Attending paidContent.org’s Future of Business Media Conference today was a pleasure. The bill was full of interesting, relevant, topical, high-level speakers, the program was executed smoothly, and the Waldorf=Astoria is a great venue. The best part about it was the level of the attendees. The sponsors must love Rafat, et al right now. I saw many top level B2B media players there, and they mostly seemed happy to be there, too. Overall, a great experience: thanks, paidContent.

But, for FOBM’s success, I don’t think that anyone has really nailed this format, yet. DeSilva + Phillips had something similar not too long ago, and I didn’t think it was as good, and I think that the content at even this show was a bit lacking. For instance, while I found the Q&A with Gordon Crovitz incredibly interesting, I didn’t see much takeaway there for someone who is looking to run his/her business better. While I thought the back and forth between David Carey (Conde Nast Portfolio) and Keith Fox (BusinessWeek) was really interesting (and civil…kudos, boys), I didn’t understand why someone representing The Economist and Mansueto were on the panel. I see The Economist as more competitive (for both readers and advertisers) with TIME, Newsweek, et al (though they might disagree), and I think that Inc./Fast Company belong more on a panel with Wired and the now-defunct Business2.0. It just didn’t seem to be a well-though-out panel.

Now, that’s not to say that I wasn’t enthralled by most of the content I was exposed to, but I don’t think I learned much aside from gossip and quasi-inside info about Fox Business News from the Neil Cavuto luncheon keynote. Maybe that was supposed to be a lighter part of the program, a break, a change of pace, but I think this was applicable to much of what we heard. As usual, the most valuable info was being exchanged between attendees in the halls.

I’m not sure what the right format is, but there has got to be some way that you can plan a day-long program where operators can sit down and learn real lessons about their businesses.

Again, kudos to paidContent for a job relatively well-done, but I think this space is still open water for B2B media.

If you’re a B2B group publisher, publisher, COO, CFO, CIO, or CEO, wouldn’t you pay for a day of real lessons, ideas, real, take-home value? I know that this is what’s promised at these conferences…but I think it is not truly delivered…yet.

Unless you scrolled down on my blog and viewed all of the comments that people have left, you may have missed the following tidbit from an “insider” (self-proclaimed) at BNP/Stagnito:

“I think that everyone is waiting to see what will happen after the first of the year.  I heard that over 50% of the employees have a resume out.  I find that most people at BNP are rude and treat us as if we are fresh out of school and have never worked in the business world before.   It is all very demoralizing. Actually I feel like a grade schooler that has been sent to the princlple’s office.  There is still no laughter in the halls and most people’s response it’s a job for the momment.”

My guess is that 50% is an exaggeration, but it seems like there’s still a lot of negative buzz in the halls at BNP/Stagnito.  Maybe an article about how the company seems to be doing well from an ad page standpoint from min’s b2b would brigten their spirits.

In my last post, I linked to Paul Conley’s five questions for B2B post on his blog.  I think it’s an excellent series of articles, with deep, thought-provoking questions.  Perhaps it is best suited for middle and upper management, but I would encourage anyone who is interested in the industry to read it.

I do, however, take exception to his third post, which focuses on diversity in B2B.  Before responding, I should say (although I don’t think it should matter) that I’m a Jewish male, 25 years old, and that I have written about this subject before in an earlier post where I chastised American Business Media for holding its annual charity golf and tennis tournament at a club that, to me, stunk of disinclusion.

First, let me answer a question a friend posed to me this past weekend: Do I think I’m a racist?  I say: No.  Why?  Because I prefer not to judge people by their race, or assumed race.  When I do judge them, I judge them by other factors, including but not limited to character, intelligence, wit, personality, and personal taste.  I do not judge them by race, creed, color, nationality, sexuality, sex, gender, etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

As many of you read last week on my blog, there’s some disagreement about where the industry is really headed. We all seem to know that it’s headed vaguely away from where it’s been–but where is it really going?

The debate was renewed in this week’s issue of min’s b2b. As many of you have figured out, our mystery B2B executive who is bullish on print is Andy Goodenough. (For those of you who don’t know him well, his name is pronounced “good enough,” but said together, and quickly. I like it.) Read what he had to say here.

We also printed three other articles that would be of interest to people thinking about the print/online debate. Here they are:

B2B Marketers: From 90/10 to 50/50

Q&A With RBI’s Jeff DeBalko

BZ Media Plans New Print Pub Launch

I would also recommend that you take a look at Paul Conley’s excellent blog on this subject (the future of B2B). It’s a bit long, but really good and worth the time.  Start at the very bottom (the first of the “five questions”) and then scroll up.

I talked with my friend who works at the company again last night.  They said that there have been some defections: four fairly essential people, to be exact.  Though they wouldn’t give me names or positions, “fairly essential” was qualified in this way: “they are important, but nobody very high level.”

The impression I got was that the situation has gone back to business as usual.  That’s good news for both the company and its employees.  I hope that they were able to work out their differences.

My friend adds, “work is pretty good, except when you get a memo from HR.”  I think the message here, if anyone from BNP is listening, is that the Stagnito people prefer more informal, personal modes of communication.  Just passing along.

I was just going to respond to some of Leslie’s comments, but I think I’d rather let min’s b2b do the talking on this one.  Issue comes out tomorrow.  There are three articles that discuss the print v. online debate.  The first is a long discussion with John French, CEO of Penton.  The second is from our mystery CEO…I won’t spoil it.  And the third is a discussion about the very subject with two high-profile B2B brand marketers brought into the mix.  I’d like to hear what you think about these articles after they run.  You can either go to www.minononline/b2b tomorrow afternoon or you can wait until it comes out in print on Monday.  Or, for this one time only, if you don’t have a subscription, I will send you the three articles once they’ve come out.  If you’re in the square set of non-min’s b2b subscribers, you can email me at jgreenfield@accessintel.com.

I just got off the phone with a B2B CEO who wanted to shout from the rooftops that he still thinks print can grow.  I tend to believe him, especially for certain industries and certain sections of those industries.  His words will be in min’s b2b this week.  For now, I’d like to make a related point:

You might hear publishers complaining that they have a hard time getting their sales staff to focus on selling a $500 piece of online inventory when they are used to getting commissions from a $5,000 ad page.  Well, as Eric Shanfelt has suggested, maybe the price of the online ad inventory is artificially low…maybe it should be $5,000?

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter.  The measuring the efficacy of advertising in a meaningful way has evolved significantly, but convincing marketers, advertisers, and agencies of the value of your inventory is still largely a sales-talent and marketing issue.  Right now, online advertising has all the momentum, and maybe rightfully so, but this momentum is not based on a rock-solid foundation of immutable fact.  Neither was the efficacy of print before it.  I hope this idea becomes more clear as you read min’s b2b this week.

Last night I was at the “What’s Next” BusinessWeek party that unveiled the relaunch of the hallowed business pub with a new design and new editorial organization.  The buzz at the party–from BW advertisers, editors, readers, and business luminaries like Michael Eisner and Bruce Wasserstein–was largely positive.

The buzz around the office is more neutral.  Most people thought the new cover design looks like something from the 1970s.  I personally don’t think it’s very striking, but neither was their old design, and that’s not what BW is about, anyway.  The magazine is about content, and not flash.

This is why we were surprised to see BW have such a shi-shi event to celebrate the new design.  It was held at Guastavino’s, was heavily liquored, and involved tap-dancing and live music.  We’ll give you the full details on Monday in the min team write-up.  To see what else we’ve been up to this week, click this.

Over the weekend, a disgruntled Cygnus employee sent me a meeting that s/he had taped secretly.  He assured me that what s/he had done was legal.  The meeting was a teleconference between Tony O’Brien (co-CEO of the company) and a branch office.  Here are some of the more interesting points/quotes:

“[We] finished 2006 with growth of 1.8% year over year.  That growth rate, given the dynamic business we’re in, was disappointing to us, and disappointing to the folks at ABRY.“

“We’ll grow at 5.5% in 2007, and we’re pulling out all the stops to grow at 6%.“  We’ve grown our EBITDA “substantially” this year.

“These cuts are necessary to us to have a good relationship with our banks.”

“We have to be a better business than we were when we came in.”

“We did not have a credible interactive offering a year ago…now it is.”

“[We’re] worried that people are wondering if they should jump ship before it sinks…but the ship’s not sinking.”

For the employees, this title really does not apply.  Let’s face it, if Cygnus does come out of this and has a blowout 2008, are the low-level employees going to really benefit all that much?  Probably not.  So let’s fly a little higher right now, and try to see the bright side of the across-the-board pay cuts.

When Cygnus made its budget for the year, the company projected a certain amount of growth for print, online, and events.  The bank covenants that were made were based on that growth.  Despite online’s overperformance (budgeted for about 50% growth, and will be growing about 60%), and events’ overperformance (budgeted for about 9% growth and realized about 11%), Cygnus wasn’t able to match its growth forecasts from the beginning of the year.  Print was set to grow 4-5%, and it remained flat.  Money was also slated to come in from big agency accounts cultivated by Carr Davis and other salespeople.  That money isn’t coming in as expected either.

So, what could be done to maintain bank covenants?  Layoffs, asset sales, reworking covenants, and pay cuts.  As we all know, the last option was chosen.  Here’s why it might be good for the company:

Next year, when the bank covenents have to be rewritten based on the new budgets, Cygnus is showing its creditors that it has done several things this year:

- The company will end up growing about 5%.  Though that is far below the projected 11%, and far below the required amount in the covenants, it still is growth in a very challenged market.

- When the company was unable to keep its covenent due to unforseen problems, what did it do?  Did it default?  Did it cut staff and therefore weaken its business?  Did it ask the banks for more money or concessions?  No.  The company just made it happen.  It did whatever it took to make sure that its financial house was in order, even if it did mean some painful sacrifices from the top on down.

You might fault Davis and Tony O’Brien for what they have decided to do (especially if you’re an affected party), but, you also have to admit that it was not a decision without merits.  I would also add to that that it was not an easy decision for anyone.  A lot of people look at moves that CEOs make and say that they may have done something differently; the situation always looks different from the balcony–it’s a lot hotter, and the lights are alot brighter on stage.