paidContent reporting:
...
The key takeaways from the report cover a number of different aspects
of what a non-profit news organization is set up to do, such as
providing services that communities need — rather than simply focusing
on the bottom line or building an advertising-oriented business, the way
a for-profit entity would. But in many ways, the things it suggests successful non-profits do are fundamentally the same things that every media outlet should be doing:
Focus on the market need: The report says successful
non-profits have a strategy that “grows out of observing the market in
which they operate and identifying a balance between two extremes –
coverage that’s so broad it’s hard to build a community around it while
so narrow that it creates long-term financial challenges.”
Measure everything: The Knight Foundation suggests
that in addition to just tracking traditional metrics like monthly
unique visitors, non-profits should “focus on indicators that offer
feedback on repeat user engagement [and] combine this data with
qualitative narrative accounts on how their reporting affects their
target community.”
Diversify your revenue stream: Successful
non-profits “strive for diversity in funding,” the report says. They
look for ways to decrease the proportion of their funding that comes
from foundations, and to raise the amount that comes from their
community directly through sponsorship, events and individual
donations.”
Go where the audience is: The non-profit
organizations worth emulating understand that the way people consume
information is changing, the Knight report says — they aren’t just
focusing on a homepage on the web, but on new formats such as mobile,
building sites that use responsive design and putting a priority on
social media.
http://paidcontent.org/2013/10/29/the-recipe-for-successful-non-profits-is-the-same-as-for-regular-news-outlets-diversify/?utm_source=General+Users&utm_campaign=2619f3bc0f-c%3Amed+d%3A10-31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dd83065c6-2619f3bc0f-99152541
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
The case for tablet & smartphone optimization
emedia vitals reporting:
In the publishing and media industry, the New World once was defined by the migration of consumers and advertising dollars from print media to the Internet. Now, however, the New World is mobile, or more specifically, media consumed via portable, personal and powerful devices like tablets and smartphones. Our New World is now called “postPC,” as tablet devices have already outsold laptops this year, and tablet sales are expected to eclipse all computer sales in 2015.
...
User experiences when navigating content designed for a larger computer screen on a tablet or smartphone sucks. Yes, a site that is specifically designed for the mobile device they are using is different, but that’s the point. Users vote with their time and their actions.
Data from our platform shows that readers get comfortable with tablet-optimized sites over a short amount of time. In fact, between July and September, our average page view growth across all publishers that we power grew 48%. That is 48% growth in three months after launching an optimized site, proving that readers spend more time and consume more pages of content each month.
...
First, tablet-optimized formats are different, and by their nature may have less ad units per page than currently exist on your desktop pages. This sounds like a good thing for readers (less ads, more content), but a potentially bad thing for publishers (less ads, less money).
Not so. We’ve learned that by restyling and reformatting content for tablet devices, readers consume more page views. A lot more page views. A quick analysis across our publisher platform during the past three months shows an average of 155% growth in page views per month once publishers adopt a tablet-optimized version. So let’s say your website currently gets approximately 250,000 tablet page views per month. The first month your site is optimized for tablet, those page views may grow to 400,000; by month two, you’ve reached 525,000 page views, and in the third month you have 650,000 page views. In a short amount of time, your tablet-only page views are delivering significantly more ad revenue because your users are consuming more content and page views.
http://www.emediavitals.com/content/case-tablet-smartphone-optimization
In the publishing and media industry, the New World once was defined by the migration of consumers and advertising dollars from print media to the Internet. Now, however, the New World is mobile, or more specifically, media consumed via portable, personal and powerful devices like tablets and smartphones. Our New World is now called “postPC,” as tablet devices have already outsold laptops this year, and tablet sales are expected to eclipse all computer sales in 2015.
...
User experiences when navigating content designed for a larger computer screen on a tablet or smartphone sucks. Yes, a site that is specifically designed for the mobile device they are using is different, but that’s the point. Users vote with their time and their actions.
Data from our platform shows that readers get comfortable with tablet-optimized sites over a short amount of time. In fact, between July and September, our average page view growth across all publishers that we power grew 48%. That is 48% growth in three months after launching an optimized site, proving that readers spend more time and consume more pages of content each month.
...
First, tablet-optimized formats are different, and by their nature may have less ad units per page than currently exist on your desktop pages. This sounds like a good thing for readers (less ads, more content), but a potentially bad thing for publishers (less ads, less money).
Not so. We’ve learned that by restyling and reformatting content for tablet devices, readers consume more page views. A lot more page views. A quick analysis across our publisher platform during the past three months shows an average of 155% growth in page views per month once publishers adopt a tablet-optimized version. So let’s say your website currently gets approximately 250,000 tablet page views per month. The first month your site is optimized for tablet, those page views may grow to 400,000; by month two, you’ve reached 525,000 page views, and in the third month you have 650,000 page views. In a short amount of time, your tablet-only page views are delivering significantly more ad revenue because your users are consuming more content and page views.
http://www.emediavitals.com/content/case-tablet-smartphone-optimization
onlinemedia daily reporting:
hanks to continued growth in online advertising, the interactive media sector is expected to see a 33% increase in profitability this year.
That’s according to a new report from Ernst & Young, which expects the broader media and entertainment industry to outperform the major stock market indices for the first time in five years -- due in large part to digital advances.
Among all media and entertainment sectors, interactive media also boasts the highest EBITDA dollar growth rate of 22%, EY reports.
“In emerging markets, increases in advertising, as well as rising incomes and media consumption, have also helped drive revenue and fuel long-term growth, as consumers in mature markets continue to migrate toward digital,” stated John Nendick, global media and entertainment leader at EY.
“Media and entertainment companies are maintaining and growing their businesses primarily by growing their digital revenues and scaling back overhead associated with traditional media,” he added.
...
A review of the 2009-2013 compound annual growth rate shows that in terms of EBITDA dollars, interactive media is the fastest-growing media and entertainment sector at 22%, followed by electronic games (14%); film and television production (11%); cable networks (10%); conglomerates (9%); TV broadcast (9%); satellite television (8%); cable operators (6%); content and information services (2%); and music (1%).
hanks to continued growth in online advertising, the interactive media sector is expected to see a 33% increase in profitability this year.
That’s according to a new report from Ernst & Young, which expects the broader media and entertainment industry to outperform the major stock market indices for the first time in five years -- due in large part to digital advances.
Among all media and entertainment sectors, interactive media also boasts the highest EBITDA dollar growth rate of 22%, EY reports.
“In emerging markets, increases in advertising, as well as rising incomes and media consumption, have also helped drive revenue and fuel long-term growth, as consumers in mature markets continue to migrate toward digital,” stated John Nendick, global media and entertainment leader at EY.
“Media and entertainment companies are maintaining and growing their businesses primarily by growing their digital revenues and scaling back overhead associated with traditional media,” he added.
...
A review of the 2009-2013 compound annual growth rate shows that in terms of EBITDA dollars, interactive media is the fastest-growing media and entertainment sector at 22%, followed by electronic games (14%); film and television production (11%); cable networks (10%); conglomerates (9%); TV broadcast (9%); satellite television (8%); cable operators (6%); content and information services (2%); and music (1%).
5 new job titles for digital-first publishers
emedia vitals reporting:
“Digital first” continues to gain ground as a publishing philosophy. Some use the phrase simply as a rallying cry to focus on growth initiatives; others view it as a catalyst to revamp workflows and processes throughout the business to prioritize digital channels over print.
Putting the right personnel in place is a critical step in a digital-first transition. Publishers are forced to eliminate or remake print-centric positions across all aspects of the business – editorial, sales, marketing, operations – and add new roles to address an evolving approach to publishing, one that’s heavily influenced by data and cross-platform content delivery.
The fun part of this transition is coming up with job titles that capture the essence of a digital-first mindset. I’ve written before about five C-level leadership roles for a digital-first strategy. Here are five other positions that you might want to consider.
“Digital first” continues to gain ground as a publishing philosophy. Some use the phrase simply as a rallying cry to focus on growth initiatives; others view it as a catalyst to revamp workflows and processes throughout the business to prioritize digital channels over print.
Putting the right personnel in place is a critical step in a digital-first transition. Publishers are forced to eliminate or remake print-centric positions across all aspects of the business – editorial, sales, marketing, operations – and add new roles to address an evolving approach to publishing, one that’s heavily influenced by data and cross-platform content delivery.
The fun part of this transition is coming up with job titles that capture the essence of a digital-first mindset. I’ve written before about five C-level leadership roles for a digital-first strategy. Here are five other positions that you might want to consider.
VP of Revenue Platforms
VP of Customer Data/Optimization
Director of Data Visualization
Engagement Editor
Engagement is one of digital media’s buzzwords du jour, so why not create a staff title that incorporates it? An “engagement editor” could serve as an evolutionary step for social media editors as they become more integrated into editorial or marketing operations. Mother Jones, for example, last month announced the hiring of Ben Dreyfuss as engagement editor, where he will oversee social media content and strategy. Dreyfuss previously was a social media editor at tech site Cnet.Entrepreneur in Residence
http://www.emediavitals.com/content/5-new-job-titles-digital-first-publishersThe Role of News on Facebook
Pew reporting:
On Facebook, the largest social media platform, news is a common but incidental experience, according to an initiative of Pew Research Center in collaboration with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, 47%, “ever” get news there. That amounts to 30% of the population.
Most U.S. adults do not go to Facebook seeking news out, the nationally representative online survey of 5,173 adults finds. Instead, the vast majority of Facebook news consumers, 78%, get news when they are on Facebook for other reasons. And just 4% say it is the most important way they get news. As one respondent summed it up, “I believe Facebook is a good way to find out news without actually looking for it.”
However, the survey provides evidence that Facebook exposes some people to news who otherwise might not get it. While only 38% of heavy news followers who get news on Facebook say the site is an important way they get news, that figure rises to 47% among those who follow the news less often. “If it wasn’t for Facebook news,” wrote one respondent, “I’d probably never really know what’s going on in the world because I don’t have time to keep up with the news on a bunch of different locations.”
http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/24/the-role-of-news-on-facebook/
On Facebook, the largest social media platform, news is a common but incidental experience, according to an initiative of Pew Research Center in collaboration with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, 47%, “ever” get news there. That amounts to 30% of the population.
Most U.S. adults do not go to Facebook seeking news out, the nationally representative online survey of 5,173 adults finds. Instead, the vast majority of Facebook news consumers, 78%, get news when they are on Facebook for other reasons. And just 4% say it is the most important way they get news. As one respondent summed it up, “I believe Facebook is a good way to find out news without actually looking for it.”
However, the survey provides evidence that Facebook exposes some people to news who otherwise might not get it. While only 38% of heavy news followers who get news on Facebook say the site is an important way they get news, that figure rises to 47% among those who follow the news less often. “If it wasn’t for Facebook news,” wrote one respondent, “I’d probably never really know what’s going on in the world because I don’t have time to keep up with the news on a bunch of different locations.”
http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/24/the-role-of-news-on-facebook/
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Frank Magazine Execs: We Can Do Better On native ads, video opportunities and tablets' promise
adweek reporting:
Top magazine execs think they need to have fewer meetings, launch new
products faster and better adapt their content to mobile devices to set
themselves up for the future.
"Let's do a deck on that, let's have a meeting on how to have a
meeting," said Joe Ripp, CEO of Time Inc. on the industry's tendency to
navel gaze. "We need to move faster."
Speaking on a panel at the MPA—The Association of Magazine Media's
annual conference Tuesday, the industry's bigwigs admitted that while tablets held out promise for magazines, they were in the early stages of building a significant business on the devices.
Tom Harty, president of Meredith's National Media Group, publisher of
mass women's brands like Parents and Family Circle, said tablet editions
make up just 2 to 3 percent of its business (slightly below the
industry average). "Maybe it's our genre," he offered.
In the printed form, magazines are attractive for their covers and
physical presence and as an impulse buy, but those qualities are lost on
mobile devices, Condé Nast president Bob Sauerberg admitted. "We all
need to work to bring that home in the digital media."
Panelists said that their subscription business is healthy, even if the
newsstand slide continues. But they also recognized the need to ramp up
the consumer side of the ledger. Meredith's Harty said his company is
testing various models to "get the consumer to give us more money" in
view of the fact that "advertising is not growing."
Moving on to the buzzword of the day, native advertising, the
executives said they were set up well to offer advertisers premium ads
that are valued by readers as a complement to the online tonnage
available via automated buys. Harty called magazines the "original
native ad" format, pointing out that for some readers, the ads are the
best part of the magazine.
At a time when other purveyors are playing fast and loose with the
format, blurring the lines to make it mimic editorial, the magazine
execs said it was important not to fool readers. And although the
industry's own American Society of Magazine Editors recently put out guidelines
addressing how native ads should be labeled, Hearst Magazines president
David Carey warned that the industry shouldn't over regulate, either.
Eric Schmidt: The Future of Magazines Is on Tablets
Mashable reporting:
Eric Schmidt has seen the future of magazines, and it's on the tablet.
At a Magazine Publishers Association conference on Wednesday, the Google chairman took the stage with Wired editor-in-chief Scott Dadich to talk about the future — it's mobile — and how magazines fit into it. The latter isn't a subject he's devoted much thought to, Schmidt admitted, but he is confident that magazines' future is not in print, but on tablets.
Five years from now, the world will have "powerful, tablet-looking things — [devices] that look roughly like a tablet — as a substitute for traditional media," Schmidt predicted. Those tablets will have apps that are "incredibly immersive," including magazine apps, which will take advantage of people's social graphs, location data and other features to offer a more interactive experience, he said.
"It should be very positive for [publishers]," Schmidt added. "In the world of online advertising, the location signal allows you much more targeted ads [than print] ads today … [The more targeted they are], the more likely [readers] are to click, and the more likely advertisers will bid up the price of [ads]."
Schmidt did not say whether he thinks magazine publishers' ads will be able to compete with the targeting capabilities of Facebook or Google, however, nor whether revenue from those ads will ever rival that of print.
Schmidt may envision a future for magazines, but he doesn't see much of one for long-form content. He believes attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. "I don't think we'll go back to books," he said. "There's a tremendous amount of reading, but more ADD type of reading."
http://mashable.com/2013/10/23/eric-schmidt-magazine-future/
Eric Schmidt has seen the future of magazines, and it's on the tablet.
At a Magazine Publishers Association conference on Wednesday, the Google chairman took the stage with Wired editor-in-chief Scott Dadich to talk about the future — it's mobile — and how magazines fit into it. The latter isn't a subject he's devoted much thought to, Schmidt admitted, but he is confident that magazines' future is not in print, but on tablets.
See also: Hands On With the iPad Air
"Tablets are now more popular than PCs," he said. "You can read it,
it knows where you are, it has an accelerometer. There are all sorts of
stuff [publishers] can do in tablet magazines [that they] couldn't do in
print magazines."Five years from now, the world will have "powerful, tablet-looking things — [devices] that look roughly like a tablet — as a substitute for traditional media," Schmidt predicted. Those tablets will have apps that are "incredibly immersive," including magazine apps, which will take advantage of people's social graphs, location data and other features to offer a more interactive experience, he said.
"It should be very positive for [publishers]," Schmidt added. "In the world of online advertising, the location signal allows you much more targeted ads [than print] ads today … [The more targeted they are], the more likely [readers] are to click, and the more likely advertisers will bid up the price of [ads]."
Schmidt did not say whether he thinks magazine publishers' ads will be able to compete with the targeting capabilities of Facebook or Google, however, nor whether revenue from those ads will ever rival that of print.
Schmidt may envision a future for magazines, but he doesn't see much of one for long-form content. He believes attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. "I don't think we'll go back to books," he said. "There's a tremendous amount of reading, but more ADD type of reading."
http://mashable.com/2013/10/23/eric-schmidt-magazine-future/
How news sites are boosting 'stickiness' with personalisation
Journalism.co.uk reporting:
For some time now, news sites have been trying out different ways to offer personalised experiences across platforms, placing the reader and their interests at the heart of the content in question.
Personalisation, in its more usual forms, might be determined by a reader's geographical location, their reading history, chosen areas of interest or even their social network. And news services may include personalised homepages, personalised areas in a mobile or tablet app, or completely personalised social reader apps. Another form of personalisation can be found in the interactive content being increasingly produced by digital news outlets.
But for those offering such features, what does personalisation bring to the table for reader and news outlet? And what lessons can others take away from this experience about the value of such offerings?
Growth in the 'demand for relevance'
In the online world, we are faced with an abundance of information. As a result, "demand for relevant content is increasing", digital strategist Nic Newman told Journalism.co.uk, suggesting there is a positive environment within which personalisation could blossom.
People may already come to news sites for specific reasons, perhaps the outlet covers a particular location or subject they are most interested in, or they just value the brand. Either way, personalisation can help a local or niche site to further appeal to the reader, or by larger news sites.
"People feel overwhelmed so they really feel they need tools to help filter out the noise," Newman said, adding that today "personalisation is easier to do, cheaper to scale and deliver".
"It was hard to do personalisation in the past at scale. That's the other reason we're seeing more of it."
He added that the provision of a "personal addressable device for the first time" in the form of mobile phones, as well as the growth in site registration, are increasing the opportunities for personalisation, or simply the delivery of "more relevant content".
The balancing act for news outlets
But personalisation requires a balancing act on the part of news outlets, with many adopting a combined approach, mixing in some personalisation, but with a significant role still played by the news outlet in sharing content which editors believe the reader should see, regardless of their location, reading history, interests or social network connections...
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8672091774752856243#editor/target=post;postID=1463230284882541949
For some time now, news sites have been trying out different ways to offer personalised experiences across platforms, placing the reader and their interests at the heart of the content in question.
Personalisation, in its more usual forms, might be determined by a reader's geographical location, their reading history, chosen areas of interest or even their social network. And news services may include personalised homepages, personalised areas in a mobile or tablet app, or completely personalised social reader apps. Another form of personalisation can be found in the interactive content being increasingly produced by digital news outlets.
But for those offering such features, what does personalisation bring to the table for reader and news outlet? And what lessons can others take away from this experience about the value of such offerings?
Growth in the 'demand for relevance'
In the online world, we are faced with an abundance of information. As a result, "demand for relevant content is increasing", digital strategist Nic Newman told Journalism.co.uk, suggesting there is a positive environment within which personalisation could blossom.
People may already come to news sites for specific reasons, perhaps the outlet covers a particular location or subject they are most interested in, or they just value the brand. Either way, personalisation can help a local or niche site to further appeal to the reader, or by larger news sites.
"People feel overwhelmed so they really feel they need tools to help filter out the noise," Newman said, adding that today "personalisation is easier to do, cheaper to scale and deliver".
"It was hard to do personalisation in the past at scale. That's the other reason we're seeing more of it."
He added that the provision of a "personal addressable device for the first time" in the form of mobile phones, as well as the growth in site registration, are increasing the opportunities for personalisation, or simply the delivery of "more relevant content".
The balancing act for news outlets
But personalisation requires a balancing act on the part of news outlets, with many adopting a combined approach, mixing in some personalisation, but with a significant role still played by the news outlet in sharing content which editors believe the reader should see, regardless of their location, reading history, interests or social network connections...
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8672091774752856243#editor/target=post;postID=1463230284882541949
'You are more likely to summit Mount Everest than click on a banner ad'
theguardian reporting:
Native advertising is the only way forward if publishers want to monetise their content, says Buzzfeed's Jonathan Perelman.
"You're more likely to summit Mount Everest than click on a banner ad," he told a room full of delegates at Yas Viceroy, Abu Dhabi. Moments earlier he had posed a question to the room: "Has anybody been on the internet in the past 24 hours?" Naturally, every hand in the room shot up, before Perelman followed up with another question: "Can you remember the last banner ad you saw?"
No hands went up.
It's a good illustration of how ineffective some in the media sector see more traditional display ads. "There's been this industrial complex built around banner ads for 18 or 19 years, and we used to see a 40 to 70% click through rate when they started."
But today, your chances of scaling the world's highest mountain are more favourable than clicking on a banner ad, he said. "It's not good advertising, frankly."
Perelman, speaking in a session about new media and new marketing channels, also turned his focus to the native advertising (where ads and content are seamlessly merged into a single website experience) and its application and use in publishing: "Google AdWords is native; you type in something and the ads are delivered to you natively – that is going to be the only way forward for publishers to monetise their content."
Buzzfeed – described by Perelman as "the media company for the social age" – is a native advertising publisher itself. And it seems to be working; in a recent memo to the Buzzfeed team, Jonah Peretti, the company's founder and chief executive, revealed that the company had "booked record profit in August", reaching record traffic of 85 million unique visitors for the month.
"Nobody comes to Buzzfeed to look at the ads, but they'll come for the content," said Peretti. "When the advertising is content – good content they're willing to click on and engage with, and share if it's good – that's the future for publishers."
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/oct/23/buzzfeed-jonathan-perelman-ad-banner
Native advertising is the only way forward if publishers want to monetise their content, says Buzzfeed's Jonathan Perelman.
"You're more likely to summit Mount Everest than click on a banner ad," he told a room full of delegates at Yas Viceroy, Abu Dhabi. Moments earlier he had posed a question to the room: "Has anybody been on the internet in the past 24 hours?" Naturally, every hand in the room shot up, before Perelman followed up with another question: "Can you remember the last banner ad you saw?"
No hands went up.
It's a good illustration of how ineffective some in the media sector see more traditional display ads. "There's been this industrial complex built around banner ads for 18 or 19 years, and we used to see a 40 to 70% click through rate when they started."
But today, your chances of scaling the world's highest mountain are more favourable than clicking on a banner ad, he said. "It's not good advertising, frankly."
Perelman, speaking in a session about new media and new marketing channels, also turned his focus to the native advertising (where ads and content are seamlessly merged into a single website experience) and its application and use in publishing: "Google AdWords is native; you type in something and the ads are delivered to you natively – that is going to be the only way forward for publishers to monetise their content."
Buzzfeed – described by Perelman as "the media company for the social age" – is a native advertising publisher itself. And it seems to be working; in a recent memo to the Buzzfeed team, Jonah Peretti, the company's founder and chief executive, revealed that the company had "booked record profit in August", reaching record traffic of 85 million unique visitors for the month.
"Nobody comes to Buzzfeed to look at the ads, but they'll come for the content," said Peretti. "When the advertising is content – good content they're willing to click on and engage with, and share if it's good – that's the future for publishers."
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/oct/23/buzzfeed-jonathan-perelman-ad-banner
YouTube Takes on The News
digiday reporting:
Much like the Google News homepage, YouTube’s news channel aggregates video news content from some of the biggest – and smallest – broadcasters on earth. Also, like Google News, the channel does not actually produce its own journalism. The YouTube news channel has more than 21 million subscribers and, as of last week, a new global head of news, Tom Sly.
Most recently director of development for Google Fiber, Sly spoke with Digiday about what success looks like for YouTube News, why it doesn’t do its own journalism, and what the future holds for mobile. Excerpts:
Are you trying to be the video news source for the online generation?
The only word I’d question there is source. The reason why we’re attractive to a news publisher is because we give them a billion uniques a month. We’re a massive platform to connect your content with an audience. There are [publishers] connecting with a niche audience and delivering news to a niche audience — religious content or one political angle — and YouTube can do this in a way that cable TV would never be able to support. The economics don’t work. But we’re not producing our own content. We don’t have the expertise. We have expertise in developing the algorithm for surfacing the right story at the right time.
Will YouTube ever get into the business of producing YouTube-branded news content?
The answer is no. We’re not getting into the business of producing content or operating a newsroom inside of Google or YouTube. That’s not in our DNA.
So how does YouTube define “news” in the context of this channel?
We have names like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and Vice, brands [that] existed for years off of YouTube and finding audiences here. Then there’s folks born on YouTube like Phil Defranco, whose company was acquired by Discovery earlier this year. He connects with young people in a way that’s unique. He’s doing news in a completely different way...http://digiday.com/platforms/youtubes-take-on-news/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Digiday%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily_Sailthru_July2013
Much like the Google News homepage, YouTube’s news channel aggregates video news content from some of the biggest – and smallest – broadcasters on earth. Also, like Google News, the channel does not actually produce its own journalism. The YouTube news channel has more than 21 million subscribers and, as of last week, a new global head of news, Tom Sly.
Most recently director of development for Google Fiber, Sly spoke with Digiday about what success looks like for YouTube News, why it doesn’t do its own journalism, and what the future holds for mobile. Excerpts:
Are you trying to be the video news source for the online generation?
The only word I’d question there is source. The reason why we’re attractive to a news publisher is because we give them a billion uniques a month. We’re a massive platform to connect your content with an audience. There are [publishers] connecting with a niche audience and delivering news to a niche audience — religious content or one political angle — and YouTube can do this in a way that cable TV would never be able to support. The economics don’t work. But we’re not producing our own content. We don’t have the expertise. We have expertise in developing the algorithm for surfacing the right story at the right time.
Will YouTube ever get into the business of producing YouTube-branded news content?
The answer is no. We’re not getting into the business of producing content or operating a newsroom inside of Google or YouTube. That’s not in our DNA.
So how does YouTube define “news” in the context of this channel?
We have names like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and Vice, brands [that] existed for years off of YouTube and finding audiences here. Then there’s folks born on YouTube like Phil Defranco, whose company was acquired by Discovery earlier this year. He connects with young people in a way that’s unique. He’s doing news in a completely different way...http://digiday.com/platforms/youtubes-take-on-news/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Digiday%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily_Sailthru_July2013
IAB Engage: YouTube is as big as ITV among 15-34s
Brand reporting:
YouTube is as big as ITV among people between the ages of 15 and 34, according to Matt Brittin, Google's vice president of business and operations in Europe, speaking at the IAB Engage conference today 17 October.
Brittin boasted that the video platform "is bigger" than ITV among the sought after 15-34 demographic. YouTube claims to have a wider monthly reach in the age group than ITV.
In a bid to show the scale of Google's video platform in the UK, Brittin said 45 million hair and beauty videos are watched on YouTube every week, while on mobile, people spend 25 times more time watch watching YouTube than iPlayer or anything else...
http://www.themediabriefing.com/news/iab-engage-youtube-is-as-big-as-itv-among-15-34s
Monday, October 21, 2013
Flipboard says that it really wants to help publishers, not take advantage of them
gigaoma reporting:
he problem is that there are several different Flipboards: there’s the one that users (including me) love because it allows them to essentially create their own magazine out of RSS feeds, Twitter lists, Facebook and Flickr pages, and pretty much anything else that comes along. Then there’s the Flipboard some publishers see: the one that takes their content and reproduces it, and in some cases sells ads around it — all things that publishers believe only they should be doing. And finally, there’s Flipboard’s own vision of itself, which is as a partner for media companies, not a competitor.
One of the biggest issues for Flipboard when it comes to making peace with publishers is that its reach currently exceed its grasp. It wants to help more media companies monetize their content — the way it is already doing for a number of magazines, including some Conde Nast titles (although Wired and the New Yorker stepped back from the service last year) — but it is still a relatively small company, and doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure it needs to run an ad network.
Presumably, that’s one of the things that it will be doing with the $50 million in funding it just raised. And Marshall said his latest update that he is willing to reconsider his withdrawal from the service if Flipboard figures out a way to offer him the same kind of advertising-related income it says larger partners are getting:
...
The biggest selling point for Flipboard is that content that appears inside the app looks great — in many cases, better than it does on the publisher’s own website — and that includes advertising. It looks very much like a printed magazine, which is kind of the whole point. McCue’s pitch is that this allows for a form of large-scale display ad that very few online publications are doing, and that this will help take advertising back to what it was in the good old days of magazine publishing, which will ultimately result (and allegedly is resulting for some) in sharply higher revenue...
...The biggest selling point for Flipboard is that content that appears inside the app looks great — in many cases, better than it does on the publisher’s own website — and that includes advertising. It looks very much like a printed magazine, which is kind of the whole point. McCue’s pitch is that this allows for a form of large-scale display ad that very few online publications are doing, and that this will help take advertising back to what it was in the good old days of magazine publishing, which will ultimately result (and allegedly is resulting for some) in sharply higher revenue...http://gigaom.com/2013/10/19/flipboard-says-that-it-really-wants-to-help-publishers-not-take-advantage-of-them/?utm_source=General+Users&utm_campaign=7a601bfdc8-c%3Amed+d%3A10-21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dd83065c6-7a601bfdc8-99152541
he problem is that there are several different Flipboards: there’s the one that users (including me) love because it allows them to essentially create their own magazine out of RSS feeds, Twitter lists, Facebook and Flickr pages, and pretty much anything else that comes along. Then there’s the Flipboard some publishers see: the one that takes their content and reproduces it, and in some cases sells ads around it — all things that publishers believe only they should be doing. And finally, there’s Flipboard’s own vision of itself, which is as a partner for media companies, not a competitor.
One of the biggest issues for Flipboard when it comes to making peace with publishers is that its reach currently exceed its grasp. It wants to help more media companies monetize their content — the way it is already doing for a number of magazines, including some Conde Nast titles (although Wired and the New Yorker stepped back from the service last year) — but it is still a relatively small company, and doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure it needs to run an ad network.
Presumably, that’s one of the things that it will be doing with the $50 million in funding it just raised. And Marshall said his latest update that he is willing to reconsider his withdrawal from the service if Flipboard figures out a way to offer him the same kind of advertising-related income it says larger partners are getting:
...
The biggest selling point for Flipboard is that content that appears inside the app looks great — in many cases, better than it does on the publisher’s own website — and that includes advertising. It looks very much like a printed magazine, which is kind of the whole point. McCue’s pitch is that this allows for a form of large-scale display ad that very few online publications are doing, and that this will help take advertising back to what it was in the good old days of magazine publishing, which will ultimately result (and allegedly is resulting for some) in sharply higher revenue...
...The biggest selling point for Flipboard is that content that appears inside the app looks great — in many cases, better than it does on the publisher’s own website — and that includes advertising. It looks very much like a printed magazine, which is kind of the whole point. McCue’s pitch is that this allows for a form of large-scale display ad that very few online publications are doing, and that this will help take advertising back to what it was in the good old days of magazine publishing, which will ultimately result (and allegedly is resulting for some) in sharply higher revenue...http://gigaom.com/2013/10/19/flipboard-says-that-it-really-wants-to-help-publishers-not-take-advantage-of-them/?utm_source=General+Users&utm_campaign=7a601bfdc8-c%3Amed+d%3A10-21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dd83065c6-7a601bfdc8-99152541
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The Top 7 Reasons Why Mobile Ads Don't Work
adweek reporting:
A Dartmouth researcher's study sheds light on the mobile Web
and app users who don't click on ads. On a high level from the study,
here are the top seven reasons they steer clear of the ads on
smartphones and tablets (with some Adweek commentary thrown in).
1. The screen is too small, per 72 percent of survey
participants. Mobile marketers everywhere will want to bang their heads
against the wall over that one. And for tablet marketers, the researcher
believes most respondents were thinking of their smartphone usage more
so than their time on an iPad or Nexus 7.
2. People are just too busy for ads, according to 70
percent surveyed. You mean on-the-go consumers don't have time to kill?
No shocker here, either—outside maybe actually not being No. 1.
3. After tapping an ad and going to the landing page,
69 percent of respondents hate it that they cannot easily return to the
content they were reading or watching. This interfacing problem can
probably be successfully addressed by technologists, can't it?
...
Datta added, "The crucial differences in behavior show that ad
campaigns must be planned in a new way. What is critical is wide
audience coverage such as that available through demographic targeting
rather than narrower intender-based techniques."
And some good news for mobile from Dartmouth's findings. Smartphone and
tablet users are heavily immersed in what they are doing, so their
engagement is unusually high compared to computers.
Per Kopalle's research, 67 percent of consumers find mobile devices
more immersive than computers, while 63 percent find mobile content, in
particular, more immersive than computer content. So once again, it
likely stands to reason that superb ads can work with the mobile
consumer.
To Save Journalism, News Needs to Buy Into Data
Digiday reporting:
Smart news organizations will move from a “tracking” mentality that simply lists what audiences are doing to focus on what any such insight could mean for both journalism and the business of journalism. Newsrooms need to embrace the kind of number-crunching more common to marketers.
That means a focus on conversion: how to turn browsers and readers into loyal customers, and using data to uncover tactics that help surface better news recommendations. It means embracing real-time analytics, sometimes starting off with expensive third-party analytics providers but, increasingly, through homegrown tools, which are vital for newsroom decision-makers to try and constantly fine-tune digital offerings.
The challenge in most established newsrooms remains the ability — and willingness — of journalists and editors to pay attention to data and to actually want to act on it without reflexively falling back on age-old and often mistaken notions that actually responding to reader-behavior is nothing but pandering. Talking about data in the morning news meeting is a great start but quick actions have to follow the rhetoric throughout the day.
I also worry about a growing movement to throw out or disdain valuable metrics simply because a vocal minority believes they are irrelevant.
http://digiday.com/publishers/data-save-journalism/
Smart news organizations will move from a “tracking” mentality that simply lists what audiences are doing to focus on what any such insight could mean for both journalism and the business of journalism. Newsrooms need to embrace the kind of number-crunching more common to marketers.
That means a focus on conversion: how to turn browsers and readers into loyal customers, and using data to uncover tactics that help surface better news recommendations. It means embracing real-time analytics, sometimes starting off with expensive third-party analytics providers but, increasingly, through homegrown tools, which are vital for newsroom decision-makers to try and constantly fine-tune digital offerings.
The challenge in most established newsrooms remains the ability — and willingness — of journalists and editors to pay attention to data and to actually want to act on it without reflexively falling back on age-old and often mistaken notions that actually responding to reader-behavior is nothing but pandering. Talking about data in the morning news meeting is a great start but quick actions have to follow the rhetoric throughout the day.
I also worry about a growing movement to throw out or disdain valuable metrics simply because a vocal minority believes they are irrelevant.
http://digiday.com/publishers/data-save-journalism/
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Going digital isn’t just an upgrade — it’s a complete transformation in the way journalism is done
paidContent reporting:
Guardian deputy editor Katharine Viner noted in an excellent speech on Wednesday...
...But the real meat in Viner’s speech is her argument about how all of this changes (or at least should change) the nature of a journalist’s relationship with what Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor have called “the people formerly known as the audience.”
Readers often know more than you: The Guardian editor gives the example of a story about deep-water drilling and how an open Google Doc allowed experts from a range of fields to provide their knowledge about that topic, an approach that the British paper does better than just about anyone else.
Openness brings accountability: Instead of trying to disguise errors, the way many traditional outlets do, Viner talks about a story where the paper made a mistake and then in addition to correcting it, published a blog post discussing the mistake. Readers said this actually increased their trust.
Being open can produce scoops: Asking readers for their help can make them more likely to bring you information that changes a story dramatically, Viner notes — such as the 2009 story the Guardian did about the death of a newspaper vendor during the G20 protests in London.
http://paidcontent.org/2013/10/10/going-digital-isnt-just-an-upgrade-its-a-complete-transformation-in-the-way-journalism-is-done/?utm_source=General+Users&utm_campaign=0473fc1e61-c%3Amed+d%3A10-11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dd83065c6-0473fc1e61-99152541
Guardian deputy editor Katharine Viner noted in an excellent speech on Wednesday...
...But the real meat in Viner’s speech is her argument about how all of this changes (or at least should change) the nature of a journalist’s relationship with what Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor have called “the people formerly known as the audience.”
“Digital is not about putting up your story on the web. It’s about a fundamental redrawing of journalists’ relationship with our audience, how we think about our readers, our perception of our role in society, our status. We are no longer the all-seeing all-knowing journalists, delivering words from on high for readers to take in, passively.”
The benefits of doing open journalism
The benefits of being more open to the people who used to be the audience, Viner says, go beyond just touchy-feely things like being more connected to your readers, or getting them to retweet or distribute your content (which is what many media outlets and journalists seem to feel the social web is for). That openness can improve your journalism in a number of ways:Readers often know more than you: The Guardian editor gives the example of a story about deep-water drilling and how an open Google Doc allowed experts from a range of fields to provide their knowledge about that topic, an approach that the British paper does better than just about anyone else.
Openness brings accountability: Instead of trying to disguise errors, the way many traditional outlets do, Viner talks about a story where the paper made a mistake and then in addition to correcting it, published a blog post discussing the mistake. Readers said this actually increased their trust.
Being open can produce scoops: Asking readers for their help can make them more likely to bring you information that changes a story dramatically, Viner notes — such as the 2009 story the Guardian did about the death of a newspaper vendor during the G20 protests in London.
Paywalls are antithetical to the open web..
“A paywall is a typical “newspaper mindset” answer to that need – readers paid for content before, let’s make them pay again. But journalistically, paywalls are utterly antithetical to the open web. A paywalled website is just print in another form, making collaboration with the people formerly known as the audience much more difficult. You can’t take advantage of the benefits of the open web if you’re hidden away.”Viner goes on to talk about the benefits of linking, even to one’s competitors — something many media outlets still aren’t very good at — as well as the challenges of bringing the conversation about a story into the comment section of a newspaper, and how few journalists are good at that either. It’s a tremendous speech all in all, and if you care about media at all, I would encourage you to read the whole thing.
http://paidcontent.org/2013/10/10/going-digital-isnt-just-an-upgrade-its-a-complete-transformation-in-the-way-journalism-is-done/?utm_source=General+Users&utm_campaign=0473fc1e61-c%3Amed+d%3A10-11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dd83065c6-0473fc1e61-99152541
How Americans Get TV News at Home
Pew reporting: Even at a time of fragmenting media use, television remains the
dominant way that Americans get news at home, according to a new Pew
Research Center analysis of Nielsen data. And while the largest
audiences tune into local and network broadcast news, it is national
cable news that commands the most attention from its viewers.
Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1
On average, the cable news audience devotes twice as much time to that news source as local and network news viewers spend on those platforms. And the heaviest cable users are far more immersed in that coverage—watching for more than an hour a day—than the most loyal viewers of broadcast television news. Even those adults who are the heaviest viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable than those broadcast outlets.
http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/
Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1
On average, the cable news audience devotes twice as much time to that news source as local and network news viewers spend on those platforms. And the heaviest cable users are far more immersed in that coverage—watching for more than an hour a day—than the most loyal viewers of broadcast television news. Even those adults who are the heaviest viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable than those broadcast outlets.
http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/
Newspaper sales dive enters 8th straight year
Ken Doctor reporting:
As digital advertising sales soared 18% to a record high in the first six months of this year, the revenues of the publicly traded newspaper companies slipped an average of 5.5% to enter an eighth year of unabated decline.
Paced by a 145% increase in mobile ad sales, digital volume hit a half-year high of $20.1 billion, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade organization. The sum is nearly equal to the $22.3 billion in sales collectively produced by the nation’s 1,382 dailies for all of 2012.
Assuming digital and newspaper sales pursue the same trajectory for the balance of the year, then digital revenues for the full 12 months will be more than twice the revenues produced by newspapers, whose aggregate sales hit a record $49.4 billion as recently as 2005. In a measure of the dizzying pace at which the marketplace is shifting, interactive revenues were $12.5 billion in 2005.
As illustrated in the chart below, the growth in digital advertising is taking oxygen from the other legacy media, too.
While broadcast television sales grew by 6.4% in the first half of the year, magazine sales gained 0.4% and radio sales were flat. The data were provided by their respective industry associations, the Television Bureau of Advertising, the Association of Magazine Media and the Radio Advertising Bureau.
http://newsosaur.blogspot.fi/2013/10/newspaper-sales-dive-enters-8th.html
As digital advertising sales soared 18% to a record high in the first six months of this year, the revenues of the publicly traded newspaper companies slipped an average of 5.5% to enter an eighth year of unabated decline.
Paced by a 145% increase in mobile ad sales, digital volume hit a half-year high of $20.1 billion, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade organization. The sum is nearly equal to the $22.3 billion in sales collectively produced by the nation’s 1,382 dailies for all of 2012.
Assuming digital and newspaper sales pursue the same trajectory for the balance of the year, then digital revenues for the full 12 months will be more than twice the revenues produced by newspapers, whose aggregate sales hit a record $49.4 billion as recently as 2005. In a measure of the dizzying pace at which the marketplace is shifting, interactive revenues were $12.5 billion in 2005.
As illustrated in the chart below, the growth in digital advertising is taking oxygen from the other legacy media, too.
While broadcast television sales grew by 6.4% in the first half of the year, magazine sales gained 0.4% and radio sales were flat. The data were provided by their respective industry associations, the Television Bureau of Advertising, the Association of Magazine Media and the Radio Advertising Bureau.
http://newsosaur.blogspot.fi/2013/10/newspaper-sales-dive-enters-8th.html
Magazines Experiment With New Kinds of Paywalls
Mashable reporting:
A la carte paywalls have been in vogue with magazine publishers lately.
In July, Esquire put a $1.99 paywall around a nearly 10,000-word investigative story, "The Prophet" by Luke Dittrich. In a note about the paywall, David Granger, Esquire's editor in chief (pictured above), explained that the story took months to produce — and that such journalism doesn't come cheap.
Sports Illustrated also began testing a new variety of paywall this summer, but one that didn't ask readers to pay directly. Instead, it granted online readers access to certain print stories — ones typically not available to non-subscribers until an issue is off the newsstand, like cover stories — in exchange for watching a video ad of their choice. The experiment has been modest so far — about five to six stories have been behind the video paywall to date, a spokesperson for SI says.
In a third experiment, The Atlantic began packaging a selection of free online articles in an ad-free weekly magazine, available for $1.99 in iTunes. Of the decision to charge, editor in chief James Bennet writes that the magazine is exploring paid content options outside of advertising. "This is, for us, another experiment in putting to use any new means available to create and support the journalism of ideas that distinguishes The Atlantic," he explains.
And how are these paywall experiments faring? Granger tells Mashable "The Prophet" sold several thousands copies, but that it was "probably a wash, revenue-wise." Still, he hasn't ruled out another go. Esquire is set to launch a redesign of its site next year and is "working on how we might integrate some kind of paywall into it," Granger says, adding that there are no definite plans for a paywall yet.
mashable.com/2013/10/11/magazines-paywalls-esquire-sports-illustrated-atlantic/?utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily
A la carte paywalls have been in vogue with magazine publishers lately.
In July, Esquire put a $1.99 paywall around a nearly 10,000-word investigative story, "The Prophet" by Luke Dittrich. In a note about the paywall, David Granger, Esquire's editor in chief (pictured above), explained that the story took months to produce — and that such journalism doesn't come cheap.
Sports Illustrated also began testing a new variety of paywall this summer, but one that didn't ask readers to pay directly. Instead, it granted online readers access to certain print stories — ones typically not available to non-subscribers until an issue is off the newsstand, like cover stories — in exchange for watching a video ad of their choice. The experiment has been modest so far — about five to six stories have been behind the video paywall to date, a spokesperson for SI says.
In a third experiment, The Atlantic began packaging a selection of free online articles in an ad-free weekly magazine, available for $1.99 in iTunes. Of the decision to charge, editor in chief James Bennet writes that the magazine is exploring paid content options outside of advertising. "This is, for us, another experiment in putting to use any new means available to create and support the journalism of ideas that distinguishes The Atlantic," he explains.
And how are these paywall experiments faring? Granger tells Mashable "The Prophet" sold several thousands copies, but that it was "probably a wash, revenue-wise." Still, he hasn't ruled out another go. Esquire is set to launch a redesign of its site next year and is "working on how we might integrate some kind of paywall into it," Granger says, adding that there are no definite plans for a paywall yet.
mashable.com/2013/10/11/magazines-paywalls-esquire-sports-illustrated-atlantic/?utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily
Mutter: 74 percent of newspaper audience is over 45
Poynter reporting:
he new data show that the newspaper audience has aged radically since I performed the same analysis in 2010, discovering that only 51% of newspaper readers were older than 45,” he writes.
TV news’ audience is also getting older, Pew said in its most recent study of news consumption habits. 34 percent of people under 30 reported they watched TV news the day before in the 2012 survey; in 2006, 49 percent of that demographic said it had. Where are those pesky millennials getting their news? One-third say social networks fill that role.http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/200805/mutter-74-percent-of-newspaper-audience-is-over-45/
he new data show that the newspaper audience has aged radically since I performed the same analysis in 2010, discovering that only 51% of newspaper readers were older than 45,” he writes.
If the aging of the newspaper audience seemed like a problem for the industry in back in 2010, then the far older audience today can be regarded as nothing less than a crisis.
TV news’ audience is also getting older, Pew said in its most recent study of news consumption habits. 34 percent of people under 30 reported they watched TV news the day before in the 2012 survey; in 2006, 49 percent of that demographic said it had. Where are those pesky millennials getting their news? One-third say social networks fill that role.http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/200805/mutter-74-percent-of-newspaper-audience-is-over-45/
Friday, October 11, 2013
The newsonomics of 10 ways we’ll judge 2014
Ken Doctor reporting:
At the World Publishing Expo held in Berlin this week, two CEOs of major international news companies — Andrew Miller of The Guardian and Mathias Döpfner of Axel Springer — were asked a question: On a scale of one to 10, how far along were there companies in their digital transition? How far have they traveled on the road to where they need to be?
Miller: 3. Döpfner: 4.
At the conference, held by WAN-IFRA, Döpfner summed up the chances of all this activity producing a happy result in a single word: “Perhaps.”
As the news industry approaches 2014 — wary and uneasy, its annual budgeting exercises by now a familiar form of torture — that “perhaps” sums up so much.
Over the past three years, new hopes and strategies have been fueled by the new knowledge that readers will indeed pay — and sometimes a lot — for digitally delivered content. But the deepening print ad downturn has allowed no one to enjoy that lesson.
You can sum up 2013 in news publishing in a single word: sobering.
So as that budgeting starts to take out more staff and change the nature of how news companies are run, let’s take a look at the 2014 soon to come. Let’s look at the 10 of the most impactful facts that look ready to shape the year ahead:
At the World Publishing Expo held in Berlin this week, two CEOs of major international news companies — Andrew Miller of The Guardian and Mathias Döpfner of Axel Springer — were asked a question: On a scale of one to 10, how far along were there companies in their digital transition? How far have they traveled on the road to where they need to be?
Miller: 3. Döpfner: 4.
At the conference, held by WAN-IFRA, Döpfner summed up the chances of all this activity producing a happy result in a single word: “Perhaps.”
As the news industry approaches 2014 — wary and uneasy, its annual budgeting exercises by now a familiar form of torture — that “perhaps” sums up so much.
Over the past three years, new hopes and strategies have been fueled by the new knowledge that readers will indeed pay — and sometimes a lot — for digitally delivered content. But the deepening print ad downturn has allowed no one to enjoy that lesson.
You can sum up 2013 in news publishing in a single word: sobering.
So as that budgeting starts to take out more staff and change the nature of how news companies are run, let’s take a look at the 2014 soon to come. Let’s look at the 10 of the most impactful facts that look ready to shape the year ahead:
- The print ad decline continues unabated. As
recently as this year, news publishers expected the drop in print
advertising to flatten out. Marketers’ rush to shift print dollars and
euros to digital would slow a bit as advertisers found some balance in
their spending. A recovering economy would help lift their print boats a
bit.
It hasn’t happened. Quite the opposite. If anything, we’ve seen an acceleration
of the transition; European publishers are telling me of double-digit
print declines, while U.S. ones are struggling to keep their losses in
the high single-digit range. Most importantly, they now believe next
year will just offer more of the same. Negative print revenue is a
foregone conclusion in 2014 budgeting; the only question is how much.
The big question: If it took almost a decade for news publishers to lose half of their print ad revenue, might it take just half a decade to lose another half? The astounding toll so far: The global newspaper industry is down $51 billion a year in total revenues from 2006, having lost 39 percent of its take...
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8672091774752856243#editor/target=post;postID=5018473897373076169
Don’t write off tablet magazines
Poynter reporting:
Jon Lund in GigaOM recently declared tablet magazines a failure.
That’s true in the sense that they haven’t substantially impacted overall magazine circulation. Using Alliance of Audited Media numbers, Lund lists the percentages that “digital replica” paid subscriptions, such as for tablets, contributes to the total circulation for 25 magazines. They ranged from a high of 38 percent of total circulation (Game Informer Magazine, a noted outlier) to 2 percent (People magazine).
Like Lund, I’d discourage any new publication from focusing solely on tablet apps, stored deep inside iPad folders or in the dreaded Newsstand, far from the dynamic reach of social media and the Web....
...
But consider two of my favorite digital magazine apps: The New Yorker and The Atlantic Weekly.
The former, despite its irritating recent switch from paginated content to breathtakingly long scrolls, offers the cleanest, most convenient way for me to read New Yorker pieces. And it takes advantage of the tablet form without resorting to flashy interactive design. Short videos and poems read aloud by authors enrich the content without requiring lots of extra production resources.
The Atlantic’s foray into weekly publishing, meanwhile, also presents a model for tablet content that doesn’t profess to be a game-changer but fits nicely alongside the company’s other digital products. The Atlantic Weekly bundles pre-existing content from the Web that readers might have missed during the week. It collects only a few stories, presenting them all in the same simple design template.
Although these relatively simply apps certainly cost something in terms of staff and publishing-platform fees, Atlantic editor-in-chief James Bennet told Poynter in an email: “We do put a good deal of work into The Weekly – we wouldn’t be asking readers to pay for it if we didn’t – but we’ve been pretty rigorous about scoping that work to keep the costs in line with sales,” Bennet said.
The Atlantic Weekly requires work from four primary staffers: an editor, copy editor, designer and producer, none of whom work on this product full-time. He didn’t disclose sales figures but said they’ve exceeded expectations. Three-quarters of readers are monthly ($2.99) or yearly ($19.99) subscribers; single editions cost $1.99...
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/mobile-media/225440/dont-write-off-tablet-magazines/
Jon Lund in GigaOM recently declared tablet magazines a failure.
That’s true in the sense that they haven’t substantially impacted overall magazine circulation. Using Alliance of Audited Media numbers, Lund lists the percentages that “digital replica” paid subscriptions, such as for tablets, contributes to the total circulation for 25 magazines. They ranged from a high of 38 percent of total circulation (Game Informer Magazine, a noted outlier) to 2 percent (People magazine).
Like Lund, I’d discourage any new publication from focusing solely on tablet apps, stored deep inside iPad folders or in the dreaded Newsstand, far from the dynamic reach of social media and the Web....
...
But consider two of my favorite digital magazine apps: The New Yorker and The Atlantic Weekly.
The former, despite its irritating recent switch from paginated content to breathtakingly long scrolls, offers the cleanest, most convenient way for me to read New Yorker pieces. And it takes advantage of the tablet form without resorting to flashy interactive design. Short videos and poems read aloud by authors enrich the content without requiring lots of extra production resources.
The Atlantic’s foray into weekly publishing, meanwhile, also presents a model for tablet content that doesn’t profess to be a game-changer but fits nicely alongside the company’s other digital products. The Atlantic Weekly bundles pre-existing content from the Web that readers might have missed during the week. It collects only a few stories, presenting them all in the same simple design template.
Although these relatively simply apps certainly cost something in terms of staff and publishing-platform fees, Atlantic editor-in-chief James Bennet told Poynter in an email: “We do put a good deal of work into The Weekly – we wouldn’t be asking readers to pay for it if we didn’t – but we’ve been pretty rigorous about scoping that work to keep the costs in line with sales,” Bennet said.
The Atlantic Weekly requires work from four primary staffers: an editor, copy editor, designer and producer, none of whom work on this product full-time. He didn’t disclose sales figures but said they’ve exceeded expectations. Three-quarters of readers are monthly ($2.99) or yearly ($19.99) subscribers; single editions cost $1.99...
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/mobile-media/225440/dont-write-off-tablet-magazines/
For some publishers, the digital-first transition is getting a bit less bumpy
emedia vitals rpeorting:
The digital publishing industry is kicking off some positive vibes. Online ad revenue for the first half of the year passed $20 billion, an 18% jump over the same period last year, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Mobile’s share of total ad spend more than doubled, from 7% to 15%, accounting for $3 billion in revenue.
While launches of new magazine titles slowed over the first half of the year, so did the number of titles that were shut down, according to MediaFinder, which tracks U.S. and Canadian publications. For the first six months of 2013, 97 new titles launched, down from 133 in the first half of 2012, and 29 magazines closed, a drop from the 48 closures in the same period last year.
And while print ad pages continue their decline, ad units in tablet editions increased 17.5% in the third quarter and have jumped 22% over the first nine months of the year, according to new Publishers Information Bureau data released by the Association of Magazine Media (aka MPA).
There are other, less tangible signs that publishers’ print-to-digital transitions are becoming less bumpy as cultures and business models evolve. Financial Times editor Lionel Barber this week disclosed the next steps in the publication’s evolving “digital-first” strategy, including plans to launch a single, global print edition next year – a significant departure from the FT’s traditional multi-edition production model.
“Our print product will derive from the web offering - not vice versa,” Barber wrote in a staff memo. He acknowledged that the changes involve not just processes, but the mindsets of editorial staffers:
The digital publishing industry is kicking off some positive vibes. Online ad revenue for the first half of the year passed $20 billion, an 18% jump over the same period last year, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Mobile’s share of total ad spend more than doubled, from 7% to 15%, accounting for $3 billion in revenue.
While launches of new magazine titles slowed over the first half of the year, so did the number of titles that were shut down, according to MediaFinder, which tracks U.S. and Canadian publications. For the first six months of 2013, 97 new titles launched, down from 133 in the first half of 2012, and 29 magazines closed, a drop from the 48 closures in the same period last year.
And while print ad pages continue their decline, ad units in tablet editions increased 17.5% in the third quarter and have jumped 22% over the first nine months of the year, according to new Publishers Information Bureau data released by the Association of Magazine Media (aka MPA).
There are other, less tangible signs that publishers’ print-to-digital transitions are becoming less bumpy as cultures and business models evolve. Financial Times editor Lionel Barber this week disclosed the next steps in the publication’s evolving “digital-first” strategy, including plans to launch a single, global print edition next year – a significant departure from the FT’s traditional multi-edition production model.
“Our print product will derive from the web offering - not vice versa,” Barber wrote in a staff memo. He acknowledged that the changes involve not just processes, but the mindsets of editorial staffers:
http://www.emediavitals.com/content/some-publishers-digital-first-transition-getting-bit-less-bumpy“FT journalism must adapt further to a world where reporters and commentators converse with readers. Our goal must be to deepen engagement and ensure we meet readers' demands whenever and however they turn to us for breaking news and quality analysis.”
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Why tablet magazines are a failure
gigaom reporting:
http://gigaom.com/2013/10/06/tablet-magazines-failure/
Last year, Nielsen estimated the average mobile user has 41 apps on his or her smartphone. In April, a Flurry study showed the average smartphone user opens only eight apps a day, with the most popular being Facebook, YouTube and game apps. And according to a 2012 report from Localytics, 22 percent of all apps are only opened once.
Though these numbers are for mobile in general, not just
tablets, the picture is clear: There’s not much room for magazine apps.
Magazines need extremely dedicated readers to avoid being buried.
Invisible in the stream of information
To make things worse, magazine apps themselves are invisible in the large streams of information governing the web.
When a magazine is organized as an app rather than as a
website, its articles can neither be indexed or searched on the web. And
even if they could, clicking the link in Google at best takes readers
to an app store, not to the article itself — cutting the magazine out of
the greatest traffic driver in today’s world.
The pattern is the same on social media. When you can’t
link directly to an article, the urge to tweet or tell your friends
about it drastically shrinks. And curators like Flipboard and Zite can’t
look into, link or grab content from within magazine apps.
Antiquated monoliths
When I nevertheless manage to find the time to open up an
iPad magazine, I feel as if I’m holding an outdated media product in my
hands. That’s ironic because these apps tend to be visually appealing,
with interactive graphics, embedded videos and well-crafted navigation
tools. But the gorgeous layout that works so well in print gets
monolithic, almost scary, in its perfectionism on the iPad, and I find
myself longing for the web. It’s messy but far more open, more
accessible and more adaptable to me, my devices and needs.
Most magazine apps also fail in social.http://gigaom.com/2013/10/06/tablet-magazines-failure/
Unga konsumerar allt mer nyheter - men inte vie papper
mediavärlden reporting:
Den vanligaste nyhetskällan är tv, förutom för gruppen 17 till 18-åringar som får merparten av sina nyheter från mobilen.
Andelen som tar del av nyheter i papperstidningar är tydligt lägre än när motsvarande mätning från 2010.
Den sajt som får mest besök av åldersgruppen 9 till 12 år är Youtube, för äldre ungdomar är det Facebook som gäller.
I undersökningen ställdes också frågor om inställningen till reklam på tv. En klar majoritet menar att den är tråkig och/eller irriterande. Men reklam på internet är ännu värre. Några frågor om ungdomarnas inställning till reklam i papperstidningar ställdes inte.
Att mobilanvändningen förändrats visas också i att nu använder 94 procent av alla 15-åringar sina mobiler till att vara ute på nätet. 2010 var siffran 12 procent.
Smartphones är i majoritet i samtliga åldersgrupper.
http://www.medievarlden.se/nyheter/2013/10/unga-konsumerar-allt-mer-nyheter
Nyhetskonsumtionen bland unga har ökat. Men de hittar dem inte i papperstidningar.
Mobilen är den kanal där ungas nyhetskonsumtion ökat mest. Det visar nya siffror från Statens medieråd.Den vanligaste nyhetskällan är tv, förutom för gruppen 17 till 18-åringar som får merparten av sina nyheter från mobilen.
Andelen som tar del av nyheter i papperstidningar är tydligt lägre än när motsvarande mätning från 2010.
Den sajt som får mest besök av åldersgruppen 9 till 12 år är Youtube, för äldre ungdomar är det Facebook som gäller.
I undersökningen ställdes också frågor om inställningen till reklam på tv. En klar majoritet menar att den är tråkig och/eller irriterande. Men reklam på internet är ännu värre. Några frågor om ungdomarnas inställning till reklam i papperstidningar ställdes inte.
Att mobilanvändningen förändrats visas också i att nu använder 94 procent av alla 15-åringar sina mobiler till att vara ute på nätet. 2010 var siffran 12 procent.
Smartphones är i majoritet i samtliga åldersgrupper.
http://www.medievarlden.se/nyheter/2013/10/unga-konsumerar-allt-mer-nyheter
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Pew surveys of audience habits suggest perilous future for news
Poynter reprting:
News organizations have been confronting the problem of a shrinking audience for more than a decade, but trends strongly suggest that these difficulties may only worsen over time. Today’s younger and middle-aged audience seems unlikely to ever match the avid news interest of the generations they will replace, even as they enthusiastically transition to the Internet as their principal source of news.
Pew Research longitudinal surveys find that Gen Xers (33-47 years old) and Millennials (18-31 years old), who spent less time than older people following the news at the outset of their adulthood, have so far shown little indication that that they will become heavier news consumers as they age.
Notably, a 2012 Pew Research national poll found members of the Silent generation (67-84 years old) spending 84 minutes watching, reading or listening to the news the day before the survey interview. Boomers (48-66 years old), did not lag far behind (77 minutes), but Xers and Millennials spent much less time: 66 minutes and 46 minutes, respectively.
The truly troubling trend for the media is that Pew Research surveys give little indication that news consumption increases among members of the younger age groups as they get older.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/225139/pew-surveys-of-audience-habits-suggest-perilous-future-for-news/
News organizations have been confronting the problem of a shrinking audience for more than a decade, but trends strongly suggest that these difficulties may only worsen over time. Today’s younger and middle-aged audience seems unlikely to ever match the avid news interest of the generations they will replace, even as they enthusiastically transition to the Internet as their principal source of news.
Pew Research longitudinal surveys find that Gen Xers (33-47 years old) and Millennials (18-31 years old), who spent less time than older people following the news at the outset of their adulthood, have so far shown little indication that that they will become heavier news consumers as they age.
Notably, a 2012 Pew Research national poll found members of the Silent generation (67-84 years old) spending 84 minutes watching, reading or listening to the news the day before the survey interview. Boomers (48-66 years old), did not lag far behind (77 minutes), but Xers and Millennials spent much less time: 66 minutes and 46 minutes, respectively.
The truly troubling trend for the media is that Pew Research surveys give little indication that news consumption increases among members of the younger age groups as they get older.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/225139/pew-surveys-of-audience-habits-suggest-perilous-future-for-news/
The Quartz Way (1)
Monday Note reporting:
I used to think the breadth and depth of older large newsrooms could guarantee their survival in a digital world plagued by mediocrity and loose ethics. But considering great pure players like Quartz — which is just the latest offspring of a larger league — I now come to think we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of smaller, digital-only outlets that are closing the gap, quality-wise, with legacy media. In the context of an increasingly segmented and short-on-time readership, I can only wonder how long the legacy newsroom’s strategic advantage of size and scope will last.
Quartz editorial staff has nothing to do with the low-paid, poultry farm newsrooms of many digital outlets. Most of the 25 journalists and editors (out a staff of 50) were drawn from well established brands such as Bloomberg, The Economist, Reuters, New York Magazine or The Wall Street Journal (Kevin Delaney, 41, is himself a former WSJ.com managing editor). “Our staff is slightly younger than the average newsroom, and it is steeped in the notion of entrepreneurial journalism”, says the Quartz editor-in-chief. “With Quartz, we had many opportunity to rethink the assumptions of traditional media”.
The original idea was to devise how The Economist would look like if it had been born in 2012 rather than in 1843, explains Delaney. It would be digital native, mostly for mobile reading, and focus on contemporary economic engines such as digital, globalization, e-commerce, the future of energy, debt, China, etc. Instead of abiding by the usual classification of business news that looks like a nomenclature from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Industry, Services, Markets, Trade, etc.), Quartz opted for a sexier taxonomy; its coverage is based on an evolving list of “Obsessions“, a much more cognitive-friendly way to consider the news cycle than the usual “beat” (read this on the matter). As an avid magazine reader, Delaney said he derived the idea from publications like New York
Magazine...
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/10/06/the-quartz-way-1/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_campaign=20131006_m117465766_Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_term=The+Quartz+Way+_281_29
I used to think the breadth and depth of older large newsrooms could guarantee their survival in a digital world plagued by mediocrity and loose ethics. But considering great pure players like Quartz — which is just the latest offspring of a larger league — I now come to think we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of smaller, digital-only outlets that are closing the gap, quality-wise, with legacy media. In the context of an increasingly segmented and short-on-time readership, I can only wonder how long the legacy newsroom’s strategic advantage of size and scope will last.
Quartz editorial staff has nothing to do with the low-paid, poultry farm newsrooms of many digital outlets. Most of the 25 journalists and editors (out a staff of 50) were drawn from well established brands such as Bloomberg, The Economist, Reuters, New York Magazine or The Wall Street Journal (Kevin Delaney, 41, is himself a former WSJ.com managing editor). “Our staff is slightly younger than the average newsroom, and it is steeped in the notion of entrepreneurial journalism”, says the Quartz editor-in-chief. “With Quartz, we had many opportunity to rethink the assumptions of traditional media”.
The original idea was to devise how The Economist would look like if it had been born in 2012 rather than in 1843, explains Delaney. It would be digital native, mostly for mobile reading, and focus on contemporary economic engines such as digital, globalization, e-commerce, the future of energy, debt, China, etc. Instead of abiding by the usual classification of business news that looks like a nomenclature from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Industry, Services, Markets, Trade, etc.), Quartz opted for a sexier taxonomy; its coverage is based on an evolving list of “Obsessions“, a much more cognitive-friendly way to consider the news cycle than the usual “beat” (read this on the matter). As an avid magazine reader, Delaney said he derived the idea from publications like New York
Magazine...
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/10/06/the-quartz-way-1/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_campaign=20131006_m117465766_Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_term=The+Quartz+Way+_281_29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)