Last week The Media Briefing launched its first conference in London. This saw 150 senior decision-makers at publishers of all sizes take a one-day intensive to look at various topics linking the monetisation of content and communities. We were there to learn and engage, and below you will find the obligatory write-up of what was really a great event.
I hear everyone (including myself on occasion) to use phrases such as “in the new digital environment”, or “due to the rise of internet usage”, or even “in the social media landscape”. Everyone recognises that rules, processes, and environments have changed, but there is very little definition to the shift. So, inspired by reading Clay Shirky’s thought-provoking book “Cognitive Surplus”, here are some statements of change that should inform marketing and publishing activity in the new reality. 
So, to much fanfare, the PPA (Periodical Publishers Association, don’t you know?) has launched The Future of Publishing, a prominent section on its site where it has placed videos of many (very intelligent and experienced) talking heads, discussing the future of various publishing sectors and models. There is some great content. And, to be clear, I think the PPA does some great work – and this initiative has some real value.
But.
I’ve read through the site, and watched many of the videos. There are some hugely influential people giving their views. And there are some great comments. (And some not so insightful comments, like “We’ve got to be present now as much in a digital way as in a paper way. And we can do it.” Hmmm… Yes, it is almost the end of 2010 after all…). But it’s the delivery format that concerns me.
There’s been a lot of debate on how publishers can get users to pay for content, but it’s starting to look like this might be the wrong question to ask at all! There’s ample reason to see how it’s not so much the quality or quantity of content that should have a price tag looming over it, but more the access to content itself. We now have ‘access points’ where whole databases of content are generated that not only are convenient, but get better and faster all the time. A prime example is Netflix which James McQuivey blogged about, as it’s a one-stop digital archive that hosts tons of content of different media formats in a sole access site. Isn’t that the main death knell threat for newspapers, DVDs, magazines etc? It’s understandable then that access to content is what programmers and publishers alike should be looking at more closely. Read more →
NOTE: This post is part of our “The 10 Best iPad Applications for News” series. Do check back and view the latest reviews.
The Wallstreet Journal
Popularity for the reputable Wall Street Journal’s iPad app has been soaring since its release, with 10,000 apps downloaded in its first two weeks. Users get superb business and market content with access to a 7-day archive that can be downloaded at any time, and users have the option of personalisation features such as accumulating articles or sections in a queue for later reading. Some number crunching by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) revealed that a subscription model alone would not reap that much in the long term, but if everything goes according to plan, then the six advertisers signed up for four month packages at a time might be key to bringing in real revenue. Luckily for WSJ, it has garnered enough of a dedicated and loyal fan base that remain (so far) willing to shell out for its content as the paper movesfrom platform to platform.
NOTE: This post is part of our “The 10 Best iPad Applications for News” series. Do check back and view the latest reviews.
The Financial Times
The Financial Times seem to be leading the pack in terms of downloads so far, with MobileMarketing reporting that the newspaper group’s iPad app has been downloaded 130,000 times in its first two weeks. Their marketing strategy is interesting: thanks to sponsorship from Swiss watchmaker Hublot , the app is free until the end of July, by which time, FT purports, users would have had enough of a sample dabble around to realize the investment in paying for unlimited, instant access on the tablet, (current subscribers will continue to get content). There is a lovely familiarity in using the app, with the recognisable FT branding and style, page design and layout. The FT app also features pop-up charts for its poweful market data, as well as the ability to download whole issues for reading offline . As the FT online FAQ page cites, additional pluses, (especially differentiating it from its iPhone offerings), include more high quality images, a wider range of micromaps and access to incredible video screenings of its award-winning video footages.
Two weeks ago (wow I’ve delayed on this post…), I was invited to be part of the launch event for the commercial expansion of the Guardian’s Open Platform. The day started with a range of short talks about the various elements of the new Platform: the technical aspects, the commercial guidelines, the possible use-cases etc. It then went into a hack-day where commercial partners were invited to give short briefs to Guardian developers.
So as of today, The Times and The Sunday Times have disappeared from our world wide web (UPDATE: or has it? see below). Unless of course, you are paying the £2 per week subscription fee (see Adam Westbrook for a good summary). It seems there are no excerpts to tempt non-subscribers, no text for search engines, no RSS feeds for simple syndication, no value for sharing with friends, and therefore, no content marketing.
Every day there appears a new update, a new redesign from newspapers and other content producers as they strive to build a “strong and stable” (see the political reference?) strategy for the new publishing paradigm they all face. However what I think has been overlooked is actually nobody has really asked the reader, what do they want?
This post was sparked by the news that Conde Nast moving towards the agency space, by offering creative services for brand clients. Since everyone else is moving into their territory, I think it’s great that Conde Nast are choosing to attack rather than defend. Business model innovation is the only way those gorgeous offices have a hope of surviving!
