Daily Star bombs The Sun newspaper (but is an in-joke really a good campaign strategy?)
With bingo bringing in high revenue streams for online newspaper editions, it is little wonder that the Daily Star chose to hit The Sun where it hurts with its bingo advertising campaign - but bombing The Sun's Wapping HQ with Bingo balls?
I'm sure the Sun's staff in Wapping will see the hilarity. After all, James Murdoch has recently decided to postpone the move from the Wapping site to a new venue, at least until financial conditions improve.
Whether any Daily Star readers will understand the in-joke is quite another matter.
Design Agency Wisdom – How to Fail a Client Pitch in Three Minutes!
I got a call from a web design agency yesterday. The lady on the other end was cold calling the company I am consulting to, and somehow got through to me.
Here is a summary of the interaction:
'I'm calling from agency X', she said, 'and I was wondering if you were planning any web design projects in the near future?'
Now you see, I am this cold caller's dream target: I am actually looking into a design project for my client, and I was willing to hear her out.
'Yes,' I said, 'you actually called at an opportune moment. I'm looking for agencies to pre-qualify for a tender, do you guys design as well as code?'
'Erm, yes, we do both,' she said. She mutters some client names that I don't recognise and can't remember.
'Great! How big is your agency, how many people work for it?'
'I don't know exactly, in the 20's,' she said.
'OK, and what's the split between technical and non-technical at your agency?'
'erm, I don't know, I only started two weeks ago. I'm just... I can arrange a call for you with someone to discuss the detail...'
At this point I stop asking questions, she's obviously wasting my time. Why would I want to arrange another call with someone from a company I know nothing about, who has just cold called me with no further information?
'I can send you some info,' she offers, 'what's your email address?'
So I give her my email address, but on reflection she didn't verify it with me, and she obviously didn't catch it. I never got that email.
And here's the thing: I understand that the agency put an intern or rookie on cold-calling duty and that's entirely not her fault, but if you are out to catch a client - make sure the person on first-contact duty is prepared for the call that will actually get you what you want. If she could have answered my questions knowledgably, and talked me through some good portfolio examples, I would at least have considered her agency.
Now, but for this entry, I would have forgotten their name.
Update: Five days later I did get an email with more details. Five days?
IwantGreatCare.org – “rate your doctor” – will it go up in flames of libel?
IwantGreatCare.org was launched in the UK as a service allowing patients to rate their doctors online. Patients can rate doctors out of 100 on "trust", "listening" and recommended categories, and then leave comments about the doctors that they have rated.
Every time I consult to website owners about user generated content, one of the first points I assess risk on is libel. Some of the key questions are:
-
a. How risky is the subject matter and how likely is it to land you in court for libel.
-
b. What sort of mechanisms do you have to remove libel promptly (and how prompt is 'promptly').
-
c. What sort of defences do you have in law if you are taken to court.
When the subject matter is people in a service profession, especially as personal as healthcare, libel is all but inevitable. Emotions tend to run high, and commentary becomes heated and very personal.
My experience also shows that people who are happy with a service are much less likely to comment on it online compared to those who are aggrieved or unhappy. Although some patients might go online to defend their GP, it is those with a grudge or misgiving who will carry the site, and it is often bad reviews that get the most focus.
To complicate things further, the kind of anonymity offered by IwantGreatCare.org produces a mistrust effect. When you see a good review, you wonder if it is real or produced by allies (or the practitioner themselves) to defend a reputation. When a bad review appears, it could well be a disgruntled colleague, not just a patient.
The risk is higher in the case of IwantGreatCare.org, because not only does it allow you to rate your doctor numerically, but it also lets you leave a comment. This is where patients and upset relatives will vent, like the example I found on the site for a certain doctor (whom I shall not name): "I went to see the doctor on behalf of my mother who is schizophrenic. He refused to listen to the issues i needed to discuss and was very very patronising and arrogant. I am not stupid - i have a doctorate in science and have published in many scientific journals - yet i was not listened to and the arrogance of Dr (Name) was unbelievable. He actually left me in tears as I left the surgery. I would recommend that anyone needing healthcare in (Place name) avoid him at all costs." If it were just numbers, perhaps it would have made it a little easier to defend in a libel case, but words to this effect cannot be taken back easily.
Then there is the question of prompt removal of libel, and how effective it is. I suspect that someone advised IwantGreatCare.org that they have a defence in law because they are not a publisher, as long as they remove content reported to them promptly. This may be the case when you run an online forum or community, but based on conversations with some of the most experienced libel lawyers in the country, I am not convinced that this argument would protect IwantGreatCare.org in court. The facts of the matter are:
- The site invites very specific content - the rating of doctors. It doesn't open a wide avenue of discussions, it isn't a general debate about doctors - it is inviting praise or criticism. A judge may well see this as implying responsibility for the content.
- a site run by "a small team", as IwantGreatCare.org describes itself, does not have the resource for immediate removal of reported content. Again, they may have been advised that "a reasonable time" for removal of content is not defined in law and that some legal experts suggest 72 hours, but in fact, and bearing in mind the point above about the kind of content invited, by the time a piece of content is removed, it may be too late to completely eradicate it from the Internet. The comment about Dr X that I quoted above has since been removed from the site, but still lives in Google's cache. If it is quoted by other sites and related to IwantGreatCare.org, then it will have left the control of the site, and the extent of the libel will have increased significantly. Even if removed, the originator would still be where it started, and I doubt if best efforts would defend the site from responsibility.
The IwantGreatCare.org is still in beta, and is already creating a storm of outrage within the medical profession. If it actually makes it to a full launch and gains some traction, I would not be surprised if it had to defend a libel case within its first 18 months.
To subscribe to the That Danny! blog click here.
Other stories:
‘Network and multi-channel are the key in smaller markets’ (Petar Pavic)
Petar Pavic, Head of R&D at Europapress Holding, Croatia
New Media Conference & Expo 2008 - Bucharest (live blogging from the event)
Some highlights:
* apologies to Petar, there was so much in his excellent presentation, that I can only summarise some key points here. If it is posted online, I will link to it.
- Croatia is small but there are 22m people in its market (former Yugoslavia area and neighbours).
- It follows that network and multi-channel are the key in smaller markets. Sell your network not just your brand. Don't sell page views - sell reach.
- In small markets it is very important to focus on industry specific clients.
- Also bear in mind project/campaign driven revenue.
- It works better if the publisher has an in-house development team.
- You should invest in getting the first digital case study for each business model absolutely right. This will be the template that will drive your success in future projects and with future clients.
- The key to success is a focus on the following revenue areas: DISPLAY, SEARCH, CLASSIFIED, DIRECT, PROJECT BASED
With the following emphasis in getting the adverting business environment right: COMMUNITY, BUSINESS MODELS, PUBLISHING STRATEGY, SALES WORKFLOW
Final motto:"SEARCH [for the right model] BUT DON'T WAIT, BECAUSE YOU WILL BE TOO LATE "
* Context and disclaimer: reports from the conference were captured in real-time. If anything is well expressed, it is to the credit of the presenter. If anything is not completely clear or could have been put better, it is probably down to me. I didn't try to capture everything, just some of the key soundbites. Anything that is my comment, will be qualified as such, under "DD:"
Younger generation gets news from community, not from news sites (Prof Dr Jo Groebel)
Speaker: Prof Dr Jo Groebel - Director, The German Media Institute
New Media Conference & Expo 2008 - Bucharest (live blogging from the event)
Some highlights:
- Research shows that the younger generation doesn't visit news online sites, they collect their news from their online community, and they trust it more.
- We not only show a change in the role of the media, but also in the role of journalists in the community and how they interact.
- We used to think in terms of demography, but many of the old demographic metrics no longer apply. People are more centred on information and situational needs.
- A lot of what we're discussing has been around for 40 years. The Internet has been around in some form since 1969. Most of the ideas that are now in the spotlight have already been discussed. Online community, for example, started in the 90's.
- People are primarily using media for information. We've done studies on what people remember from news items. Within five minutes people forget about 95% of what they read or consume in the news. A lot of information consumption is about the "kick" users get from consuming it.
- The online world increases emotional arousal and information kicks. The more you 'arouse' them, the more likely is your information to be successful. You also need to be aware that if you go beyond a certain level of emotional arousal, you lose the user as well.
- people are now focussing more on visual kicks. Levels of visual intelligence has increased significantly, and levels of verbal intelligence has decreased.
- Lots of media use is about excitement, mood. It is absolutely crucial to target this emotional area.
- Unlike TV, online and newspapers are high-attention media. Whereas TV may be on in the background (and the ratings show that you are watching although your attention may not be there, also for ads).
- Community - even in the world of user content creation, it is still the professionals who produce the quality content and are the catalysts/moderators of what happens in the community. This is not going to change.
- The most crucial change in the online world is that you don't need to care about demography, in quite the same way.
- Convergence has become a reality, a people expect to get everything on all platform, e.g. mobile.
- Immediacy has also become the expectation.
- English has not become as prevalent online as many expected. People still use their local languages mostly online.
* Context and disclaimer: reports from the conference were captured in real-time. If anything is well expressed, it is to the credit of the presenter. If anything is not completely clear or could have been put better, it is probably down to me. I didn't try to capture everything, just some of the key soundbites. Anything that is my comment, will be qualified as such, under "DD:"
Cox Newspapers see audience aggregation as key strategy (Leon Levitt)
Leon Levitt - Vice President Digital Media, Cox Newspapers
New Media Conference & Expo 2008 - Bucharest (live blogging from the event)
Some highlights:
- Newspaper circulation is dropping.
- Cox Newspapers have been profitable in the digital space since 2004/2005.
- Cox wants to aggregate audiences in print and online. This is the key piece of their strategy.
- Thus, if you look at the combined print and digital audience, audiences are actually growing.
- The question we ask ourselves: how do we win in the face of the prevalent "lifestyle wind changes"?
== Discretionary time is precious and competition is for people's time.
== People get information from various sources.
== Barriers to local market protection are diminishing.
- It's all about the engagement of local audiences.
- And the need to re-engage youth and non-"newsies".
- And aligning our online and print business models.
- We learned we had to publish to digital first. This puts the news cycle in context, when the print edition comes out.
- One of our earlier mistakes was to take old print rules and try to apply them to new media. It is a new media, and therefore new rules apply.
- Our journalism is still a core part of our strategy, as well as any content that we can use to "sell around".
- We have adapted to how the media day has changed for our users: in the morning we are more news focussed, in the afternoon, it's more about user serendipity in finding content.
- Money: the key to our long term success is in the display revenue and targeted ad serving.
- We need to learn to manage our ad revenue in a smarter way, a bit like the airline model: if we're sold out, then we are probably selling inventory too cheaply.
- We need to assess ourselves against the digital marketplace, not the newspaper marketplace.
- "Not all pageviews are created equal", for example, slideshows are counted as pageviews, but they are not necessarily of the same value.
- We need to ensure that one-time visitors actually stay longer and give them more content and linking that engages them to stay.
- Need to be conscious of "The clutter issue" - where pages are too cluttered. This comes up in every usability site review, for any news site.
- Our sales strategy, done the right way is the key to success, with appropriate methods, tracking and management.
* Context and disclaimer: reports from the conference were captured in real-time. If anything is well expressed, it is to the credit of the presenter. If anything is not completely clear or could have been put better, it is probably down to me. I didn't try to capture everything, just some of the key soundbites. Anything that is my comment, will be qualified as such, under "DD:"
The death of newspapers – a prediction for 2018
I know it's like a madman's lot-throwing competition out there, with constant battles between doom mongers and those they call dinosaurs.
"The newspaper is dead!" shouts one camp at the other, who then throws the argument right back: "How can it be dead, if it's still making so much money?" and "yes, there's a drop in circulation, but that's cyclical". "You’re blind to change - retorts the doomsayer, "can't you see that within a few years you'll disappear?"
In the time that I have worked for News International and The Sun newspaper, there was a constant stream of arguments from both sides. It's fair to say that all the newspaper people that I met, be it in my employer’s newsroom or in other papers, were pre-occupied with this same discussion. The heated debate often resulted in waves of investment in newspaper digital divisions, followed by lulls of calm, when suddenly it didn't seem so important – because the revenue from digital, though growing, was nothing like the bread and butter newsprint on 'proper paper'.
It's interesting that both sides of this debate in the newspaper industry often define each other in terms of whether they "get it" or not. I can recall numerous occasions when newspaper old hands explained to me that digital is very important, but digital people don't always 'get' the essence of what good journalism and editorial is all about’. You leave the meeting and go to the office next door, to speak to the digital guy, and he would say the same about newspaper people: they don’t always ‘get it’.
So against that backdrop, here are my predictions:
Newspapers will not die, but within ten years will be available almost exclusively on e-paper, as constantly updating news sources, in a format that is more pleasing than screens. There will be significant consolidation within the industry during this time, but news content providers who will survive ten years of decline in print with their content gathering and production operations intact will live to benefit from a lucrative market, and make lots of money.
Now let's unpick this statement:
e-paper - is at a very early phase of its development, but as Bill Gates said, "...people tend to overestimate what can change in a year or two, and they underestimate the cumulative effect of change that can take place in a 10 or 15-year period" (source). The vision is of something that looks very much like newspapers today, but is dynamic and interactive and the content on the pages is constantly updated through GSM/Wifi. When I did some research about e-paper in a previous role, I found that people who watched Minority Report understood the reference better (as John Anderton runs from his pre-crime colleagues onto a subway train, he looks over another passenger's shoulder to see the e-newspaper update to the breaking news [that he is wanted]). This is the concept at the core of what I’m taking about, and its beauty is that because it is constantly updating there is a subscription model right there in the updates, and the ability to serve dynamic advertising.
Constantly updating news sources: readers now expect news to be up-to-date and fresh all the time. The 24-hour news-cycle is well and truly engrained in our expectations, and although commentary and features can have a longer time-span, traditional newspapers will have to adapt to this. The ability of e-paper to do so, is therefore a great selling point for epaper. Did I mention subscription model?
In a format that is more pleasing than screens: we know that people do not read large chunks of text for prolonged periods of time online. This is in part what still keeps print media in business. However, if you can replicate the same tactile and visual serendipity effect you have in newspapers in a digital format - then you've won. Pure and simple..
Significant consolidation within the industry: newspapers are already downsizing editorial staff in the wake of the tough market conditions. But the key to newspaper survival is in understanding that their product is the content. No blogger, citizen journalist or news wiki can replace a well-edited, reliable primary source that subscribes to journalistic standards. No brand extension, digital initiative or diversification will change this basic premise. Those who manage to continue their support for good accurate content will survive. Others will slide gradually into oblivion.
Here endeth my prediction. Let’s revisit this again in 2018 and see if I was right.