Neal R@nts

Newspaper Closings Are Nothing New

People act like closing newspapers is some kind of new development that signals the end of an epoch.  Let's face it; newspaper closings are anything but new.  Sort of like climate change.  People act like the world just started getting warmer in the past couple of years.  If that were true, we'd have been able to hike to Siberia until 2001 and the fruited plain would be the frozen tundra.  I won't debate its occurrence; I will, however point to the fact that things have been heating up since the cave man, if anthropology is still a believable science.  The question is, why didn't those cavemen put out their fires and stop polluting the atmosphere and creating holes in the ozone layer?  Maybe a little global warming was good for them.  They could always adapt to less animal fur and a little warmer climate.  After all, they were really cold.  It was, after all, the ice age.

The point is this: newspapers going under is nothing new.  When one stops to consider the papers who are closing their doors, most are in dual markets.  Whether the Seattle PI or The Rocky Mountain News, papers closing their doors is part of a natural cycle of business.  I have to wonder why people (particularly those in media-surprise) act as though this is some sort of recent cataclysmic event.  If you look at just one company, E.W. Scripps (full disclosure-a company for which I still hold the greatest respect and one in which I was mutually invested for 20 years), and consider the closings in recent years, the closing of The Rocky may seem less like catastrophe and more like a cycle of natural events.  The Rocky isn't the first closing.  There seems to be far more emotion with it-likely because of the sweat and tears of those who toiled to make it a really great paper, but everyone seems to forget all the other great Scripps papers who were part of the flow.  No one seems to be crying for The El Paso Herald-Post, who closed its doors in the October of 1997.  Or what about the Birmingham Post-Herald, who stopped publishing in December of 2005?  The Albuquerque Tribune in February of 2008?  The Cincinnati Post in December of 2007?   All publications of the E.W. Scripps Company.  This is not indictment of Scripps.  They held on as long as they could--some would argue too long.

The common thread of all the closings is that they all suffered from being on the wrong end of a shootout.  Someone had to win; someone had to lose.  In every case, there just wasn't enough readership for two papers in the same town anymore.

People also aren't considerate of a historical perspective.  At the turn of the 20th century, most towns had as many as six-- sometimes eight newspapers in each major city.  If graphically depicted since 1860, one could see that newspapers, in sheer numbers have been contracting over a long period of time.  Forget circulation.

Just as the newspapers didn't start losing circulation or closing, consolidating, or starting JOAs in the past 2 years, the process of adaptation will likely take time too.  Newspapers will evolve, likely into something more active, more enlightened, free of the encumbrances of onerous labor agreements and the overhead of press facilities.  They will be fleeter and they will be more likely to be local in nature and less dependent on wire services.  In short, they'll write what people want to read.  But it will take a new set of players; the old guard will have to die away.  The whole "Circle of Life" thing.

To say there is nothing new with newspapers closing around the country is accurate.  The difference is that the editorial staffs are not quitting.  Just the contrary.  They're getting up, dusting themselves off and creating the new model.  It's likely that the short term will demand that they wear multiple hats-maybe have to hold down two jobs.  They'll scrape and fight.  They'll protect each penny as though it is essential to paying the next power bill; it just might be.  In short, they'll be doing what entrepreneurs do.  They'll be doing what Newspaper Next and all the newspapers who were a part of it wanted to do but couldn't.  They'll be entrepreneurs.

If I am correct, there will be investments from financiers who are willing to bet on the entrepreneurial spirit of the new breed.

Climate change happens.  I often wonder if the best way to counter it is to spend less time trying to put glaciers back together and expend more energy on adaptation in order to survive.  Godspeed to the Denver Times staff.  I'm proud to support that great group of entrepreneurs with my subscription!

The Emporer Is Looking Pretty Fleshy These Days

I have no personal axes to grind.  Really.  My extensive background in media spans newspapers, broadcast television, Cable television, and now the Internet.  I am proud to have commercially pioneered two of the four.  I have a fondness for each, but it is nearly impossible to avoid comparisons.  As the Internet is proving to be, by far, the most measurable, trackable medium in the history of media, I have to wonder how it is that the expectation of knowing every possible intricate detail of data leads to constant questions about the efficacy of the medium while practically ignoring what should be glaring shortcomings of other media.

Don't misunderstand.  All media has its place and purpose.  I would never, for example, encourage any business to take television out of its media mix.  There is a real good reason companies like The Ladders and Autotrader are running large television schedules.  The emotional connection television provides is better done through television than the current Web experience.  That may one day change.

My real problem is the double standard.  Why is it that the most measurable medium is held to a much higher standard than all other media?  Why do all other media get a pass on their really questionable method of projecting their audience--since tracking the audience is rarely an option?  Anyone who has a first-year marketing education can see the obvious flaws.  If I were contracted to conduct an unbiased, mathematically and statistically valid research project on television viewing habits--and if I were to present my methodology to my client that said I would use a sample that is far less than representative, that I would be informing those I am seeking to measure so they would know exactly when they should be expecting to be measured, and finally, that I would allow those surveyed to complete their own surveys according to their recollection, I would be considered nuts.  I wouldn't have a good idea of the viewing habits of the mass audience, and the measurement period would be anything but representative of the actual programming over the long run.  But that's what happens four times a year in what is an obviously incestuous relationship between Nielsen and the broadcast industry.

How is it that Nielsen can still provide such an imperfect system of measurement and get away with it?  Why is there a sweeps week anyway?  All that does is let the television stations know when they can be on top of their games and when they can let down their guard and provide sub-standard programming.  So that's what they do.  And the crazy thing is--millions upon millions of dollars worth of decisions are being made on the basis of research that anyone with any knowledge of marketing research would say is invalid.

I like to imagine a television experience when the stations have no idea when they'll be measured.  How good would television stations be if they had to go to the station every day with the notion that this could be the day when they are going to measure audience and viewership?  How good would the networks be?  How good would local news be?  I truly believe that the viewership of television would skyrocket if broadcasters-both network and local, had to live their lives as though every week were sweeps week.  In many ways, the current method for measuring broadcast viewership is the broadcasters' worst enemy.  Consumers are aware too.  We all tune in during sweeps week and know that the weeks following will hardly be worth watching.  In effect, we're all in on the same stupid game.  But the networks and local stations need not care, really.  All advertising rates are set on the basis of that one, lone week of programming.  There's little need to have an audience until the next sweeps week.  How crazy is that?

Instead, because the web is the most measurable medium, it is measured and scrutinized.  It is second guessed and questioned.  Television and newspapers, the least measurable media which uses an invalid measurement is considered gospel.  There's not an advertiser in the world who can say with absolute (I'd settle for a rough approximate) certainty the audience was actually delivered to the market they were trying to reach.

Heaven help them when television over TCP/IP allows for the same kind of delivery measurement.  They will either get better quickly or they may see rates for their advertising services continue to erode.  My bet is on increasing the level of quality.  One thing is for certain: the emporer will be asking for a towel.

How Long Is New Media "New" Before It Becomes Mainstream?

As I enter into my fifteenth year of interactive/digital media, it occurs to me that there are still many who refer to any media associated with the Web, or anything utilizing TCP/IP protocol as "new media".  It truly begs the question:  just how long does something have to exist before it becomes mainstream?  And why do people still call it new?

I think, perhaps it is because many in traditional media still like to paint the interactive media with a label that implies that, perhaps, the so-called "new media" has not come of age, thus, it is unworthy of being taken seriously along side serious media like newspapers, television, and that recent upstart-cable (which I was blessed to also pioneer in the early 80s).  By labeling it as new, it is not something that should be taken seriously.

Maybe by still calling interactive media "new", those who still bleed ink or think news can only be conveyed through the magic of the stoic talking heads that read from teleprompters and still believe most viewers think that they are extemporaneously  providing the same information that every other channel delivers, are convincing themselves that they still have time to learn a new trick or two.  After all, it is all still new.

Talking to most of those whom I know in the traditional media, the consensus is that only kids 12-18 years old are using the Net or mobile devices to get their news.  As I've written previously, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Don't get me wrong.  I have immense respect and frankly, marvel at the notion that broadcasters had the courage and conviction to put up big towers and invest in expensive transmitters, operating at a pretty stout monthly cost to provide their programming to an audience at a period in time when only one household in every ten even had a device over which they could receive the programming.  Most of the programming in those days was local programming.  It is a shame that those who pioneered the broadcast medium have lived to see their investments of money, sweat, and tears in cutting edge local programming reduced to blocks of syndicated shows and network fare.

The Catch 22 that ultimately gets created when one refers to interactive media as new is that we're left to categorize other media.  The word "traditional" gets tossed around a lot, but think about it-- the antithesis of traditional is "non-traditional".  Maybe interactive advertising should be non-traditional.  But to call interactive media forms "new" means that all other forms are, well, old.  And no media wants to be old.

By categorizing all media that is not "old" as "new", we're left to create a new descriptor for other forms of media that are, in fact, new.  So now we have "emerging media" and "nascent media".  I believe the term "new media" should probably be mothballed.  It hearkens to the  day when the Internet was young, unproven, and had little audience.  That is certainly no longer the case.

I, for one, will not refer to interactive media and all the creative advertising forms that have followed it as new.  It is what it is: interactive.  I'll go along with digital, too. Emerging media will always come into the market, but those who still refer to interactive or digital as new are probably still asking how many hits the website is getting.  Take my advice: don't ever use the term new media or ask about hits if you ever have any notion of being considered anything but old.

And You Thought Online Was Just For Young People

You’ve heard it more than once.  Perhaps you’ve even said it.  When people discuss the online newspaper audience the defense comes out, “but it’s not the same audience.  It’s a different audience.”  That may be, but perhaps not in the ways that most people think; and maybe not as different as you may think.  Perhaps the online audience was different from the print audience.  For most, the “different audience” is immediately defined as a younger, hipper audience; the genXers and millennials who weren’t going to read the print edition anyway.  The difference is in the makeup of today’s online audience.

I don’t mean to be a buzz kill, but I’ve got a news flash for you.  There is a group of Web users—defined as “Silver Surfers”, and they’re growing by leaps and bounds online.  They are the fastest growing online segment.  In fact, according to the latest Pew Internet and Life in America Project, more than half of the younger people in the 62-71 age group are actively online.  As a whole, 6 out of 10 so-called Silver Surfers use search engines on a regular basis.  And according to Dynamic Logic, 43% of the group lists gathering news as a regular activity in their online pursuits.  That’s right-forty-three percent.

 

Silver Surfers have a higher income than non-Internet users in the same age group.  They are more likely to be married, they are more likely to be employed, and they are better educated.  They spend nearly twice as much monthly as non-Internet users in the same age demographic.  Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds a lot like newspaper readers.

 

But then, one fourth of the group banks or pays bills online and one-fifth plays video games.

 

There goes the stereotype.

 

It would be easy to assume that Silver Surfers are migrating away from print versions of the newspaper.  I would caution that such an assumption could be flawed.  By indications of activities of the group, it is very likely that these Silver Surfers have an insatiable appetite for news and information.  They can’t get enough news fast enough.   It could be further deduced that the group loves interactivity.  Perhaps they are reading the story in print and going online to comment on the story or follow comments of others.  The best assumption might be that print subscribers are spending a lot more of their time online since the profile is so similar.

 

No matter what the case, this is a group to be embraced.  Embrace them in print and embrace them online.  The Dynamic Logic study indicates that the Silver Surfers are far more likely to notice online advertising than their younger counterparts.  Interestingly, the group demonstrates greater purchase intent for items such as insurance, pharmaceuticals, consumer package goods, travel, and entertainment.  The last time I checked, those primarily service-oriented products were not the bread and butter of the print edition.  U.S. Marketers, according to Anderson Analytics, cite the group as their most important market, ahead of genXers.

 

So—what’s the takeaway?  Recognize that the online audience is changing—and quickly.  Never make assumptions that the online audience is comprised of young people who quickly gulp down headlines before excusing themselves from the news buffet to go on to other things.  The audience is far broader and more complex than that.  One thing is for sure--it’s a different onlineaudience.  And it will be changing constantly.

 

The Rocky Mountain News... I'll miss it.

As the Rocky Mountain News closed its doors last week, I couldn't help but feel emotional about something that so many had poured their hearts and souls into for so many years.  While I operated on the periphery of the Denver newspaper war with the Denver Post, my frequent flyer miles still piled up as we competed head-to-head with the Post.  Some of the best writers in the country were in Denver--on both sides.  The depth of reporting, the commitment to dig for the truth and to hold the powerful accountable produced a couple of outstanding papers.

I was at the Rocky the day of the Columbine shootings.  The reporting and the lengths the reporters went to cover the story in tasteful, sensitive, truthful ways was incredible.  I watched as the horror of the event was communicated in unbelievable ways and varying perspectives.  Columbine is just one example of how top-quality journalism was exercised every day at The Rocky.  Beating the Post in quality; when is the last time a newspaper felt it needed to beat anyone in quality, except where two papers compete head-to-head?  That's lesson one.  Newspapers in this country were so much better when they had competition.  What they don't realize is that they have plenty of competition--it's just not printed on a press anymore.

Top-quality journalism didn't stop the red ink, however.  Offering a yearly subscription for $3.25 wasn't going to pay the bills.  Many of us back in the corporate offices lamented amongst ourselves that there was going to be no winner in the war.  It was apparent.  If there was to be a victory, it would be Pyrrhic at best.  So many tens of millions of dollars were being poured in from both sides that the only winners were the readers and the television stations; since newspaper advertising was so cheap, advertisers were able to spend larger portions of their budgets with TV stations.

The paper could've been closed in 1998 and Scripps would have been millions ahead.

There are so many lessons to be gleaned from the experience.  The Denver newspaper war is clearly a lesson of extremes.  Two papers, practically free, with some of the best writing and reporting in the country.  No one should wonder why newspaper penetration was well over 100% in the Denver market.  Many households took both papers at a time when newspaper circulation in the US was falling precipitously.  The advertising was so cheap that the published marketplace was filled with ads.

I would never suggest that papers be free, nor the advertising.  The Denver situation is, as I stated, a situation of extremes.  But newspapers are going to have to recommit themselves to quality.  At the same time, newspapers need to follow the laws of supply and demand--something they have never quite grasped, coming from a monopolistic position for so many years.  Competition sharpens the senses.  Newspapers desperately need to find pricing equilibrium where consumers are willing to pay for their product, or get a different product.

To do all that, newspapers will have to quell the chattering from shareholders who have come to expect large returns, because, in order to succeed, newspapers will have to operate on very thin margins for a long time to come.  Newspapers for too many years have been operating to provide analysts with their projections that dare not be missed, lest the stock price fall into an abyss.  Analysts telling newspapers what they will make, and newspapers sacrificing the long term to meet the short term demands of analysts is a large part of what has led the newspaper industry to this point.  Let's face it, most projections come from spoiled kids in NYC with immediate gratification syndrome who are barely dry behind the ears.

My prescription for the past 5 years to newspapers was to get liquid and buy back stock.  Perhaps the stock buy-back was premature, based on where newspaper stocks are now--dirt cheap.  So many companies are carrying huge debt loads that bankruptcy will be inevitable for most.  They still all need to get rid of debt; sell buildings, sell land. Sell receivables. Do whatever it takes.

Once liquid, buy back all the stock.  Every last bit of it.  Do it while there's still operating cash to do it with.  Do it before a cash infusion is needed just to keep operating.  Perhaps find one or two primary investors who understand the goal, aren't in immediate gratification mode and can wait for the returns.

The Rocky provided a great lesson that is being overlooked.  A great paper at a decent price will sell.  Conversely, an overpriced paper of lesser quality is just something for the dog to poop on, and nobody is going to pay $9.00 a month for that.  The very least the rest of the industry can do is take a lesson from The Rocky.  I will miss that paper and raise a toast to the many who toiled tirelessly to make it a great paper.  Godspeed.

Living On The Search Engine Edge

 

 

In recent columns, I’ve cautioned readers that tricking or attempting to game the search engines is a very risky proposition with only short term results.  A few weeks ago, we encountered an auto dealership who didn’t understand why their universal search results were, to say the least, anemic.  It only took a few minutes to determine that the issue with the URL was that the major search engines did not recognize the dealership in their respective indices.  While the story, in this particular case, had a somewhat happy ending, others are not so fortunate.  The incident prompted me to conduct a bit of research to determine what can happen when websites become delisted by search engines.

 

Most of what can be found is on message boards and forums.  That is not surprising, given that the search engines are very secretive in their methods and do not feel an obligation to educate the world in proper search engine behavior.  They don’t even inform a URL that they are being removed from their index. Usually, websites who have found themselves delisted did just that—they found themselves delisted.  They wondered why traffic was off, or why their website wasn’t coming up in search engine results and deduced that something was amiss.  There were no warnings, no emails, and no phone calls.  It just happened.  There are programs that can determine how many pages are being indexed by the major search engines.  If the results of the scan determine that zero pages are in the search index, it is never a good thing.  No.  It is, in fact, a very bad thing.

 

My advice for people who find themselves in such a predicament is to be prepared for a long and arduous process.  There is a reason that being delisted on search engines is affectionately referred to as being in Google hell.  As I reviewed the different posts from the various delistees, I could not help but pity them.  Their pleas to the search engines were pretty much being ignored; some had no idea why they had become delisted.  I even found sample letters of apology one could send to the search engines, begging and pleading for a second chance with a confession of misdeed and a vow to never sin again.  Being in Google hell is an apt description.  It is the roach motel of the web world.  It’s easy to get in, but you’ll have a devil of a time getting out.  One colleague said that, in his experience, the only way out Google hell is to get a new URL.

 

I could opine on possible ways to get out of Google hell, but I’d much rather give examples of how sites get into Google hell, and in so doing, help sites avoid calamity.  I do not know of a definitive list of all the reasons a site can get delisted-nor is there likely to be one, since the search engines are constantly trying to be one step ahead of the next new tactic; but suffice it to say, not playing by the rules is the over-arching theme.  By understanding some of the offending acts of others, perhaps it will save someone the extreme frustration that comes with being delisted.

 

Are your keywords on the “up and up?”   A separate dealership I encountered not long ago determined that a good way to grow traffic is to put the names of competing dealerships and models of competing auto lines in their keyword string.  I quickly advised that they were playing a dangerous game.  It isn’t as though someone can’t see the code for the keywords of the site.  After all, I could view them without any tools other than a web browser.  I don’t think the dealership was aware just how obvious their actions were.  One complaint to Google and Yahoo! from one of the competing dealerships who were in the dealer’s keyword list and that dealership would have their torch extinguished and be kicked off the island.  The search engines want to provide searchers with valid search results.  Any site should want the same thing.

 

In another recent incident, I found a dealership had multiple sites with the exact same content.  This is different than a redirect where multiple URLs are redirected to a central site.  These were distinct sites with replication—clones.  The message boards are full of people who were not aware that having duplicate sites is a major no-no.  The search engines look upon that as an attempt to have search results that are returned be for many sites that are actually the same site.  Sites that have had that keen notion might want to be prepared for a really rude awakening.  In Google hell.

 

A particularly unfair, in my opinion, way that a site can find themselves in Google hell is by linking to other sites that are delisted.  I guess the moral is to choose your partners very carefully.  Remember, when you link with a site, you’re linking with everyone that site has linked with.  Before accepting or exchanging a link with another site, find out how their pages rank.  If you don’t know how, find someone who knows how.  It may save you a lot of pain in the long run.  Besides, it really doesn’t help your search engine ranking much to accept back links from sites that have a lower page rank than you.

 

One other big, obvious offense is to provide black text on a black background, or white text on a white background.  While the search engines will see the text, they will recognize it for what it is: an attempt to gain search traffic undeservedly.  Try that one and you’re pretty likely to burn—in Google hell.

 

What might seem like a clever idea may actually result in a site’s undoing.  Be careful and do not ever believe that the search engines will not have a way of sorting and ferreting out those who want to raise their search rankings using less than acceptable methods.  If it seems clever or innovative on the surface, it’s probably wrong. You may get your just reward.  Play by the rules and when in question, ask someone who knows.