AR&D - Audience Research and Development

"The state of American news media in 2008 is more troubled than a year ago."

Nobody who has followed our industry would disagree. The layoffs, shutdowns and company sales continue all around us. At a time when innovation should be embraced - as a last resort if for no other reason - we still see hope that "this will all go away."

As always, this is a must read:

"The crisis in journalism, in other words, may not strictly be loss of audience. It may, more fundamentally, be the decoupling of news and advertising.

"This more nuanced recognition is also putting into clearer relief what news people see as their basic challenge: somehow they must reinvent their profession and their business model at the same time they are cutting back on their reporting and resources."

As Terry says (and is, sadly, not attributed in the piece), our task is fixing the engine and keeping the car going at the same time.v There is encouraging news in the report about Local TV. Pretty much all local stations have websites now. Of course, they vary in quality, but the sites are there. The stations are also adding web staffers. The report says that stations have "on average, four newsroom staffers dedicated to their station Web sites, with two working full time." The report also writes that the locals are moving, in concert with the Open Mobile Video Coalition, toward having offerings for cellphones.

However, the ad money ain' there. And we don't need Pew to tell us why.

Stations are still repurposing their news content for their sites. They don't give the Web audience a reason to visit beyond seeing the same news they are gathering for television. The sites are also homogenous. It doesn't matter which local site I visit. Complicating the matter is that news is search-driven, and local news sites are often not optimized for search.

So the brand extension sites don't get the time with the audience they could. They don't bring in the revenue they should.

Further, the approach the sites take to reporting news is often based on the old model of finished news. While there is a place for that final product, the concept of having only finished news is, well, finished. From the report:

"News is shifting from being a product — today’s newspaper, Web site or newscast — to becoming a service — how can you help me, even empower me? There is no single or finished news product anymore. As news consumption becomes continual, more new effort is put into producing incremental updates, as brief as 40-character e-mails sent from reporters directly to consumers without editing."

This is exactly what Terry and I talk about when we encourage stations and newspapers to embrace "Continuous News" sites. These are sites that are based on blog software that constantly update the news as it happens. Think of the AP wires - as the information comes in, it goes up. This is how life unfolds. Continuous news allows dayparting of advertising and it gives a reason for people to keep coming back several times a day.

The problems with selling our sites go beyond the content. Our sales staffs are untrained and "Madison Avenue, rather than pushing change, appears to be having trouble keeping up with it. " This is why A) We need dedicated, local web sales people and B) They need to pound the streets as we build local ad networks. Of course agency new media buyers don't contribute to new media; it will hasten their extinction.

There is a significant point in the report on which we strongly disagree:

"The prospects for user-created content, once thought possibly central to the next era of journalism, for now appear more limited, even among "citizen" sites and blogs."

This merely continues the meme of Us vs. Them, and "The Cult of The Amateur" that distracts from the true nature of what's happening online. Conversation is what's central to the next era of journalism. No one aspect trumps the other. To write, as the report does, that "(Having) citizens posting news content has proven less valuable, with too little that is new or verifiable" both misses the point (this is a conversation, not a contest to see how much the audience can help the station) and holds on to the notion that UGC is something not to be trusted, as though a "man on the street" has never lied to a reporter before.

There are simply too many good tidbits in this excellent report to summarize here. I strongly encourage you to read it and draw your own conclusions. We agree that the state of the news media is more challenged than ever. We also know that there are ways to fix it, if we choose to embrace them.   <Link>

<<< >>>

MORE ON PEW: THE DISRUPTION IS ABOUT ADVERTISING (Terry)
One of the six key findings in the Pew report is that "Madison Avenue, rather than pushing change, appears to be having trouble keeping up with it." This is vastly more important than we may think, and I'm increasingly running into it in my work with clients.

The advertising industry was first dubbed "Madison Avenue" in the early 20th century, when the professional press and professional public relations industries were being birthed. If we want to truly understand the full-blown disruption of traditional media, we must understand that all of this is interconnected and that it is the concept of mass marketing that's really being blown apart by all that we're witnessing. Mass marketing supports the traditional media hegemony, and that's why the money is disappearing.

Advertisers will always need to advertise, but an industry based solely on mass marketing theory and systems will not survive this disruption. This is why Pew has noticed that the industry is "having trouble" keeping up with change. There's little incentive to keep up with change, when it might mean you're out of work. It doesn't have to be that way.

As experienced media people survey the whole media landscape, we're often unaware of this central reality: people are using technology to escape the relentless bombardment of unwanted messages brought about by the one-trick pony that is the advertising industry. Whether it's your shopping cart, your utility bill, or four-minute ad pods during your favorite TV show, Americans are surrounding by a constant "tap tap tap" on the shoulder that has gone way beyond annoying. And our inability to accept this has meant we've dragged this annoyance to the Web.

We don't even notice what we're doing when we force people to click on multiple pages just to get to what they seek. We do it to feed the mass marketing beast, but we're actually turning people off. We don't "have" to do this; there are other profitable ways.

Pay attention to Google, for everything about this powerful advertising system (that's what they call themselves) has been created without the blessing of the advertising industry, a.k.a. Madison Avenue. You don't need to understand anything other than that to figure out why Google is so successful. Everybody may say that the user is in charge online, but only Google behaves as though it's true.

And for local media companies, this matter of "keeping up" is doubly problematic, for local advertisers are — in many ways — farther behind than their national counterparts. We can either view this as an excuse, or we can view it as an opportunity to educate. If we choose the latter path, however, let's be careful to not have our hand out while we're educating.

After all, advertisers are people, too.   <Link>

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: YOU NEED AR&D
We pause for this commercial announcement:

Tired of reading things like the Project for Excellence in Journalism's fifth annual "State of the News Media" report and coming away feeling helpless? Tired of listening to the best in buggy whip makers spout indifference about automobiles? Longing for solid ground after balancing on every Tom, Dick and Harry "platform" in an effort to extend your brand. Tired of doing what everybody else is doing and getting the same results as everybody else? In fear about your retirement? Tired of asking, "How are we going to monetize that?" Ready to shoot the next guy who says his application is the one that'll make you rich? And are you finally convinced that the money isn't coming back?

You need AR&D's Media 2.0 Unit. After all, much of the language in the Pew report was birthed here, in some cases years ago. We were right back then, and we're right today. We're already past the theory and into real-world reinvention. Shouldn't you be with us, too?

We now return to your original programming.

INTRODUCING DAYPARTS INTO WEB ADVERTISING (Terry)
The idea that more people assemble at certain times of the day to participate in media is foreign to newspaper people, because their finished product is a one-at-a-time deal. Broadcasters, however, live by this, so I'm always surprised by the empty stares when I propose the idea of using dayparts to sell web advertising. In an environment of continuous news, it doesn't matter if you're a broadcaster or a print company, daypart advertising is the way to go.

The innovator of the continuous news model, gossip site TMZ.com, has figured this out, so why can't we?

Here's the thing: we've given away the farm by defaulting to reach/frequency ad models based on precise measurements. Let's face it; the dirty little secret of any mass media model is that it's pricing is based — in many ways — on blue smoke and mirrors. If we were able to determine how many people actually viewed an ad on TV or read one in the newspaper, we'd feel like idiots for selling mass. We would then understand and revalue what we're doing online.

But that aside, we need to adopt some broadcast models for use on the Web. Since we know, for example, that more people use news and information sites at different times of the day, then our ad pricing should reflect that. The audience for online news is primarily at work, so 8am-5pm is worth more than other dayparts. But even during that time period, there are peaks and valleys.

On average, there's a spike first thing in the morning, another at noon, and a final spike at around 3-4pm. These three hours should be priced higher than any other time period in the day.

So forget unique visitors and page views; what's your audience size during those time periods? If we have to sell metrics, that's what we should be selling. Like broadcasters, we measure audience in terms of time period buckets, not exactly how many people saw the ad. This is why we're so undervalued online. We're doing it to ourselves.

In the continuous news format, we can also guarantee ad exclusivity when that ad is viewed, because scrolling instead of page clicking allows you to space ads so that only one appears at a time. This has high value, and it's the way we should be selling the Web.

Moreover, roadblock ads work very well within a time period paradigm. A car dealer who has a special sale coming up this weekend, for example, may want to buy every ad placement from noon-1pm on Friday. It would guarantee that the message would be seen by a large number of people, and we can charge a very high premium for such placement.

We must always remember that we're making this up as we go along, and it's time we reconsidered the fundamentals of what we're selling.   <Link>

<<< >>>

iPHONE USERS BREAKING ALL RECORDS FOR WEB MEDIA ACCESS (Steve)
Owners of iPhones are redefining what it means to use the mobile web. And we have to pay attention because there is a giant opportunity for local media if we act quickly.

M:Metrics has conducted the first survey of iPhone users, and it's an eye-opener. iPhone users hold in their hands a true web device - and that's exactly how they use it.

In January, the study found, 85 percent of iPhone users accessed news and information via their phone. The market average is 13 percent. Even Smartphone users like those who own Blackberries only clock in at about 58 percent.

Asked "Have you accessed web search?" (via your mobile phone), 59% of iPhone users said yes, 37 percent of Smartphone users did so as well but only 6 percent of the rest of the market does.

"Have you watched mobile TV/video?" iPhone owners: 31 percent. Smartphone: 14 percent. Market average: 6 percent.

And there's this: 50 percent of iPhone owners accessed a social network site or blog. The market average in this category is four percent. The social web meets the mobile web head on.

Let's face it - the hype was right. This thing really is a game-changer.

Facebook was among the first sites to create a special version of its pages just for iPhone visitors. It looks great. It places a little logo on the iPhone desktop. And in a nifty piece of cross-marketing, some iPhone ads feature Facebook. Widgets are driving the mobile web. I almost never quote from a press release, but this quote is absolutely correct:

"This data indicates that the iPhone’s widgets are and effective means to drive mobile content consumption," observed (M:Metrics Senior Analyst Mark) Donovan. "Two featured widgets, YouTube and Google Maps are extremely popular among iPhone users: 30.4 percent accessed YouTube and 36 percent used Google Maps. In comparison, only one percent of all mobile subscribers accessed YouTube and 2.6 percent checked out Google Maps."

Since launching a mere six months ago, the iPhone has gained a stunning 21 percent market share in the U.S. And that's strictly as a consumer offering. Apple's now going after the business market, having launched its enterprise program in beta. Earlier this month, Apple released its iPhone Software Development Kit (SDK) - the tools that programmers need to write their own software for the iPhone. Within a week, 100,000 copies of the SDK had been downloaded.

We have an opportunity. The iPhone and similar mobile powerhouses expand what is possible on the mobile web. People want their information constantly updated, and we can give it to them. We can build the widgets that power the local mobile web, and we can get there first. The audience has already spoken. That's rare in the online world - usually we have to wait and see what they want. Here, they're screaming it. "Give us video! Give us news and information! Make it social!"

The research shows the demand. Apple has released the tools. We can build the machine that supports the supply.   <Link>

<<< >>>

WHEN AN ANCHOR GETS TO BE "REAL," GOOD THINGS CAN HAPPEN ONLINE (Terry)
Steve and I are always asked for examples of people who are "doing it right." This is a tough assignment, because it requires a subjective definition of "right." A lot of people are doing good things, and I assume that one day we'll have a list of "right." In the meantime, we have to be sparse in our praise, because Steve and I measure things based on how individual elements fit into an overall strategy.

Anchor blogs, for example, come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Any time an anchor blogs, we think it's a good thing, if for no other reason than it exposes key people in the shop to the technology of the personal media revolution. We can only gain from that.

However, the best anchor blogs, we believe, are those which help establish an online brand for a news personality, and that brand doesn't necessarily have to reflect the mission of the newsroom in which the anchor works. Remember that the end game for local media is the creation of a local ad network, so the building of disparate websites has a significant function. They will be a part of the network, and one day we'll all be selling "run of network" instead of "run of site."

So we try to encourage anchors to be themselves, and nobody I've encountered does that better than Sherri Talley of our client in Shreveport, KTBS-TV. Sherri is loved and respected in the market; there's no doubt about that. But the "real" Sherri is something far beyond what people see on TV, and her blog reflects that. Not only is Sherri involved in life to a degree beyond most, she is one of the funniest, wittiest people on the planet, and that's front-and-center in her blog.

"I like this on so many levels," she told me. "First, it's a creative extension of myself. As much as there is still out there for me to learn about blogging, there's also room for me to invent/create along the way."

She says there's a real similarity to anchoring and blogging, because they're both very intimate. "I talk on the air as if I'm speaking to one person and do the same when I'm blogging," she said. "That way I'm not announcing to an audience nor blogging for masses, but just having a conversation...ha...one where I hope someone responds."

A while back, she found an old oil painting from the mid 20th Century of two babies. The thing is pretty bad, because back then, they used to try and make the babies look more adult. She bought the picture and made a cut-out copy of the two babies. She's named them "Hazel and Jimmy" and they play a role in her blog, often showing up in the background of photos. She makes no reference to them other than in the cut line of her blog: sherritalley.com, it's good enough for Hazel & Jimmy. Readers are in on the joke, and it gives the blog an automatic edge, for people are always waiting for the next reference to the two babies.

Sherri is unique in that she has an inherent self-effacing ability to see the humor in what she does and to take people behind-the-scenes in colorful and compelling ways. Readers are fully engaged, and most entries include a regular group of commenters, which gives the site a community feel. Sherri's not trying to "be" anybody other than herself.

"I actually almost resigned several months ago to take a marketing job," she told me "because I didn't see much of a future in the direction of television anchoring and reporting in the traditional sense. When I realized our station had such a progressive approach to internet development, I asked to get involved. Now, I'm more passionate about my work. I feel more engaged than ever with viewers."

Sherri's blogging and her insatiable thirst for knowledge have elevated her status with the web team at the station, and she now plays a leadership role in newsroom online efforts.

Her advice to other bloggers, especially anchors? Be positive, invest yourself and have fun. "Some bloggers get frustrated because they can't think of a topic. Just like everyone and every situation has a story, there's always a topic."

So do yourself a favor and drop by her site:. Read entries and the comments, and I think you'll agree that if it's good enough for Hazel & Jimmy, it might just be good enough for you.    <Link>