What community do newspapers create?

This article in Techdirt on newspaper funding raises the very real issue that other commentators have made before. The demise of ad revenues on newspaper websites is not down to the lack of advertisers, its down to the reason why advertisers would want to advertise on these sites.

Its not enough these days to provide hundreds of pages of content with adverts and hope you sell all the spaces crested. In fact, as I've mentioned before, some newspapers realise this and are even reducing their inventory.

So what does make a site valuable enough for advertisers to want to spend money on them?

1. Relevant content
But does this have to be an exact version of what I read on the train this morning? Why can't you include links in all your online articles to your sources or provide more supporting information than you currently do, so that you couldn't fit into your 100 word print-version? What about the additional articles that you wrote but couldn't get submitted by the deadline - but are still really useful?
Also, what about making the content more relevant by allowing proper personalisation and customisation (such as the Google news page). You could also consider adding useful tools and relevant interactive features & functionality. And don't get me started on channel relevance....

2. Engaging
You build a stronger connection with your audience/readership, by allowing them to engage. This isn't that difficult and you don't need that latest fancy disucssion board or chat tool, you just need to facilitate dialogue between yourselves and your users.
BTW: you also need to allow this to happen between themselves if you are after creating a community worth joining.
For a good example of this I point people at http://www.theregister.co.uk . This IT news site has a decent range of articles published throughout the day and often goes into significant detailed investigation of key technology issues. It also provides and invites discussion on each of its articles and generates a decent community around subjects and writers, without alienating the one-off commenter.

The question to ask therefore is... if The Register and similar reporters as Steve Rubel highlights here have manged to do this? Why don't the others stop trying to convince everyone that their traditonal business model still works and learn a newer trick or two?

Corporate structure and the customer

I've wrote previously about how your company structure is not necessarily your customer's view of your company, so it comes as no suprise that Steve Hurst, editor at Customer Strategy feels that the silo'd structure of companies are to blame. He's just attended the Technology for Marketing & Advertising show in London and has blogged about:

"..the underlying ‘command and control’ corporate structures that are making it nigh on impossible for organisations to give their customers what they want and when they want it in a consistent manner.... Come on guys this is the 21st century not the 19th."

Strong words?

Well, not really, given that very few companies show a high degree of customer experience maturity, despite customer service making a difference in a recession.

As this economic downturn bites deeper, at what point is it that companies realise that their structure may be the difference between success and failure (and its not the fault of the customer)? Perhaps only the ones that live to tell the tale in the end!

Social Graphing the Bank of England

The Bank of England's going through a turbulent time right now thanks to the recession (although perhaps not as much as Gordon Brown or the FSA), so its interesting to look at its Corporate Social Graph as viewed on Silobreaker:
http://www.silobreaker.com/FlashNetwork.aspx?DrillDownItems=11_328002



What does this tell us? Well, it doesn't tell me much really... but I'm certain that the Bank of England doesn't have its own tool for doing this sort of graphing and it may be useful for them to plot their relationships over time.

Ryanair comments on blog

Its not often I get annoyed about somthing I see online (as I think I've seen most type of things by now). However I was most displeased to see that a blog exposing a bug in the Ryanair booking website was repeatedly subjected to insulting comments by people claiming to be RyanAir staff:
http://www.jason-roe.com/blog/free-ryanair-free-flight-bug/

If indeed it really was staff at Ryanair hurtling the abuse.... then not only is this another PR own-goal for the company, but perhaps someone should point out that their time could be better spent investigating & fixing issues than being rude on someone's blog?

Update:
Ryanair has confirmed that it was a member of its staff who commented on Jason Roe's blog last week. However the complete response from Stephen McNamara of Ryanair has left many bloggers even more dumbfounded.

"It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again."Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel".

Oh.... how silly can this all get?

Twitter for PR (a slideshare guide)

Also, for anyone investigating the use of Twitter as a PR tool, take a look at this presenation from Corrinew who is Asst. Professor of Communication at St. Edward's University:

Twitter for PR (Public Relations)

View more presentations from Corinne . (tags: microblogging pr2.0)

Twitter for PR

Today HTC announced via Twitter that it was launching its new phone in North America:
(Thanks go to Neville Hobson (http://twitter.com/jangles) for pointing this out)

This is not the first use of the tool for PR purposes. Company PR team such as JetBlue's have been using Twitter for a while now.

So how many UK companies are currently using Twitter as a PR tool? (Note: I can't find any right now, but I'm still looking)

Fake user generated video content

Question: What is fake UGC video and what is not?

1. A fan of a brand receiving a free clothing product and wearing it (and reviewing it) on their video blog
2. A company freely asking for video clips of their customers eating one of their products and the posting the silliest ones online?
3. An online marketing person recording his girlfriend (in very little clothes) using a Nintendo Wii Fit computer game, and then uploading it to YouTube for millions to view

The answer is... it depends. There's a thin line between posting honest and dishonest content. In my opinion, the deciding factor is transparency & disclosure. In my examples given, this would be OK...

1. As long as the fan states they got the product for free. Its then up to the video blog audience to decide if they accept that
2. As long as the company makes it clear that they are requesting content from customers and the purpose they will be put to. Its then up to the customer to decide if they want to submit video
3. As long as Gio & Lauren were doing it in their own time and there was no genuine link between the agency who they both worked for at the time and Nintendo (which they both deny)
   Note: http://laurenbernat.com/ has now moved agencies, but still champions cyber fitness - Its then up to you the viewer to decide if you want to visit this site again and again....

What if newspapers didn't exist?

What if they all went on strike? That would be bad wouldn't it?

Note:
That may mean they don't have to break stories about how they are great at errr.... breaking stories:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/feb/18/newspapers-usa

The divison of creativity

The divison of labour was cited by Adam Smith as an essential factor in the growth of prosperity (A.K.A. The Wealth of Nations). The idea was that as you sub-divide production into smaller tasks, you create specialisation in activity & process and therefore efficiency in production. Factories were created that allowed this specialism in production and resulted in increases in product and quality. Note: My school economics teacher would be proud of me

However as we reach a new economic time where:

1. Media business models are failing (e.g. newspapers/printing presses)
2. Distribution is free and the incremental cost of digital production is almost nothing
3. Consumers needs are fragmented (and continuing to do-so)
4. People are forming online groups that more-closely resemble social structures
5. Creativity and innovation are recognised and encouraged more & more

Are we now suffering from a mainstream factory mentality that is counter-productive to understanding and embracing the new economy?

Note:
Tom Fishburne puts this nicely in his 'Idea Factory' Brand Camp cartoon:

http://www.tomfishburne.com/.a/6a00e008c451518834010536eb8d52970b-450wi

Crowdsourced management could be a legal loophole

I've been following the court case of the team from PirateBay P2P File Sharing service with some amazement. Firsly they had half of the charges against them dropped on the first day of their prosecution and secondly the Swedish team behind it seem more intent on having huge parties before any decision has been arrived at.. how liberating!

Anyway, it seems that the organic and non-hierarchical oganisation structure of the company may prove to be their saviour. It seems that on Thursday the case prosecutor had some difficulty understanding how the collaborative organisation of the site worked.

In an effort to understand who the boss was, when asked "But someone must ultimately decide whether to put up a certain text or graphic" the defendant Fredrik Neij answered "No. Why? If someone believes a new text is needed, he just inputs it. Or if a graphic is ugly, someone makes a better one. The one who wants to do something just does it." Humourous stuff perhaps... but it may also be intersting to see how the Swedish legal system copes with allocating blame in a crowdsourced situation.

Could torrents save newspapers?

For those who don't know what a Bit Torrent is, I'll just quickly explain that its a Per-to-peer file sharing service that enable you to download large files from a collection of smaller ones scattered across the Internet.
Note:
I'll not visit the legality of the issue or where intellectual theft occurs when you download a copyrighted / licensed file such as some software or a digitally encoded movie. Suffice to say its enough of an issue to get those who run sites thank link off to these collection of files (torrents) in enough trouble from official bodies. But exist they do and you don't have to download illegal material from them (although you do have to wonder why they name themselves 'Pirate Bay', etc. )

Instead you can use them as a new distribution method, or so one Swedish newspaper thinks . Sydsvenskan (no, don't ask me to pronounce it, I have enough trouble reading the credits on my DVD collection) has started distributing a nicely produced PDF of its newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/feb/20/bittorrent-newspaperformats

However the jury is still out on whether this legal use of P2P technology is actually worth it, let alone a sensible business model (e.g. if it was, why aren't other media companies doing this more?)

How many auto brands do you need?

Now, most of us recognise, buy and have affinity with some brands. They are crafted to appeal to specific factors (e.g. demographic, attitudinal, aspirational, etc.). We're probably all aware to some extent that a lot of brands out there are owned by the same parent company. In fact in some markets these brands even compete for your attention and £'s.

Some examples:

1. Banking: NatWest & RBS:
   Different banks, different branches, one owner (RBS)
2. Auto insurance: Direct Line, Churchill, Privilege:
   Differently targetted customers, different pricing and one owner (RBS again)
3. Car manufacturers: Fiat, Alpha Romeo, Ferrari
   Different products, different country prominence and one owner (Fiat)

Note: Apparently you can still buy a new Alpha in the UK!

But what happens when you start cutting back your brands?.... What impact does that have? Well this is now happening in the USA with General Motors, who have announced in their 'viability plans' for long-term success to the US Government, these include:

• No longer making any new Saturn cars from 2011
• 'Considering the options' for Pontiac (e.g. cutting models and/or merging with another division of GM)

This is already in addition to its efforts to try and sell SAAB and Hummer (Which incidentally doesn't seem to have done so well recently. Isn't it suprising that in a time when fuel costs have shot up and there is a general acceptance that the 'War On Terror' may have been a bit of a rouse...that nobody wants to buy a huge gas-guzzling military-styles vehicle right now?). Expect GM execs to decide whether to turn of Hummer's life support machine by the end of March 2009.

So... what does it mean when large car companies start killing off their auto brands?

Well.... not a lot perhaps. From what I understand about the Saturn brand, its not the most highly regarded automobile in the USA. It was originally developed in response to the encroaching Japanese offering and seen as a 'new approach'. Now they make also-ran SUV's and Euro-shelled eastern copies, so that obviously worked well . A look at their web presence will tell you how much they like their customers:
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/SaturnIndex.jsp

In Europe (and especially the UK) we've steadily killed off a lot of auto brands, such as:

• Ghia - was once an Italian design studio and sports car maker, now its used as a trim specification on the occasional Ford saloon or MPV.
• Triumph - once split from the motocycle division in the mid-1900's, they made cars of diminishing quality until its demise at the hands of British Leyland, created in 1969 and once the 5th largest car maker in the World.
• Rover - once the maker of decent and fast saloon cars (especially if you ever got chased by one of these 'jam sandwiches' as a younger driver ), now the company is 'resting' in the drawer of an Indian accountant somewhere.

So what's the moral of this story?

Well, as the British motor industry has proved, you don't need many auto brands. But then, we don't really have a British car industry any more. Could GM be heading in the same direction?

Customer Experience Maturity

Having previously menioned how customer experience (e.g. a bad multi-channel experience) can make the difference between financial success and failure, I'm amazed to see some companies making obvious mistakes that affect have a business impact.
Note:
For those that want proof of this, you should really read Forrester's report from 24th March last year - incidentally my wedding date - that shows how a better Customer Experience can "Generate Significant Revenue"

Bruce Temkin, who produced this report ,also recently presented further work on this theme at the Net Promoter Conference in San Francisco. As well as covering additional customer experience research, Bruce covered the essential question:

"Why is it that firms let customers down?"

He also walked-through his 5 levels of corporate customer experience maturity. In essence, how tuned-in are companies to the needs/wants/thoughts/perspective of their customers, rather than just the 'how do we sell more stuff to them?' mentality? Here's his scale along with the percentage of companies he believes are at that point:

1. Interested
   customer experience is important, but funding and upper-level support is minimal.
2. Invested
   customer experience is important and initial programs are being put in place -- but the effort is still not connected with profitability for the organization.
3. Committed
   customer experience is critical to the company and executives understand how it's connected to fundamental results: It's not customer experience for customer experience's sake.
4. Engaged
   customer experience is a core part of the company's strategy and objectives.
5. Embedded
   it's in the company's DNA, the essence of everything and anything the company does.

I'll leave it to Jessica Tsai Assistant Editor at CRM magazine to give you the full low-down on the presentation:
http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/CRM-News/Daily-News/The-5-Levels-of-Customer-Experience-Maturity-52417.aspx

So where does your organisation rank?

Underhand activity and negative PR

Sitting on the train this morning, I read the freebie newspaper (Metro) front page article about Facebook deleting a provision which said users could remove all their content at any time. These new terms meant that Facebook had rights to freely use anything people had uploaded to the website, even after members had deleted material or close their accounts.

However, in a dramatic U-Turn (shouldn't that be an 'about-face-book'?), Facebook has now reversed this action and reverted to its previous terms (read Mr Zuckerberg's blog article urgently posted last night).

The impact of both these actions is serious, not only as useful fuel for privacy campaigners such as the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC), but also as an example of how to quickly create mistrust and affect your overall reputation in the online world.

As Zuckerberg is at pains to point out, Facebook now has 175 million members across the world "if it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world". However, its already clear that more and more people now believe Facebook to be less of the democracy it once made itself to be. And a reputation such as this is very hard to shrug off....

Newspaper traffic growing, not shrinking

If we keep hearing so much about the demise of the newspaper industry, how come the traffic for the top 10 US online newspapers has grown? Yes, that's right, the top 10 have had a 16% year-on-year uplift.

The trouble is people are just not buying the paper product so much these days and more recently the advertising revenues are declining (18% / $2bn drop in the USA market towards the end of 2008). So even if they could monetise this increased traffic, its worth less in ad income to them.

Uh oh!

Internet Video Overtakes TV for 18-24

In their 'State of the Industry' research report, online video advertising company LiveRail say that US-based 18 - 24 year olds now spend more time watching internet-distributed video content than “traditional” broadcast television

Although these figures are mainly based upon their own ad-serving figures, they do predict US online advertising spend increasing by 55% in 2009 and 40% in 2010.

Stranegly I can't find any figures for similar UK-based Generation Y or millenial activity....

game set and matchpoint

Ok, we all know that technology (and particularly the disruptive power of the Internet) has changed PR and journalism forever right?

Now PR professionals have access to a powerful new search application that identifies the most appropriate and influential reporters and bloggers for their specific story pitch.
http://www.prmatchpoint.com/matchpoint.html

MatchPoint is offering a 10 Day Free Trial to check out this innovative new way to match your press release or other pitching materials with relevant journalists and bloggers.

The future of PR is...

Should CEO's Twitter?

Dear CEO, what are you to do? You're worrying that you'll have your salary capped to a meagre $500k per year, you've learnt how to blog, and now one of your communications staff suggests you Twitter as well.

"You want me to what?" you ask.

Well, there's a growing call for you to put your thoughts down in 140 characters and let the world follow your every anouncement (and mispelling). . Loic Le Meur, founder of video-blogging company Seesmic, has very strongly stated "If European CEOs think it is a waste of time to Tweet, it is arrogant and a wrong step in their company's strategy". Perhaps, but whislt it may be good for smaller company CEO's to Twitter (e.g. those of tech companies looking to generate more PR, SEO and VC funding in a very crowded market), it is something your Fortune 500 CEO should really be spending time on, rather than running the company?

Well according to Forbes, its a practice growing in the US but not getting as much adoption over in Europe.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/18/twitter-europe-blog-tech-ebiz-cx_mb_0119twitter.html?partner=contextstory

Well CEO, should you decide to Twitter, here's a useful guide:
(Note, this article is actually for CIO's, but I think its safe to say its relevant for the top dog as well): http://www.cio.com/article/480318/Twitter_Etiquette_Five_Dos_and_Don_ts_

Online retailers fail on email customer service

Figures released today from the the eDigital Research survey of 39 UK eTailers , has Play.com, Amazon and Asos claiming the top three slots this year . However many of them provide poor customer service by email.

eConsultancy goes into more detail and give specific examples of which online retailers do well (and which ones don't):
http://econsultancy.com/blog/3282-etailers-need-to-work-on-customer-service

More details are available if you download the report:
http://www.edigitalresearch.com/news/item/nid/849753604
(I'm waiting on my one right now)