IFRA

The authors of the “3 Lives” essay make a strong argument in favour of converting traditional daily newspapers into hybrid and/or free publications as a way to transform the business model. Their argument flows as follows:

Digital media is replacing newspapers primarily because of the appeal of the “no cost” model to users. A free or hybrid form allows newspapers to compete with digital media and rebuild circulation. If the circulation/readership of newspapers comes back up, we will then be in the self perpetuating advertising circulation spiral and the business model will have changed for the positive.

I have a number of disagreements with this essay. Let me first address the key points of the argument:

1. I am not convinced that the primary reason for the success of digital media is that the user bears no cost. This ignores the convenience, interactivity and just plain sexiness of much of the new media. Users turn to digital media because it’s focused, easy-to-use and allows for wonderful interactivity, putting the user at the centre of the experience. Above all, I go to a website for a specific need to be serviced, and can go to another with the click of the mouse. With a newspaper, I am inundated by reams of information, not all of which is relevant to me. To go to an alternative paper is not very convenient.

2. Offering the paper free to readers will build circulation and readership, but will readers and advertisers value this? Households complained about receiving copies of The Examiner free, against their will. This is both startling and telling. The fact is that the newspaper no longer met any needs of the targeted households, which is where the real introspection must begin.

3. The ‘self-perpetuating’ advertising circulation spiral is no longer valid in these times. Just because you build readership will not ensure advertising flows. The digital media offer better targeting, more accountability and a pay-for-performance option that newspapers with their blunt-edged mass circulation offering are not even close to providing. Increasingly marketers are moving from a simple “how many people can I reach” question to a “how many relevant people can I reach and how do I equate payment with actual results” approach.

Above all, I do not believe that Riepl’s Law is relevant any longer in this day and age. I would urge that we publishers look at the phrase “the simplest means, forms and methods, once they have established themselves in society and been deemed useful, will never be able to be completely superseded by even the most accomplished and highly developed alternatives” through the eyes of my 12-year-old daughter. As far as she is concerned, the web is indeed the simplest form and method (not to mention the most entertaining!) to access the information she wants and needs. Newspapers, in contrast, are clunky and complicated. Ease, simplicity and usefulness lie in the eye of the users, not the producers of media.

On the other hand, I am in broad agreement with the thesis as laid out in the MMM (multi-media, multi-channel, multi-platform) strategy paper. To wit, the understanding of the core purpose of newspapers – that of delivering information and entertainment – and to use the new technologies, channels and platforms in order to remain relevant to our audience.

I would like, however, to underline some of the points made for emphasis and offer some additional thoughts on this theme.

• Of all the changes in our environment, we must pay the closest attention to the changes in the socio-cultural environment. As publishers, we are often guilty of “inside-out” thinking where we focus on minutiae like the technologies of production and distribution. “Outside-in” analysis will tell us that the users of news and entertainment have rapidly evolving needs and wants. Harnessing technologies, skills, resources and platforms to deliver what the user needs, in the form he wants and at the time and place he wants, should be our primary task.

• In the new media, content needs to be a lot more focused and tailored. Departing from our “mass media” thinking, we need to tailor the editorial product for specific audiences and specific contexts. It is not sufficient to create “shovelware” sites where the content of the newspaper is put on a website as is. Likewise for other platforms and channels.

In order for the MMM strategy to be rounded out as a proper business strategy, we will have to pay attention to and build the sustainable monetization programmes that advertisers and marketers want. We will have to ask and answer questions regarding multiple-media campaigns and their pricing, more transparent performance-led payment models and the skills that will be required to sell these packages to extremely savvy and demanding advertisers.