any way of validating the response.

I say that we were selling response based advertising because that is what our advertisers thought they were buying – we were just doing a bad job selling. Because we were selling space, not results. Advertisers were spending money- paying for space - with little concern on our part (Mediabids) or the publicaations’ about the response that was being generated.

Today we track everything in both response-based ads and conventional ads.

What we have learned presents a much different picture than what you have heard about print recently. Here are a few common denominators of the results across advertisers:

-          Print is working

-          The leads generated by print are almost always more valuable than any other medium. More valuable than radio, television or the internet.

-          The ROI of print is almost always higher than other mediums.

-          The close rate on leads generated by print is better than other mediums.

-          The customer retention rate is better: The customers acquired via print tend to be better educated about the products they are buying and therefore are longer-lasting customers.

But Mediabids’ advertisers only know this because we show them and showing them has been worthwhile. In 2009 our revenue nearly tripled after doubling in 2008. Most of our advertisers, who represent a wide cross-section of business types and geographical focuses, spend more today on print than they did 10 years ago because we can show them it works.

Please know, I am happy to get into greater detail of the mechanics of how this is done later.

As I said earlier, Google and Yahoo let the genie out of the bottle and recalibrated advertisers’ expectations but that does not mean that print cannot adapt and succeed by incorporating some basic tracking and measurement devices. In some cases that may lead to a per-response deal. In other cases, a conventional ad sale. But in all cases, we have found at Mediabids, the more data a company has on the response generated by its ad, the more likely they are to feel like their money is being spent wisely.

In this excerpt from an article on Google Wave by the Newspaper Association of America, the NAA gives us just another example of how the organization continues to misunderstand how its members make the money they use to pay its dues. Google Wave does not offer any sustainable revenue stream for publications. If everyone would give away their content for free, a lot of people could come up with a cool way of displaying it too. But Wave does nothing for the publications who actually have to pay people to go out and write stories. Hard to believe that the NAA consistently misses this point, maybe they believe, as Google does, that as long as your motto says you intend to do no harm, it is ok to wrip off print publications.

Here is what they said. Full story here, if you have the stomach to read it.

As Google Wave ends its first year of existence, we have learned two things:

First, there’s no shortage of critics who are happy to argue that the Google product, which combines threaded conversations with collaborative document editing and a host of embedded interactive gadgets, may be a technology searching for a purpose.

Second, the term “beta” applied to a Google product means just that for a change—until a recent round of bug fixes, the service slowed to a crawl or crashed as soon as the number of visitors participating in a “wave” reached the kind of critical mass a media site would draw.

Does that mean newspapers should wait to begin experimenting with Wave? Not at all – especially given its potential to shape conversations both within and beyond news organizations, argue early industry dabblers in the technology.

“Think about how many newsrooms would have killed to be on top of a social media tool like Twitter four years ago, before it became as popular,” says Chris Taylor, online editor of TBO.com, who oversees converged Web operations for The Tampa Tribune and WFLA-TV. “We want to make sure our newsroom is familiar with Wave so if it becomes the next great tool for media consumption, we know how to be there for our audience.”

From the Association of Free Community Papers (AFCP: 

How Print Helps the Internet

Telegraph.co.uk became the first British newspaper website when it was launched 15 years ago.

When I took over the editorship of the fledgling Telegraph internet site early in 1995, two questions were constantly being posed to me. The first was: how can you make money out of something you give away free? The second was: does this mean the end of newspapers? The first of these questions was always the most tricky, because, in reality, no one had a clue how we were going to make money. The Telegraph's internet operation was essentially a marketing initiative with a brief to explore this new medium and report back. No one said anything about making money, although reader offers were always part of the mix from the start, so there was a token nod in the direction of commerce.

I recall a rather a rather scary meeting with the then proprietor Conrad Black, who asked me the same question. I pointed out to him that he was always complaining that city analysists undervalued the share price of Hollinger (which owned the Telegraph) and that one of the reasons they gave was that the company did not have an internet strategy. By backing an internet newspaper, I reasoned, he would show them that he did have a strategy and his share price would rise accordingly - so at least he would make some money that way. The answer seemed to satisfy him and we were allowed to keep going.

The longer term answer remains elusive. Short of charging for content, no one really is completely sure 15 years later. And although the telegraph's internet operations do attract many millions of advertising revenue now, these revenues are still smaller than the sales and advertising revenue of the print titles.

As to the second question, my answer remains the same as it was then: of course the internet doesn't spell the end of newspapers. No new medium has ever sunk an older one without trace. Contrary to popular musical mythology, video didn't kill the radio star (although DVD and Blu Ray have certainly given video a kicking) and TV didn't kill radio - in fact, radio is going from strength to strength, while a lot of TV is struggling to survive.

And the longer time goes on, the more convinced I am that that the internet needs newspapers. The reason is simple: people like reading, and whilst reading from a screen is bearable for short items, it gets tedious for anything more than a few hundred words. I'm prepared to bet that the majority of people, young and old alike, when they find something online they want to give detailed study to - whether its an article or the terms and conditions of their holiday booking - the first thing they do is hit the 'print' button so they can sit down with a bit of paper in their hands.

I think there's something deeply ingrained in the DNA of post Gutenberg culture concerning typography and design - and nowhere do you find more exciting an innovative typeography and design than in mass ciculation newspapers and the plethora of magazine and supplements they bring in their wake. And whilst the design of websites has advanced from the rather sparse minimalism that characterised our efforts 15 years ago, they still have a long way to go before they can replicate the best that newspapers have to offer.

But beyond the aesthetic argument, there's a more profound argument about the centrality of newspapers, and this is to do with the business of telling stories, and creating compelling narratives. If you examine the world's great online sources of news and opinion, for example, the vast majority of them have sprung from newspapers or from broadcast organisations with strong roots in newspaper journalism culture.

So, in a curious way, things have come full circle. Fifteen years ago, the Telegraph newspapers needed an internet site to help transform the brand image of the paper, to make it seem more modern and relevant. Now, I think, when our internet presence has made us a global brand, we need the newspaper even more to remind those readers why they value what they are reading.