At The End Of The Day

I Dub Thee Worthy

The Wall Street Journal has just announced it is starting a new service called “Wall Street Journal Professional” which will link its already existing B2B news databases to new online services.

By offering specific in-depth services to a distinct customer group WSJ attempts to broaden their product line. This new service will be priced between the current WSJ and more expensive services such as Bloomberg.

The immediate reaction by some subscribers was that they were not interested in continuing to receive the “Amateur” edition of the WSJ, many threatening to drop their subscriptions. They were insulted, for the most part, and angry at any price increase that would accompany this change.

The venerated WSJ has changed dramatically over the past several years, partly due to the change in ownership to Rupert Murdoch (News Corp) but also in response to the ongoing struggle of the newspaper industry to continue to attract subscribers. Some of the changes have been to add a Personal Journal section, more features, travel, food, areas that give the newspaper a broader appeal.

Does WSJ really know what their paper’s appeal is? How many subscribers actually delve into the technical financial analysis, and how many tuck it under their arms or leave it on their desk as a career accessory? Will creating a “professional edition” by definition make the existing paper a publication for lay people? Are they eliminating more readers with this strategy than they gain?

Just one of the dangers of segmentation of customer base – you have to be careful not just how you define, but how you label.

Media Closings Caused By The Recession or a New Business Model?

Word comes today that Gourmet Magazine is the latest victim of the recession. One of the tragedies of this recession is the closing of good businesses. In media, Domino and other good magazines have closed because of lack of advertiser support. Or, perhaps, for a different reason.

Occasionally for popular media, viewer or reader movements have stopped closings. Gourmet is certainly popular among its readers. It's the advertisers who aren't supporting it. But, subscribers don't pay enough to keep the business viable. For readers to save Gourmet, they'd have to show advertisers their value. They'd also have to pay more for content. Read the comments in the NY Times note about the closing. Many love the content, and love getting more information online.

Current media models show that consumers love content, but don't love paying. High quality content costs money. Through mass selection, good content still comes through, but filtering is required to find it. Through this model, Gourmet doesn't work as a business. What if Gourmet recreated itself only with editors, who did nothing but surf the internet for highest quality food content that is Gourmet-worthy? This sounds like a Google model. Ouch.

A Media Catfight

Catfighting can turn ugly. But, you can't help but watch, or even be entertained. Some of this is happening now, thanks to statements from Guy Kawasaki, concerning Twitter, that he made at a Search Engine Strategies conference in New York in March. If you haven't heard of Guy or Twitter, you might stop reading now.

Net of Guy's comments. Does he use ghost tweeters? Yes. Does he use Twitter for marketing? Yes. Are you shocked? Apparently, some people in the media business, including marketers and digital media experts, were.

Some reactions:
He thinks Twitter is a tool. I think Guy is a tool.
Is Guy Kawasaki singlehandedly ruining Twitter?
Guy Kawasaki: Twitter Spammer

You can read more of the saga, with links to the original sources of all of these comments, at the Clix Marketing PPC Blog, run by David Szetela, owner, blogger and Twitterer.

To allow equal time, Szetela interviewed Guy on his PPC Rockstars radio show on WebmasterRadio.FM. If you missed it, as I did, you can read all the Twitter comments at #PPCRockstars. They are astounding, as many for their cattishness as anything else. Samples:

Is this a Guy hanging? This is like knocking batteries off shoulders
Guy picks on SEO experts who can't create content but uses ghostwriters...WTF!
Ask him if spamming twitter users for traffic is a business plan Garage would invest in

And one that sums it up:
WTF is everyone so wound up about? It's a frackin radio show.

Yikes people. Twitter has many uses. One thing I like is how it's infinitely customizable to a user's need. Create the network you like, that's relevant to you. Don't be so naive as to think you won't come across marketing. This isn't Facebook, you know.

Can Twitter Create Colleagues?

When I do presentations, my toughest audiences are usually my own internal colleagues. They know when I'm saying something important or just giving them the usual. They have very sensitive BS-meters.

Yesterday, I sat through a webinar on using web 2.0 to create loyalty, presented by American Marketing Association and Vovici. Of course, there was a dedicated Twitter feed.

Besides the usual repeats of presentation material, there was also interesting back and forth side comments that colleagues usually keep to themselves. Some of them questions, some were the usual side, and snide, comments, some highlighting good points, and some the BS-meters going off.

I'm finding I like using Twitter feeds to hear the side conversations, as long as they are comments and not just repeats of the presentation. I'd recommend Twitter for that if nothing else.

Tune In Tomorrow, When We'll Find Out...

An article in today's Wall St. Journal laments the problems of owning radio stations, given reduced ad budgets and credit squeezes put ownership in difficult positions. Their own consolidations, combined with those of major advertisers, means reduced revenue and cutbacks. Since I have been asked to give my opinion on this, I will now do so:

While it may not be a good time to own a radio station, it is not a bad time to advertise on one. Radio listenership remains robust. According to the WSJ article, average time spent listening is 18.5 hours per week. Radio provides immediacy and usually does so more efficiently than TV. Good radio creative works.

Radio's share of advertising dollars is going down, because of the targetability and relevancy of many different online media and proliferation of cable TV options, which can often target as well as or better than radio. But, radio still has its benefits and should have some share of a robust advertising budget. Just not the same share it used to have. Welcome to the new world. And, station owners, don't expect a bailout.

An Election Party!

Last night's historic election to me also defined new ways to get election coverage and share results with friends in virtual election parties that we didn't even plan to set up. New media was as much of the party as tradtional network television. Broadcast networks proved that, for breaking news, they are still the kings of the medium, even if their content and resources are not quite what they used to be.

On Facebook, and I'm sure for those on other social sites, you could get an immediate hit on what your friends might be thinking or doing as the results are breaking. I used it as an outlet for nervousness early in the evening as results were just coming in. But I saw what my friends were thinking and we had a few comment chats that were little cheering sessions.

ABC News was my first network TV stop. They had this revolving scoreboard that attempted to show results from multiple races in multiple states at one time. It was so confusing we had to turn them off. But, because it looked like a scoreboard, for the rest of the night, when we wanted to see results, it was, "put the game on!"

CBS was next, but they lost us when Katie Couric made a reference to "itty bitty Vermont." That didn't go over well so we moved to NBC.

People miss Tim Russert, that's for sure. But NBC was solid and, since we sampled the big three, we pretty much stayed here.

When the TV failed (bad connection, can you believe it?), we sampled online results. I have to say, the NY Times continues to impress with its in-depth online coverage, and we could get county by county results for any state. However, these were posted much later than the networks announced. When you want up to date info, and the Times is 100 electoral votes behind the networks, you go to TV. End of story.

In this election coverage, the broadcast networks also distinguished themselves for objectivity. One good thing about the Obama election (there may be many but this is not a political blog), Fox News is going to have to adjust their attack dog style (it's still on their site this morning) or deal with declining viewership that will reflect only a core neo-con right wing minority (a really small one at that). They risk becoming irrelevant in a new news and political landscape.

Biggest disappointment of the night? Local coverage. I figured Maine's largest newspaper would be on top of the local results. Nope. Turns out they were getting their info from another paper in Maine's third largest city. Instead of seizing the opportunity to distinguish and define themselves in a new medium, they let it go.

It made it all fun to watch, that's for sure!

Ouch

The hand bit back.  Read this post from MediaPost's Digital Frontier blog.  A Ball State University student posts about her experience conducting research at an inner-city elementary school. Unfortunately, her post shows more about her naievete concerning consumerism, brands and the difference between elitism, entitlement and just plain street sense.

Kudos to the author, however, for at least posting material that incited comment and discussion.  None of the other posts that came in this e-newsletter elicited more than a couple of whatever replies.

The Ugly Side of UGC

It had to happen sooner or later.  Someone is taking their divorce public on YouTube.  I'm not posting the direct link or the video here, because it will be easy enough to find if you read the article.

I suppose this is to be expected, and not really unusual, given the American public's taste for this type of "reality."  People's Court, and all that followed, are no different from this, except now it's in the hands of "wronged" parties in divorces.

Remember where it all started? Divorce Court? Not the current one.  The original started in 1957.

Another Drain on Corporate America's Day...

hulu.com launched today. It is an ad supported video on demand site, and it is very cool. I just had to pry myself away to continue with my work day. I could have browsed available videos for the remainder of the afternoon. With all these TV & movie options, I might not have minded if the writers strike continued for a while longer. Who needs new programming when I've got Doogie Howser, MD, just a click away?

Even the ad supported element of it seems cool to me- some advertisers even let you chose which ad you watch. Nissan for example asks "Which ad experience would you prefer for this video?" The viewer can then chose to view the Nissan Rogue, Titan or Nizzan Z ad. Now there is a fully interactive experience.

Do They Get It?

By now you've probably heard about Wal-Mart's latest business news.  Or maybe you haven't?  That should indicate something.

They've discontinued their movie download service.  Wal-Mart's excuse is that their technology partner, Hewlett-Packard, stopped supporting key infrastructure.  Although HP won't confirm it, that excuse is a crock.  Look at Wal-Mart's other tech offerings that failed.  Don't forget that a few years ago Wal-Mart tried to create a rival DVD service to Netflix.  That failed.  They also tried to create a social networking section on their own site.  That also failed.

Only Apple seems to have succeeded in the movie download service. While lots of brand are succeeding in the social networking arena.  What do these brands have that Wal-Mart does not? 

A clear definition of their brand.

And that is Wal-Mart's biggest mistake in this scenario.  It has nothing to do with technology or support.  They failed to understand their own brand.