Great idea- 

Full story here

Why Not A Reverse Pay Meter?

By Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine

So try this on for size: Imagine that you pay to get access to The Times. Everyone does. You pay for one article. Or you pay $20 as a deposit so you’re not bothered every time you come. But whenever you add value to The Times, you earn a credit that delays the next bill.

»  You see ads, you get credit.
»  You click: more credit.
»  You come back often and read many pages: credit.
»  You promote The Times on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or your blog: credit. The more folks share what you’ve shared, the more credit you get.
»  You buy merchandise via Times e-commerce: credit.
»  You buy tickets to a Times event: credit.
»  You hand over data that makes you more valuable to The Times and its advertisers (e.g., revealing where you’re going on your next trip): credit.
»  You add pithy comment to articles that other readers appreciate: credit.
»  You take on tasks in crowdsourced journalistic endeavors: credit.
»  You answer a reporter’s question on Twitter and the reporter uses your information: credit.
»  You correct an error in a story: credit.
»  You give a news tip or an idea for an article The Times publishes: credit.

Maybe you never pay for The Times again because The Times has gained more value out of its relationship with you. If, on the other hand, you hardly do any of those things, then you have to pay for using The Times.

I’ve been thinking about this, too, in light of a few other trends I’ve seen with newspapers online. First, some that are trying meters are finding that very, very few readers ever hit the wall (which papers are setting at anywhere from 1 to 20 pages). That so few hit the wall is frightening. It means that most readers don’t use these sites much. That’s nothing to brag about. Engagement is criminally low. Second, I’ve seen many sites that get a surprising proportion of their traffic from out of their markets—traffic that is valueless (or even costly, in terms of bandwidth) to sites that sell only local ads. This comes from following a goal of pageviews, pageviews, pageviews—brought in with search-engine optimization—rather than valued relationships.

After hearing a few such stories, I suggested that a site with a meter might want to reward local readers by giving them more free content and charge out-of-market readers by charging them sooner.

You see, that values the local reader over the remote reader. My idea for the reverse meter values the engaged reader over the occasional reader — and even rewards greater engagement. And therein lies, I think, the key strategic skill for news businesses online: understanding that all readers are not equal; knowing who your more valuable readers are; getting more of them; and making them more valuable.

Now I’ll tell you why my reverse meter won’t work: When I spoke with all our journalism students at CUNY about their business ideas on Friday, I asked how many had hit the Times pay wall — many — and how many had paid — few. Abundance remains the enemy of payment. There’s always someplace else to get the news. The Times can make its present meter work because (a) it’s that good [the Steve Jobs exception that proves the rule], (b) it’s still sponsoring—that is, giving a free ride—to its most valuable readers, though that is supposed to end soon, and (c) its engagement is still too low and thus many readers don’t even confront the wall (that needs to change).

So never mind the idea of the reverse meter, but retain the lesson of it: Value should be encouraged, not taxed. Readers bring value to sites if the sites are smart enough to have the mechanisms to recognize, exploit, and reward that value, which comes in many forms: responding to (highly targeted and relevant) ads; buying merchandise; contributing information, content, and ideas; promoting the site….

The key strategic opportunity for news sites is relationships — deeper, more valuable relationships with more (but not too many) people. Engagement.

This post originally appeared on Jeff Jarvis’s BuzzMachine.

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

Mediabids works with Marchex on a few per-inquiry advertising campaigns, so if you are a publication who runs PI ads, you may have contributed to their success. 

Marchex Harnesses the Power of the Call

Written on

May 13, 2010 

Author

Gavin Dunaway  |

ADOTAS – So I’m walking along, minding my own business, when suddenly my iPhone starts making a weird sound — kinda like a marimba. It’s not the sound for a text message, Facebook update or a new email, so I’m a little frightened. After I slink it out of my pocket, I’m confused when the screen says, “Incoming call.”

A phone call? Wha? People still make them in the age of clicks and texts?

They certainly do, and Marchex has found that inbound phone calls convert at five times the rate of clicks. No wonder the company has launched a pay-for-call exchange, a performance-based call advertising service.

Marchex believes the pay-for-call market is about to explode due to the huge digital supply on a wealth of platforms and innovations in technology that cost-effectively serve, track, optimize and filter phone calls. In addition, advertisers can now glean far more user information from calls including geographic and demographic data.

The pay-for-call exchange — which spreads across 50 offline, online and mobile publisher partnerships — provides both campaign creation tools and call-filtering technologies. In beta testing, average call conversions ranged from 20% to 30% while consumer engagement on the phone averaged more than eight minutes.

If the last decade of digital marketing revolved around online conversions via clicks, Marchex believes the next 10 will revolve around driving conversions through calls.

“Pay-for-call advertising is the natural next step in the evolution of performance media,” said Marchex Chief Operating Officer Pete Christothoulou. “It is the last mile for advertisers, literally connecting them to their prospective customers through the phone. Each iteration of advertising products and business models — from pay-per-view to pay-per-click to pay-per-conversation — brings advertisers closer to customers and the actual transaction while increasing efficiency and ROI.”

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.

Interesting story outlining how newspapers who charge for online content are doing. In a nutshell- not all that well. This story outlines the decrease in traffic they have suffered as a result. However, it is much less clear whether or not that decrease in traffic has resulted in less revenue. I suspect that the revenue that was being generated from online advertising was so small prior to charging for content that any subscription revenue easily offsets it.

But this story from paidcontent.org doesn't really get into revenue, in typical web-centric fashion it focuses primarily on traffic:

Full story here

"As more newspapers kick around the idea of charging for content, much of the attention has been focused on the pay models employed by the bigger players like the WSJ and the Financial Times. But quietly, some small- and medium-circulation papers are coming up with their own formulas to get readers to pony up for access to their websites. We checked in with some of these papers to find out how much they are charging and how they’re faring.

This is, by no means, a complete list. But one can draw some general conclusions by looking at the experiences of what is admittedly a very sample size. The newspapers tend to be located in smaller, often rural markets; online-only subscriptions are typically priced at a substantial discount to the print edition (in general, about 75 percent of what the print product costs); where numbers are available, the number of online subscribers is still a tiny percentage of their print counterparts (less than 5 percent); and many of these papers say they began charging not so much to make money online, but rather to protect sales of their print editions."