• Custom Media Craft
• Hammorati
• Team Hammock
• People

9 Things I've Learned About Magazines From Blogging

Do as I say, not as I do

My Resolutions for 2009

Serving Marketers is Our Business - Thoughts from the ABM Top Management Meeting

Why are some publishing companies run by people who seem to hate publishing?

In Advertising Age, Simon Dumenco asks a very important question, Do Magazine Publishers Still Believe in Publishing? And no, he isn't asking that question in the way "print-is-dead" zealots ask it. He's asking that question because, like me, he's looking around and wondering what's up with the people are who are running media companies who can't figure out how to make money with brands that millions of readers care about. And again, this is not a question about print -- this is a question about print or online.

Quote:

"That big publishers can't manage to sell enough print ads, in a post-print media economy shadowed by a larger economic meltdown, is not exactly shocking. What is shocking, though, is that they're essentially saying to scrappier, upstart online competitors: Take our business, please! We're throwing in the towel! If we can't play by the old rules of publishing -- the profit-soaked, imperial model with endless layers of coddled management ensconced in luxe trophy offices -- then we don't want to play at all!

Frankly, I should be rejoicing over the phenomena Dumenco is observing as I'm a member of Team Scrappy and not Team Coddled Management. But still, it stuns me to observe what Dumenco sees when he asks, "Looking around at some of America's largest magazine publishers, I see...publishers who are anti-publishing."

A few years ago, I was interviewed by Media Life Magazine on the topic, "Why Magazines Matter" and was asked the question, "Are there any industry-wide practices that you consider detrimental to the business of magazine publishing?

Here was my answer in 2005:

"I think people who don't even read magazines, who certainly don't think about magazines, make way too many decisions about the business and editorial aspects of the industry."

Almost four years later, I'd augment that observation slightly to add that people who don't read magazines or use the Internet or watch TV or go to movies seem to be running certain media companies.

Team Scrappy has the whole innovation playground to itself because people who love media actually run those companies.

Later: So what will happen when publishers who hate publishing pull the plug on publishing? Well, I would be less than transparent if I didn't suggest my belief that companies like Hammock, who help the marketers formerly known as advertisers, create their own print, online and video media, will benefit from this trend. So I'll go ahead and say it. Indeed, I'll go ahead and invite marketers who want to speak directly with customers and not through publishing companies who seem to hate publishing to contact me at rexhammock@gmail.com.

But another thing is happening, as well. As reported in the New York Times this morning, the Kaiser Family Foundation is starting a news service to produce in-depth coverage of the policy and politics of health care, both for an independent Web site and in collaborations with mainstream news organizations. In my book -- and I have 20+ years in this book -- such an endeavor used to be called "custom publishing" and was viewed as something tainted as "non-idependent." I, of course, have been a champion of the notion that media created by or for associations, foundations and even corporate marketers, can provide great journalism, insight and be of the highest quality.

I just never thought I'd be assisted in my advocacy of that point-of-view by media companies run by people who hate media.

Comments (0)

October 30, 2008

[cross-posted at RexBlog]

On Tuesday, amidst my live-blogging of the Future of Business Media Conference in the New York, I took a shot at CNBC for covering the economy in the way the Weather Channel and CNN cover hurricanes: with breathless alarm and Anderson Cooper dressed in rain-gear while panting in a way that makes every puff of wind seem like proof that, yes, this could be the Category 5 we've all feared.

At the conference, I heard business-side and news-side people from Dow-Jones, CNBC, Fox Business News, The Economist, BusinessWeek, Forbes.com and Fortune (to name a few) say something to the effect: This is a really difficult time, but this is the story of a lifetime and, well, it's been good for our ratings (or newsstand sales).

So I guess I should not be surprised that since the business media is covering the "financial crisis" as if it is a weather event, business executives are using a term most associated with weather to describe how they are responding to the "crisis" that is leading to what our experts in the Economy Tracking Center in Miami are believing will be a Category 3, 4 or maybe even 5 recession. Or better yet, a nuclear winter:

Hunker down.

Look at a Google news search for recent uses of the term "hunker down." This morning, you'll see it is not only the go-to cliche for covering bad weather (the snows in the northeast) and natural disasters (the earthquake in Pakistan), but it is now the must-use term to describe anything related to how businesses and individuals are reacting to the "bad economy."

As a business person, I understand the need to be mindful of the context and conditions you face. Certainly, if your customers are sitting on their wallets, you can't pretend they are about to purchase your wares. Being flexible and prepared for whatever situation you face is the only way to run a business. But by focusing on the hunker down metaphor -- especially the "we're afraid" aspects of the term, there is a strong possibility that the "hunker down" activities are no more than duck-and-cover exercises.

Isn't hunkering down the panic reaction to a situation that a calm, rational person might discover contains some opportunity? What if you're in a business that suddenly finds all of its competitors re-trenching and pulling back and hiding in caves -- if you hunker down, aren't missing a unique opportunity to gain market share?

The term hunker down means two things: One is related to preparation for some type of pressure you're anticipating. The other relates to hiding.

I fear that a lot of business planners are confusing the first type of hunkering down -- anticipating and preparing for an economic downturn -- with the second type of hunkering down: hiding.

If you're a company or organization that wants to elevate its awareness -- and brand -- in the market you serve, the worst thing you can do -- in good times or bad -- is hunker down -- as in, hide. The evidence is overwhelming that companies who market wisely and aggressively while others are hunkering down are the winners during -- and after -- a recession. For example, according to research conducted at Penn State's Smeal College of Business during the last recession, "firms entering a recession with a pre-established strategic emphasis on marketing; an entrepreneurial culture; and a sufficient reserve of under-utilized workers, cash, and spare production capacity are best positioned to approach recessions as opportunities to strengthen their competitive advantage."

Rather than use the hunker down metaphor, winner companies followed another metaphor -- one from athletic competition:

"Athletes often choose times of stress to mount attacks: strong runners and bicycle racers may increase their pace on hills or under other challenging conditions," the authors write. "In a similar vein, proactive marketing includes both the sensing of the existence of the opportunity (a tough hill and fatigued opponents) and an aggressive response (possessing the necessary strength or nerve) to the opportunity."

A warning, however: The research indicates that it is only when companies are prepared for recessions (like cyclists who train for hills) who benefit. Thus, Apple with its pre-existing marketing and advertising savvy and a mountain of cash, is likely to benefit during this recession, as it has in previous ones, rather than another company whose marketing is inept, even in less challenging times.

Bottomline: Hunkering down is not the metaphor you want to be your guide when planning your marketing efforts for the coming months -- especially if your marketing has been working and your competitor seems to be huffing and puffing already. Hunker down wherever you can -- say, executive compensation -- but use a recession to raise your visibility, not hide.

Comments (0)

September 17, 2008

One of the reasons we sometimes hear association and corporate marketers use for hesitancy in incorporating Facebook into their communication strategies is their perception that it is comprised primarily of college-age students. That's correct, however, the trend is clearly in another direction.

According to this analysis of current (September, 2008) users of the social networking service from O'Reilly Media, "With the U.S. now accounting for only about a third of all Facebook users, we are starting to see a gradual shift away from its original demographic of college-age users (18-25): 46% of all users are 18-25 years old, down from 51% in late May. The number of users in the 18-25 segment is growing, but at a slower pace than the other age groups."

More significantly, Facebook is seeing its fastest growth among teens (13-17) and middle-age professionals between the ages of 35 and 44. Also showing strong growth, but at a smaller rate are the age groups 45-54 and 55-59.

Should be interesting numbers to track.

Comments (0)

September 5, 2008

A few weeks ago, one of my favorite tech bloggers, Louis Gray, wrote a great item regarding the myth of "social media overload." In it, he listed what he thinks are the types of social media a person needs to be using these days in order maintain his or her identity online and to engage in the conversations taking place on the world live web.

The list, which likely will appear daunting to you if you don't maintain any of them, is a great roundup. As many of the accounts he mentions work with one another (as in, when you update one, it will notify the other), the task of maintaining them is not as challenging at it may appear.

Most importantly, Louis explains that you don't need to register for every new version of each one of these categories of services. People like Louis (and me) will sign up for every new one of these we run across, but that's mainly for research purposes.

Here's what Louis describes as a "full deck" of social media tools:

1 or more blogs that you manage.
1 or more accounts on an RSS feed reader.
1 or more microblogging identities.
1 or more accounts on a business networking tool.
1 or more accounts on a social network.
1 or more accounts on a service aggregator or lifestream.
(Also helpful: A social bookmarking site, online photo site, music recommendation service, etc.)

While I agree fully with Louis, if I were just starting out doing all of this and looked at this list, I'd probably not start. That's one of the reasons I recommend people set up a FaceBook account (even if they are outside its core demographics). It is one service that lets you experiment with all the types of features and functions Louis lists. Personally, I have several reasons that FaceBook doesn't work for me, but when it comes to providing a way to manage your identity, network of connections and a means of expressing yourself online, FaceBook is the benchmark service. Nothing else -- and by nothing else, I mean LinkedIn or Plaxo -- comes close to packaging together so many different functions and features.

Here's the deck of social media tools I use most:

RexBlog.com: For the most part, this is what I consider to be my professional and business-related focus (media, technology, conversational & new media, marketing, magazines). However, I do reserve the right to head off into totally unrelated topics at times.
Delicious.com/rexblog: These are sites I bookmark that are related to business-related topics. I sometimes refer to this as my "link blog."
Hammock.com/rexhammock : My official Hammock Inc. "people page."
RexHammock.com : Personal passions and random-topic tumble-log.
Twitter.com/r : Stream-of-life commentary in < 140 character posts, and where I "hang-out" online.
Flickr.com/rexblog : Where I post photos.
YouTube.com/rexhammock : Where I post videos.
FriendFeed.com/rexhammock : A "lifestream" (a combined flow) of everything I post anywhere.
Facebook, Linkedin, etc.: I don't really "express myself" on these and other "social networking" sites, but on most of them, you can find me if you search for my name or the username "rexhammock."

Bonus advice for those who have several cards from the social media deck: Use the microformat tag rel="me" (as explained here) when you link between your "full deck" of accounts. Technically, I'm not sure what I just said, but Kevin Marks told me to do it so I do. I don't know exactly how it works, but the result is this: When you Google my name, all of my different social media accounts show up, even though they have different usernames (rexblog, "r", rex, rexhammock).

Comments (1)

August 6, 2008

The Antikythera Mechanism, a device dated to 150 BC and recovered in a shipwreck in 1901 off the Greek island of Antikythera, predicted future positions of the moon and sun, and perhaps other planets. But that's not all: Archeologists found a tiny dial on the device labeled with the locations of Olympic games. According to the Wired Science Blog, "The feature was probably not integral to its function, but a stylish demonstration of the machine's power, not unlike a watch that displays stock prices or an iPhone-enabled speedometer."

Very impressive, but my idea of a great Olympics calendar is one that helps me keep up with a dozen or so cable channels and streaming video on websites, like the one on NBCOlympics.com. It would be even better if it hooked up to the DVR on my Cable box.

Let the games begin!

Bonus video: A great video about the Antikythera Mechanism on Nature.com.

Comments (0)

May 14, 2008

[Cross-posted on rexblog.com]

Wired editor and author of the book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson, posted an item on his blog today that contains an observation I believe is so obvious, it is completely missed by many self-appointed experts. (Okay, I'll admit I live in that glass house.):

"Not only do small (Long Tail) publishers montetize their content at 3-5 times the rate of the larger publishers in PubMatic's survey, but they're improving in the current environment while the big publisher decline.

This is a fact of life in business-to-business-media, where the business model has long been focused on "free" distribution of content to decision-makers in specialized fields. The "cost per thousand" (CPM) model of advertising sales does not exist as a metric in this long-tail of the media world. Of course, if an advertiser selling a $100,000 piece of equipment can reach 90% of the decision makers in a market of 5,000 specifying engineers, then, hell-yeah, the publisher of that content should be able to monetize it at hundreds of times the rate of, say, a newsweekly.

The lesson here: Online, if you want to monetize content, the number of eyeballs seeing your content is less important than who those eyeballs belong to. And the more helpful that content is in assisting real people make important and valuable decisions, the more "monetizable" it will be.

Comments (0)

email | bio

Recent Posts

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•