RSSThe Never Ending Debate Over the Death of Print
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.
Loading ...
Jeremy,
The momentum for online does have a foundation, measurability and ROI. I’ve seen a lot of print publishers cut back on ad recall surveys and other research initiatives which helped measure value to print advertisers. Online has that measurability built in. If you do a Webinar, and you’ve reached the CTO of Ford Motor company, you’re happy. If you also reached 250 individuals that fit a profile for a potential customer or an existing customer with upsell potential, you’re ahead of the competition.
The problem, many times, is publisher pricing. When considering pricing, online is often priced as a markup. “If my hard costs are _____, we should charge _____.” If that were the pricing strategy for a magazine, wouldn’t the publishing world be different?
I believe the key issue is benchmarking. A publisher knows how their circ and editorial stands up to their competitors. Online, audience measurement is less exact, and that inexactness leads to less confidence in pricing. Circulation plays a much larger role in the management of successful magazines than many folks think. That role becomes extremely important as revenues shift online. Editorial quality is measured by user engagement or how long someone stays on a site. To date, that measurability is only available for large consumer Web sites.
I think we’re on the same page, here, Prescott. Of course online does have a foundation…I just don’t think that foundation is unassailable for print advocates. There is measurability and certainly ROI, but, as you wrote, “online, audience measurement is less exact.”
The metrics that exist today to validate the value of online marketing are insufficient to sell spots based on mathematical formulas. Selling–both in print and online–is still partially based on argument, savvy, relationship, marketing, and momentum. Right now, online sellers should do what you advocate, and use that marketing and momentum to properly value their inventory (read: an increase). Similarly, print publishers that want to grow their print business and are facing stout online competition and resistance from clients and marketers that are dedicated to online advertising should use those selling principles to make the argument for their print inventory.
The numbers are not in yet. Online is growing and will continue to grow, it seems, but that doesn’t mean that someone who sells print and wants to continue to do so should roll over and submit in the face of PV and UV and engagement numbers. That would be like Hillary Clinton reading a poll that said 40% of voters viewed her position on health care unfavorably and then bowing out of the race. There’s still a lot more racing to be done.
There are a lot of issues to overcome before the sellers and buyers of B2B media understand the real value of online ads which will result in sales of higher priced ad programs (versus the selling of a commodity “inventory” of ad impressions).
For many publishers, who spent years giving away online ad impressions for free as part of “merchandising” and value add programs, it will take much longer for their sales teams and advertisers to understand the value of online ads and audiences. These publishers will suffer the consequences of undervaluing their online content, reach and measurability early in the game and now must work harder to convince all parties about the true value of online media.
Understanding the online USP is another greatly misunderstood part of the value equation. Reps have to explain the differences between print and online media metrics, e.g. CPMs based on ad impressions not audience. They also need to explain their site metrics in terms of value not commodities, such as “demand for content” (page views), reach (unique visitors) and engagement (time spent, repeat visits, clickstreams, etc.) Most reps we train lack the knowledge to explain the new metrics and how they align them with traditional media.
The other values which get overlooked are when, why and how visitors engage in a media brand. If a publisher can truly answer the questions “why do subscribers and non-subscribers visit their web sites they would be better equipped to sell the value of their content and engaged viewers to their advertisers. Map this to demonstrating how integrated programs deliver expanded reach.
When publishers develop ad products and programs that give the appropriate value to content and community and train their staffs to sell this, then the online investments will be aligned with print commitments. Showing ads to communities committed to a brand during the 9-5 work day, by audiences that vote with their time and keystrokes to be involved with a brand, all measurable activities. Discussing the delivery of increased frequency and recency needs to be part of the reps repertoire, but most reps are not able to move their discussions of value to include some of these real value propositions.
And finally, the real issue is the selling of the value of integrated media programs. How many publishers map their site metrics with their online metrics. Do your advertisers know how their offline efforts impact online metrics and vise versa? In a recent training class, after an exercise of mapping online and offline data, we found click rates for online program doubled when the advertiser’s print ads ran. There is a lack of data and tools in the B2B world that prove that online media is greatly enhanced by print ads.
So, yes your B2B CEO could shout from the roof tops but he would be advised to first invest in better online and integrated media programs, staff appropriately to support more media analysis, train sales and marketing staffs on how to sell the real value of the changing media world.