More on no more media
More on no more media

We’ve all heard that “traditional advertising is dead” and we all know it isn’t. It’s still alive even though it doesn’t work very well, is increasingly ignored, irritates people and isn’t really measureable. So when will it really die?

The incontrovertible axiom of the post-advertising age is that traditional, interruptive commercials will disappear completely (i.e., die) when there are no more traditional media to interrupt with ads. That explains why a recent obsessive focus of postadvertising.com is the lethal illness now afflicting traditional media — an illness that combines the virus of global economic collapse, the ongoing fragmentation of TV and the viral growth of digital.

This week, it’s the newspapers’ turn to take a leading role in the traditional media deathwatch. But it’s also magazines’ moment, and local TV (followed by national TV). It’s always the book business’s turn. And who knows whose turn it’ll be after that? No traditional medium is safe these days.

The first of the recent media casualties was the bankruptcy of The Tribune Company, with its dozen newspapers, nearly two dozen local TV stations and various other media assets. Then, The Wall Street Journal reported that The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News will stop printing newspapers on some days of the week. The New York Times next weighed in with a piece about Dean Singleton’s struggles with the once proud San Jose Mercury News, among other troubled print properties.

All is less than well, meanwhile, in magazineland, where industry newsletter and database keeper Wooden Horse Publishing has been carrying regular reports on magazine staffers being laid off and publications being killed or curtailed by virtually every major publisher, from Condé Nast to Hachette to Time, Inc.

All these reports of fear and firings in print are compounded by a recent spate of reports on the problems with TV. The authoritative research firm eMarketer, for example, just issued a white paper titled, “Television's New Picture: Seismic Shifts in the Digital Age.” If you’ve got $695 to spare, buy it. It predicts sharply lower TV spending in 2009 and details how the shift to web-based video programming means huge problems for broadcasters. Among the problems: most people won’t put up with more than two “ads” per hour online, says BizReport.com reporting on a Dynamic Logic long-term survey. That compares with 18-20 minutes of advertising—up to 40 commercials—per hour on broadcast.

These stories have jolted us into confessing a serious personal failing. Maniacally focused on the imminent demise of traditional advertising, we at postadvertising h.q. have failed to note the ongoing death of the traditional media, most of which depend on ads for survival. The truth is that in the race to the postadvertising apocalypse, traditional media are now in the lead with traditional advertising following close behind. Ultimately, of course, they are both headed to the same destination.

It would be worthwhile to think about the REAL disaster this could create. The world can survive without advertising. But it can’t live long without information and entertainment. So the business model supporting a lot of our daily information and entertainment has got to change. Soon.

But setting the serious questions aside for the moment (Who’s going to report the news when the last newspaper lays off the last reporter?), here’s one that ought to be occupying the world’s CMOs: Where are brands going to put their budgets when the last traditional medium goes online where people won’t tolerate much advertising at all?

The inevitable answer in the post-advertising age is that budgets should be devoted increasingly to creating content and experiences that embody brands and engage the brands’ audiences. It would be a really good idea for brands to start preparing for the inevitable right now.

(Photo by Jasoon)

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Don't like your avatar? Get a Gravatar!

January 11. 2009 1:55 PM

BLITZ

P-I's closure in Seattle would reflect U.S. trend
The likely demise of a daily newspaper in Seattle raises more questions about the survivability of two competing newspapers in U.S. metropolitan areas.

At their best, newspapers serve as community watchdogs, mirrors, forums. "No one doubts their value in our democracy," Mayor Greg Nickels said Friday.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008614615_pisale11.html?syndication=rss

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008614615_pisale11.html?syndication=rss

BLITZ

December 19. 2008 8:46 AM

MC Word

I feel like you pulled a bit of a switcheroo on me there. Of the successes cited, two of the three are science journals, one of which (New Scientist) has been up for sale for nearly a year with no takers.

Do they provide journalism and channel political debate? Sometimes. More usually, however, they are trade mags to one of the faster growing industries in the world with a guaranteed (and largely employer-funded) subscriber base. No doubting their quality, of course, but I don’t think they’re in the business of providing news and current affairs. They’re providing content which demands expert knowledge and they’re doing so in a sphere where accuracy is (perceived by the audience to be) more important than immediacy – something that makes them less prone to lose their audience to bloggers than news outlets.

To me, that just leaves the Economist. Clearly, there’s no denying its success. But what is its secret? Why is it succeeding when others aren’t? If they’ve got a workable model, then shouldn’t it be repeatable?

I hope you’re right (and I’m sure there are other examples out there of media groups profiting from quality), but I’m not feeling much reassured that the web will find a way to provide reasoned political debate or help reinvent quality journalism.

There are a number of simple factors (speed, convenience, interactivity, no requirement for balance) that have contributed to the growth in web-based reporting and the decline of traditional media outlets. I’m not sure I share your faith that the web will channel the demand and generate a new (and, as yet, unspecified) way of delivering quality journalism.

I’m not sure I even have faith that there will be a demand. My worry is that there might be a downward spiral with less production of quality journalism producing less desire for it and less demand forcing further cutbacks. The success of political blogs and websites makes me wonder if people don’t actually prefer poor journalism.

At my most pessimistic, I fear that quality reporting might become a moribund niche interest of the wealthy, like opera, or an academic (in both senses) pursuit funded by universities.

MC Word

December 19. 2008 7:32 AM

martinh

My point with The Economist was not about its editorial point of view, but its combination of quality and success. From 1998 to 2008 it has increased circulation steadily, pretty much doubling circulation in that period. 85% of that comes from subscription. This implies that quality journalism is alive, well and profitable. Nature and The New Scientist are also doing OK. Most of the newspapers going under just aren't very interesting, imaginative or adaptable.

Politial debate has been posionous and partisan for years now. Why would the early days of the internet (and we are in the very early days) be any different? You have old opinions and processes being expressed in new ways. Nearly all the first printed books were religious. Nearly all early TV shows were radio or stages plays filmed with a single, locked off camera. Every new medium takes time to find its feet.

If there is a desire for reasoned political debate then it will happen somewhere eventually. It is more difficult to do profitably than servicing the desire to see women with custard poured over them, but it will happen.

martinh

December 18. 2008 12:13 PM

MC Word

Okay, I’m going to wheel out my rather rusty A Level economics here.

Balanced, thoughtful news reporting is, I think, a public good, a concept that free market economics has been briskly chipping away at for years. In other words: it’s a product that despite being highly valued isn’t provided by the market, usually because it’s impossible to exclude people from and hence must be funded by public subsidy.

Sound familiar?

The BBC has many critics, but there’s really nothing of comparable quality anywhere in the world. Of the other organisations you praised, the Guardian is at least partially insulated from the market by virtue of its non-profit trust status. The Guardian runs like a public service, but is subsidized by the profit making activities of other companies owned by the parent trust.

As for the Economist, it’s well written, with a nice measured tone, but you’d struggle to find much in there that doesn’t sit with its general commitment to the free market.

Generally speaking, then, I’m pessimistic as hell about the future of journalism. When, as they surely will, a future UK government takes the first steps to undermine the BBC licence fee, we’ll be left with a massive gap in the media landscape and no profit-driven way of replacing it.

I read an interesting article (which, sadly, I’ve lost) about the poisonous online coverage of the US elections. The author was critical of the growth of blogging and commenting on network sites, saying, in effect, that the absence of any requirement for balance had created two opposing visions of the world in which any point of agreement was impossible. Political debate was, he said, becoming a literal impossibility.

As for more direct communication between politicians and citizen, we already have a word for that: propaganda. What makes you think politicians want to debate their policies with the people?

MC Word

December 18. 2008 11:52 AM

martinh

I think it may just be the delivery mechanism, rather than the model that is broken. While I appreciate that the world of economics has come in for a bit of a drubbing lately, I would still hold that if there is a need for something (like a free press of high quality news reporting) that need will be catered for in a profitable way.
Some examples from the UK - Metro and thelondonpaper are two freesheets battling it out in London (and other cities) at the moment. At the moment, they take content from their parent groups (Associated Newspapers and News International) and present it in a stripped down, bitesize format. Believe me, The Daily Mail without the snide racism, class warfare, paranoia and none of the vomit-inducing columnists is a fairly informative read, if all you want to know is what is going on in the world. Which is not to argue that either freesheet is a quality newspaper.

Why aren't they quality newspapers though? I think it is because they can't make the economics work. The reason you pay a vomit inducing columnist a six-figure sum is because they sell newspapers. If there is no requirement to sell newspapers, why pay them a six figure sum? There is a media maxim that paid for titles are superior vehicles to non-paid for titles. This only holds true as long as the choice in non-paid for formats is limited. It is not now limited, so the inherent superiority is ebbing away.

The second issue is the partisan nature of newspapers. The Sun still basks in the glory of winning the 1992 election for the Conservatives. As politicians become increasingly isolated from everyday life (They study politics, go into student politics, become parliamentary researchers, get a nomination, lose it, get a safe seat as a reward, get appointed to the cabinet and run the party by their late 30s) they look at political history as their guide to what works. So they flatter the egos of editors and proprietors, while those editors and proprietors tell them what "their readers" respond well to. Read Piers Morgans odious book "The Insider" to see what I mean. (Never mind the fact that these self same editors and proprietors have no idea how to stop their readers ebbing away.)

So, newspapers are broken as a model. I'm not sure journalism is though - look at the Daily Beast (which I like so far), the excellent Guardian website, the worldwide dominance of the BBC site, and the continued success of the Economist. What have these got in common? A willingness to experiment, exploration of new models, a certain amount of either neutrality or openly stated editorial policy and desire to actively engage their readership, and quality journalism.

Another thought - the internet should enable politicians to sidestep news media and go directly to the public to debate their policies. This is surely a better democratic model than the current one where newsapers feel entitled to define political policy, report on policy, define the public reaction to that policy and then report on that reaction?

martinh

December 18. 2008 11:25 AM

MC Word

There are those who think even what’s left of print journalism isn’t up to snuff. Nick Davies recently published a very well received book, Flat Earth News, exposing what he regards as the woefully debased standards of journalism in the UK.

According to his website:

"Finally I was forced to admit that I work in a corrupted profession." When award-winning journalist Nick Davies decided to break Fleet Street's unwritten rule by investigating his own colleagues, he found that the business of truth had been slowly subverted by the mass production of ignorance.

He shows the impact of this on a world where media consumers believe a mass of stories which, in truth, are as false as the idea that the Earth is flat - from the millennium bug to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, tainting government policy, perverting popular belief.

MC Word

December 18. 2008 9:21 AM

Kirk Cheyfitz

I am commenting on my own post to underline one of my primary (but somewhat off-message) concerns: Who's going to cover the news after newspapers die? The New York Times reports today on the amazing, vanishing Washington bureaus. Thousands of journalists—most of whom work for papers or magazines—have lost their jobs over the past few years. And, with no disrespect to the bloggers, the networks and the 24/7 cable news operations, without print reporters, there really is virtually no reporting going on in the world. Everyone else who claims to report the news is pretty much following up or commenting on a printed story. So I'm worried. And I'm looking for new ways to fund the news. Anybody else worried. Or is it just me? (Anyone want to see if we can have a democracy without a vigorous, well funded press?)

Kirk Cheyfitz

Add comment

BBCode Tags: [b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/quote] - [url][/url] Get More


Word Verification*:


Email:

Name:

URL:



Don't like your avatar? Get a Gravatar! To update or view your profile click here. Forget me.

Live preview

March 13. 2010 12:33 PM

Story Worldwide
  • AddThis Feed Button
  • RSS
STORY WORLDWIDE
CLIENT WORK
OUR LATEST SITES
SITES WE READ
POST EDITOR
  • Liz Arnold Liz Arnold is a senior editor at Story. Email her with feedback or queries, or just to say hi.
CONTRIBUTORS
  • Lara Behnert Lara Behnert is an art director at Story Worldwide in Seattle.
  • Jim Boulton Jim Boulton, Deputy MD of Story in the UK, is a Course Director for the Chartered Institute of Marketing and a frequenter of pubs.
  • Kirk Cheyfitz Kirk Cheyfitz is Story's CEO. He's an author and non-traditional marketer who loves stories, media, running, traveling, his family, and dinner.
  • Joshua Drew Joshua Drew is the Technology Director at Story Worldwide, which allows him to read all company email.
  • Luke Dringoli Luke Dringoli is a hopelessly devoted social networker, vinyl record junkie and unabashed marketing geek.
  • Andrea Fjeld Andrea Fjeld is a self-described nerd who likes sad books, weird music, and good wine.
  • Gretel Going Gretel Going is co-founder of Channel V Media & Channel V Books. She secretly hates writing about advertising.
  • Kathi Hall Kathi Hall is a magazine junkie who just happens to be cycling mad.
  • Louise Jacob Louise Jacob is a copy editor at Story Worldwide's New York office.
  • Simon Kelly Simon Kelly runs Story in North America and tweets a lot about food and crappy customer service.
  • Ryan Saghir Ryan Saghir is a veteran blogger and social-technologies addict. Loves: wine, fine dining, long walks on the beach. Hates: wicker.
  • Mike Stevens Mike Stevens is an editor at Endless Vacation magazine and contributes regularly to ModernSpectator.com.
  • Richard Parker Richard Parker is a digital adventurer, urban cyclist, and a post-advertising enthusiast.
  • Amar Patel Amar Patel is a writer, selector, connector, chancer, prancer, dancer.
  • Gaetano Pollice Gaetano Pollice, a Pittsburgh native, is oft prone to unintentionally hilarious/painful gaffes.
  • Chuck Wentzel Chuck Wentzel is a writer and editor who hates hyperbole and loves unexpected irony.
Post-Advertising