Archive for the ‘media’ Category

News and publishing companies, redesigning their business?

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

A lot of rumours are floating around at the moment about how publishing companies are developing digital platforms for the print offerings.

Condé Nast recently showed off a concept video of Wired’s supposed iTablet application at Wired’s New York store.  The video shows Wired magazine as an interactive title that’s updated with not just print but video content.  Techcruch meanwhile have seen a demo of Sports Illustrated’s concept for tablet computers (above).  The Wonder Factory have worked with Sports Illustrated’s publisher Time Inc to create a video that like Wired’s concept shows how Sports Illustrated would work (below).

These are interesting times for the news and publishing industries.  I said some time ago that Apple could come into the market with a tablet based device that would aggregate your favourite titles on an iTablet.  Such system would use iTunes to work and manage your subscriptions.  The Sydney Morning Herald ran a story at the end of October claiming that Apple had in fact ‘sent specifications of the device to Australian media companies in an effort to sound out whether they would be interested in delivering their content to the tablet.’  None would go on the record though.

And Rupert Murdoch is very much considering putting up a paywall in front of his titles while taking these off Google.  This could well help the news industry bring in much needed subscription income.

The fact is that news and print as we know will have to evolve and provide more that just words and pictures if people are to subscribe.  The evidence though is pointing to the fact that media companies are redesigning their business and their offerings.

Journalists And Social Media: What PRs Should Know

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

This evening I have the pleasure of hosting a CIPR Greater London Group event on journalism and social media at Hill & Knowlton.  As speakers we have Nic Newman, the BBC’s Future Media & Technology Controller, Journalism and Digital Distribution, and Journalism.co.uk Editor Laura Oliver.

Journalism has been changing for a number of years, with many people claiming that news and media as we know it is dying.  A slight exaggeration.  Social media though is having an effect of newsgathering and it is this and what PRs should know about it that we’ll be investigating this evening.

Amongst the many questions I’ll will be asking:

  • How the BBC and other news outlets use social media to research stories and generate contacts?
  • How social media is being integrated into the newsgathering process?
  • How journalists use social media to share content and links with their audiences.  Is social media opening up journalists notebooks and making newsgathering more transparent?  And what can PRs learn from this?
  • Importantly, given that social media is about the now – feelings and reactions of people, what do journalists look for online and on social media sites to generate a story and what can PRs learn from the change in power and how this helps journalists?

Social media is not just redefining news but changing how PRs work.  Long gone are the days when the reputation was at risk of a negative piece in the media.  Now people, consumers, on social networks can generate a feeling that can affect a brand.  Power is moving to the people and this is something that as PRs we need to understand.

If you’d like to know more then guests will be twittering live from the event using the #LondonPRlive hashtag.

I’ll be updating my blog tomorrow with my thoughts.

Writing on the wall?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Remember when iTunes was released way back in January 2001? Really, do you remember? At it’s launch Steve Jobs was confident. He knew what he was giving us and how it might transform our music listening and buying habits.  At the unveiling at Macworld Expo Jobs said: “iTunes is miles ahead of every other jukebox application, and we hope its dramatically simpler user interface will bring even more people into the digital music revolution.” With that straight to the point statement the landscape for the music industry and other associated creative industries changed.

These industries didn’t know what lay ahead. Ten months after iTunes was introduced, on October 23rd, Apple released the iPod. Eighteen-months later in April 2003 – while the music industry was doing battle with file-shares, Apple opened it’s iTunes store. And within six years Apple had 70% of worldwide online digital music sales, making iTunes the largest digital music retailer.

Steve Jobs was hailed as a saviour of the music industry. He had a vision and made it work. Today, the news, media and publishing industries are crying out for a saviour that can help rescue them from the catastrophic situation that they find themselves in.  Sales down and advertising at an all time low.

Some have tried, amongst them Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who in November 2007 launched the Kindle, a popular eReader that gave Amazon customers in the US access to an initial catalogue of over 88,000 digital titles. Today, there are more than 300,000 titles, including subscriptions to newspapers.

The Kindle has hype. It sold out quickly and had the support of Rupert Murdoch. Yet, the Kindle and it’s successors didn’t have the magic that Apple had, nor the practicality that is designed into every Apple product.

In the background though, Apple and Amazon are facing the monopolistic might of Google – a true online mammoth, which is looking to digitise the world’s books and create a vast online library. With a court hearing in New York next month, Google is hoping to legally confirm a deal signed last year with US authors and publishers. In the deal, Google would set up a Book Rights Registry and position itself as a PRS-style (ASCAP to our US readers) entity for writers and publishers. Some believe that this should not be allowed.

Yet this deal has forced many in the news, media and publishing industries to really have a look at how they operate and how they must make the most of the internet.

Yes, the Google Books deal would allow people to search books through it’s search engine, but it would also set up a model for making money from publishing, possibly through eReaders and the like. It might also create new income streams for the news and media industries, which have been suffering since customers started to switch online, where news has available free for years because publishers wanted a slice of the online advertising pie. Sadly, as I said in my previous post, they set themselves up for a tough time, dependent on advertising income, which plummeted when the current recession hit.

And why is this Google Books deal relevant to news outlets?  Well, Google has reached a settlement with book publishers in the US and news and media companies might be hoping that the online giant will hear their talk of paywalls. What they need is for Google to play ball and start paying for listing their headlines and first paragraphs through its very popular Google News aggregator.

And it appears that Google is willing to play. In an eight-page response to the Newspaper Association of America request for paid-content proposals, Google revealed that it was developing a micro-payment system for paid-for-online content.

In the document Google outlines its vision for a “premium content ecosystem” that includes subscriptions across multiple news sites, syndication on third-party sites, accessibility to search and various payment options, including small fees for access to individual pieces of content (known as micropayments).

Google says that: “While we believe that advertising will likely remain the main source of revenue for most news content, a paid model can serve as an important source of additional revenue. In addition, a successful paid content model can enhance advertising opportunities, rather than replace them.”

It confirms a Google’s vision for “a premium content ecosystem includes the following features:

· Single sign-on capability for users to access content and manage subscriptions

· Ability for publishers to combine subscriptions from different titles together for one price

· Ability for publishers to create multiple payment options and easily include/exclude content behind a paywall

· Multiple tiers of access to search including 1) snippets only with “subscription” label, 2) access to preview pages and 3) “first click free” access

· Advertising systems that offer highly relevant ads for users, such as interest-based advertising

The payment system, which is described as being in production, would help and confirm News International’s plans to charge for access to it’s content online within the next 12 months. Or at least it gives us a clue of how paywalls might work.

Currently most news outlets only make money online from advertising, while print makes it from both from sales and advertising. The exceptions here being titles such as The FT, The Wall Street Journal, as well as other online subscription based outlets. The industry is starting to see how valuable it could be to have committed subscribers accessing their content.

Publishers meanwhile are starting to stand firm against Google’s News aggregator.  In Italy, the Italian association of daily newspaper and periodical publishers, claim “members news sites receive no compensation for the news picked up by Google News Italia and if they do not appear on a Google search they are denied access to thousands of potential ‘visitors’ who generate advertising income.  ”Google argues that it helps newspaper websites make money through online advertising and does not misappropriate content.”

With its Google Books operation and details of it’s plans for a micro payment system using Checkout, one has to assume that Google is looking to safeguard its position and transform the news, media and publishing industries just like Jobs changed the landscape for music.  After all, “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.  This applies to all information – paid and free.”

And Google is planning to replicate the model that Apple develop with it’s possible initiative with news, and possibly Book. Hidden in the document Google confirms that a revenue split would be comparable to “Apple’s models on iTunes and AppStore and consonant with experiments being currently conducted on YouTube.”

The question is, with rumours of an Apple Tablet, could Jobs undermine what Google might be planning?

Apple has done it before and it has the infrastructure to do it again and be the knight in shining armour for a beleaguered set of industries.

The media landscape is changing, and it’s changing fast.

Changing and charging times for news

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

No more news?  I think not!

No more news?

The MacTaggart Lecture took place last week with News Corporation’s James Murdoch deciding at long last to take the stand at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International TV Festival. Murdoch wasted no time in setting his stall out to get support as he painted a grim picture of the state of the UK’s media industry. Pointing the finger at the BBC, Murdoch described the corporation as a villain that had a “chilling” hold on the UK media landscape.

Given that we are in a recession Auntie was always going to be an easy target for the man from Sky. Murdoch though did have an audience.

After all, for quite a number of years we have been told that the news industry is dying a slow death. Print media – national, local and magazines – was passing away. Broadcast news is on the way out. Even subscription-based online news sites were in A&E. All very terminal. And all before one of the worst recessions in living memory, which has this year pushed advertising income down in many newspaper groups by between 20 and 30 per cent.

We are told that we, the consumers, are guilty of killing the industry by wanting our news for free. So whose fault is it that leading papers like The Observer are considering ceasing all together?

The fact is that since media executives decided to chase online advertising revenue stream at the beginning of the decade circulation of print newspapers and magazines have been dropping. As Alan Mutter points out in his blog, publishers couldn’t “figure out how to charge for content without throttling their web traffic and the online advertising that comes along with it.” What execs did was undermine their own industry by offering the goods for free, on a different platform maybe, but still without charge. Thus conditioning consumers to expect news on the house. Interesting strategy.

The Wall Street Journal though stepped out early on and offered access to its content online through a subscription service. They were one of the first to implement this strategy and in 2007 found itself with a daily circulation of more than 2 million, with approximately 931,000 paying online subscribers. While the Journal might be seen as a niche title with a focus on business and finance it certainly is a healthy position to be in, bucking the worldwide downward trend in income and circulation.

Meanwhile the UK-owned Financial Times is a title that has used a subscription-based strategy to its advantage. It decided to reduce the amount of free content available online and started to charge for access to the Lex column, FT Alphaville and others. FT.com now has 117,000 individual subscribers and makes it’s content available on a range of platforms including the US Kindle, as well as a new iPhone app, which was released to rave reviews. The app does what it’s designed to do – give users a taste of the quality journalism that the FT is renowned for through access to free content. But it also tempts users to subscribe to the FT so that they can make the most of the app.

Earlier this year Rupert Murdoch signalled that his news organisations would start charging for access to content online. This after News Corporation announced a 97 per cent slump across its newspaper titles. The rest of the industry took a deep breath, as the unspoken had at long last been made public.

Advertising-reliant media has been hit hard, leaving the industry to rethink its business and wonder how it is going to survive in the recession. The fact is that it can no longer rely on advertising revenue alone from its print and online platforms. With advertising budgets slashed, the news and media industries must find income from the people on the street. That means charging them for content.

Like the FT, The Times already offers a subscription service to readers. I subscribe to both, which is why I wonder if we will see The Times follow the FT’s model of offering limited free content online and in depth to subscribers or pay as you read customers.

Print itself might become a pointer to a fuller online package where news packages can be developed by taste and interest. Pay 90 pence and get part of the story. Subscribe and you get the full picture, together with the background briefings and extra content – video, podcasts, reviews, etc.

And what about magazines, I hear you ask? Well, yes, some titles have been bucking the downward trend, but overall sales are down. The proposition will need to be rethought and subscription services will be brought in.

Publishers like News Corporation have been backing the Kindle as a portable aggregator of news. And it makes sense. What also makes sense is the news of News Corporation meeting with other major publishers to discuss the setting of a consortium that would charge for news online.

Some people have come out and very publically stated that charging for news online won’t work. People expect it for free and won’t part with their cash. I think people will pay, but they will have to believe that they are getting value. In fact people already pay. The Times and The Financial Times already offer and heavily promote subscription based services to their print titles. The FT itself gives access to their content online to those who subscribe to the print edition of the FT. So, could a subscription service similar to this work? I think so. While I myself am a subscriber to both of these titles, as well as plenty of other magazines, I feel that subscription based wall offers exclusivity and value. Of course publishers will have to make sure that what is offered is exclusive, something that differentiates them from their competitors.

Not just that, but if your daily and monthly subscriptions were updated to a Kindle, Apple Tables or other eReader device, say at night when traditionally they went to press, then you knew that you were getting your titles within minutes of the copy being finished.

What you need is an ‘iTunes-style’ store through which you can get access and pay for a wide range of titles from around the world. A store through which you can get your UK titles as well as international titles that tick your interest box, so if you’re into fashion your GQ and Vogue from France, Italy, Japan and the US. And if it’s music, then Spin, Rolling Stone from the US, as well as UK’s NME. All downloaded to your device and updates sent via Wi-Fi wherever you are.

Of course social media will have a game to play in a new media landscape.  Titles are already publishing stories on Twitter, sending updates of breaking news stories as well sharing thoughts and knowledges and subjects they cover.  Social media is drawing people in to titles and for PRs enabling another tool to listen and follow journalists on their beat.

And ramping up subscriptions when advertising is down can only be a good thing for an industry that as tradition relied on advertising income.

You know, it might just make sense.

And as for the BBC? Well, news outlets need a standard to measure themselves against and the BBC is that standard for news quality. Criticising the BBC in my opinion is highlighting the weaknesses in your offering.

Reward your customers and save your reputation, the O2 way

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009
Apple's iPhone 3GS. New customers have better deals than O2's loyal customers. This is wrong.

Apple

Britain is a country with little focus on customer care.  In fact for many UK businesses rewarding customers for their spend and loyalty appears to be an after thought.  Rarely do companies invest in their customers so to get them to do the ‘word-of-mouth’ sale on their behalf, which as we know is the best endorsement and way to get new customers in.

Just look at UK mobile phone operator O2, which yesterday released details of it’s pricing policy for the Apple’s much anticipated iPhone 3GS, over which it has exclusive UK rights.  The sting wasn’t the 18-month fee of between £96 and £274 depending on your tariff, but the cost for current customers who signed up for the minimum term this time last year.  Existing customers were told that they would have to pay for the remaining terms of their existing iPhone 3G contracts, which could be anything over £150.  All very different to when O2 offered a free upgrade from the first iPhone to the current hand-set.

You would have thought that pricing policy for such a desirable product would have been developed whereby existing customers aren’t made to feel hostage.  In fact, the sweets have been offered to new customers while existing ones are being ignored.  A big mistake given that many O2 iPhone users have turned against the company, complaining not just about its pricing policy but it’s lamentable 3G nationwide coverage, to name but a few points.

You wonder why the company didn’t think of empowering its customers with new models so to reward them and encourage them to further promote the company and brand to others.  Blogs though are being written picking on all of O2s issues, working to dissuade customers from switching to a company that cares little for their users.

The #O2fail hashtag and Twitition on Twitter have over 2100 people signed-up.  And the blogosphere is certainly working hard to knock O2 where it hurts.  The media is also running stories, with The Daily Telegraph and Sky News highlighting the concerns from loyal customers.

As it stands and having set a populist precedent with the free upgrade between the first and second generation iPhone O2 have a lot to do to stop the steady stream of complains.  It takes a lot to build a reputation and it looks like they’ve forgotten the golden rule of ‘looking after our customers’ first.

Untitled Document

About me

Hello. I'm Julio Romo. I'm a London-based independent PR, communications consultant and digital strategist. I am also a freelance journalist and trainer, providing insight and consultancy on how to secure better engagement through the changing media and digital landscape. 

more…

Twitter

more…

Contact

  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • Delicious
  • Slideshare
  • YouTube
  • Flickr
  • Last.fm
  • RSS