Borrell Associates, Inc

About Us

We help online media companies identify and increase their share of local online advertising revenue through fact-based research, proprietary data, consulting and comprehensive sales training

Sign Up

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

A Must-See Webinar

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Eighteen media executives embarked in April on a cross-country journey to tour top-performing local online operations. What they found was a remarkable pattern that every local media company should stop and examine. I highly recommend the one-hour webinar that summarizes those findings. You’ll find the link at the bottom of this posting.

What qualified these operations as top performers wasn’t what you typically hear from speakers at conferences: cool projects that drove spikes in web traffic or innovative ways of using Twitter. They got right to the nuts and bolts: The money. The “Innovation Mission” executives studied the underlying strategies for sales and content that drive these companies to vastly outpace the industry in revenue growth.

The coast-to-coast tour had them visiting a mix of TV, newspaper and pure-play Internet companies in the U.S. and Canada. The most common characteristics they found:

  • An obsession with training on both the sales and content sides
  • Traditional-media reps successfully selling digital products (with some exceptions)
  • Digital-only salespeople delivering the most revenue growth
  • Compensation & bonus plans that are critical to achieving goals
  • Vast networks of community content contributors

Before I go on, I wanted to clarify statements I’ve been expressing for the past decade about what types of operations drive the most revenues. I have an unfair advantage in this observation because Borrell Associates maintains a revenue/expense database of more than 4,800 local online operations in the U.S. and Canada. I can literally see the top performers – those making as much as 10 times more than their peers. And I know what they’re doing differently.

The clarification involves my adamant belief that online-only reps are a necessity for local media companies that want to be top performers. Somewhere in that admonition people have heard, “Traditional media reps can’t sell online advertising.” Not true. Traditional reps should be employed to sell digital products to the greatest extent possible. That’s Job 1 for any radio, TV, yellow pages or newspaper company with a valuable on-the-street sales force. But if a company relies exclusively on these reps, they’ll wind up being exactly average in terms of revenue performance. And who wants to be average? Remember – I’m looking at those with exponentially more revenues. And those companies – like the ones on the tour – are adding digital-only reps at a rapid clip.

At one of the stops on the tour, the manager said 70% of digital sales came from traditional (TV) reps in 2009, and that he anticipated it would be down to 45% this year. The greatest growth, obviously, is coming from the digital-only staff. And you can bet those reps are building a new customer base while the TV reps are relying heavily on existing customers.

Among the stops were hyperlocal pure-play company Examiner.com in San Francisco; KSL-TV and Deseret News in Salt Lake City; Dow Jones Local Media Group; Journal Register Co.; and Metroland Media in Toronto. It was sponsored by Suburban Newspapers of America, one of the few trade associations in the country that looks outside its membership when trying to provide expertise about what’s going on with the Internet.

I highly recommend this webinar. The association has made it available for non-members at a cost of $79. You can access it by clicking here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Lessons from the Prehistoric

Thursday, May 12th, 2011

The new media is just that. It has new dynamics, new metrics, new economics. So what can decision makers from these brand new businesses learn from the prehistoric media that preceded them? A good deal, perhaps.

The people who ran legacy media — newspapers, radio, TV, direct mail, and directories — all had two things in common:

  1. They looked at growth as a year-over-year phenomenon.
  2. They weren’t very interested in share.

As a result, as long as the national economy hummed along, business was great. Sales increased just about every year. Year-over-year, increases looked fat. It wasn’t until the economy tightened that loss of share became obvious. By then, corrective measures didn’t matter. Gone was (and is), well, gone.  It’s hard to see any return path for directory advertising or classified advertising, or even all those local automotive and homes magazines.

Some of the reason behind these losses starts with the way sales budgets were developed. Take newspapers, for example. The big metro dailies started budgeting for the coming year around July. The famous “7 and 5″ — seven months of actual ad sales results projected to year-end using last year’s percentages — started the ball rolling. Next, the ad director polled the sales force for their best guess at how next year would turn out. Sales people are typically conservative to the extreme when making such prognostications. Their results typically show growth … but not too much growth. Why stick your neck out for no purpose, after all?

The ad director compiled the sales force estimates and sent them to the publisher as his or her best effort, perhaps after jawboning some additional increases from the troops. The publisher then sent them to corporate, along with the best guesses from the rest of the organization on what spending was to be, as the newspaper’s best guess at next year’s result. By this time, September would have come and gone.

Corporate’s answer was quick and predictable. Spending was too high and sales were too low. The “number,” the margin that had to be met, was presented to the publisher, who dutifully passed it along to the staff. Everybody moaned and gnashed their teeth. Then they set to work to meet the new target:

  • The ad director pushed the ad sales force to provide “more accurate” numbers. At this point, some creative effort often emerged. First and second quarter forecasts remained much as they had been before, but third and fourth quarter projections grew to new, higher levels. “We always hoped for a new store in town and a great Christmas,” one senior ad sales veteran explained to me.
  • Everybody tried to find ways to cut expenses. Programs and purchases were curtailed. Where possible, staffs were diminished. Newspaper managers became expert at managing their “FTEs” (full time equivalent employee counts) creatively.

By now, the leaves on the trees had long since dropped, and often “the number” could still not be met. Only one solution was left: an ad price increase. But where to increase? Obviously, increases were put on the most popular products. During the 1990s, that meant classified. Classified rates soared during the last decade of the 20th century, and rate cards became almost unintelligible. As one corporate VP explained, “If they can understand the rate card, then it’s not a good rate card.”

Sometime late in the year, or early in the next, a letter explaining the ad price increase and the reasons for it (“… the rising price of paper,” for example) was sent to each advertiser. Immediately afterward, the ad sales reps, with the aid of the ad director and the publisher, visited each of the paper’s biggest advertisers. Their goal: to mitigate the increase so that these large advertisers would not feel its full effect.

As a result, three things happened:

  1. Smaller advertisers (not visited) were alienated.
  2. The profit margins for ads from larger advertisers diminished.
  3. Barring some influx of new business, the ad sales budget could not be met.

What’s important here is that the whole process was done without looking outside the building. Share was never a consideration, nor were the laws of Economics 101. So, while it’s certainly true that the new media gorged itself on what had been sinecures for newspaper advertising, they were aided and abetted by the shortsighted, inward looking management practices of their legacy media victims.

The moral to the story: look outside when you plan. Estimate share and take the activities of your competitors into consideration. Don’t assume next year will behave like last year …  except maybe a little better. Learn from the mistakes of others, or be prepared for similar consequences.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Is ‘Digital First’ a good strategy?

Monday, April 18th, 2011

This might be the equivalent of trying to stop a speeding locomotive, but I think that this whole “digital first” mantra is killing the local news industry.   Newsrooms across the country seem to be obsessed with it, thrusting camcorders into reporters hands and urging them to get something on Facebook and Twitter post haste so they can be first to break the news.

If I were one to mix metaphors, I’d say they’re goring the cow that feeds them while simultaneously tilting at windmills.  If I were to speak in disruptive technology lingo, I’d say they were engaging in a lot of cramming.

First off, newsrooms shouldn’t be dictating what local TV stations and newspapers do on the Internet.  The obsession with shoving news content and commentary onto the web – with advertising as an assumed result – has caused them to miss richer opportunities.

Terry Heaton, senior vice president of Media 2.0 for media consultancy AR&D, has been a big proponent of getting TV stations to deliver “continuous news” via the web.  So you’d think he’d be a big proponent of news organizations thinking about the web before anything else.  Not so.

“To me, ‘digital first’ can’t work, because digital and legacy are two entirely different services,” Heaton responded when I sent him an advance copy of this blog.  “Trying to put digital first when your operating process is ‘finished product’ is not only silly; it’s suicide.”

Heaton says that his Continuous News innovation “is born of the Web for the Web, which is unlike what everybody else is doing. Even with that, though, we have GREAT difficulty gaining acceptance, because their instinct is to bolt digital onto the old.”

What’s happening, I believe, is that the local news industry is unwittingly engaging in the cramming phenomenon. They’re taking the old product and trying to adapt it to the new technology in what appears to be radical strokes, instead of letting the old model run its course and crafting a completely new one.  It’s the same “digital first” mentality that had Britannica.com 15 years ago appearing to be radical by electing to sell low-priced CDs and online access over higher-priced encyclopedia books – thereby entirely missing cake-eating opportunities like Wikipedia and Google.

Forcing local news down into the digital space hastens the erosion of their core products unnecessarily.  The industry is defining news much the same narrow way Britannica defined research.

Local news isn’t the brass ring on the Web.  There are two problems with it:  First, it’s not as big of a draw that everyone thinks, and second, the value of its audience is relatively low.

News indeed attracts millions of adults every day, but that’s mainly national news.  Local news only appears to be a big draw until you extract weather and traffic.   If you factor those out, you’ll see just how small and eclectic the audience is for the traditional definition of “local news.”

To understand this issue, consider the posture of media consumers.  With TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, they lean back.  They’re receptive to the serendipitous nature of those media.   With the Internet, they’re leaning forward.  They’re focused seekers, not relaxed readers.  They seek, find, leave.  The only other medium like that is the yellow pages.  The problem is, local news just isn’t that compelling (unless of course there is BIG local news, which is rare.)

Why is posture important?   Seventy-nine percent of online news users say they’ve never or rarely clicked on a banner ad, according to Pew Research.  In addition, research from Web design expert Jakob Nielsen shows that people looking at information sites rarely even see banner ads.  They are leaning forward and hunting, eyes focused on what they’re reading, and not focused on anything else.

I don’t see the economic model for local news online.  It’s labor intensive, and advertisers aren’t looking to buy nebulous traffic.  But it’s not my opinion that matters.  It’s the opinion of those who finance all those journalists:  advertisers.   And their votes are clear.  The digital content that they’d rather be around is content that delivers wallet-ready consumers, not occasional news browsers.   Half of the Top 20 sites in terms of local online ad revenue are advertising-only sites.   The Top 5 have nothing but advertising content.   (See our latest report, “Benchmarking Local Online Media: 2010 Survey,” March 2011.)  Looking at the data of 4,800 sites in that survey, I saw one startling example where a news-oriented TV website with 400,000 monthly uniques was making the equivalent of $10 per unique visitor, while another site in the same market with fewer than 20,000 monthly uniques – a niche site with advertising-only content — was making $150.

So here’s my take on what happened in that market:  The TV site chose to expend its resources cramming the news model onto the web, thereby missing the niche opportunity altogether.  Why would they bother with a site that generated less than one-tenth the traffic and had no intrinsic “news” value?

Those who have adopted the digital first news mantra, I fear, are doing exactly what Clay Christensen described in his “Innovator’s Dilemma” was one of the principal ways that smart managers fail.  They adopt the new technology within the framework of the existing business model, making what appear to be radical changes that are actually just modifications to the existing business model.

I’m all for great journalism.  My wife and I have been writers and editors for various metro newspapers, and I’m not ashamed to say that we were both moved to tears when we visited the Newseum in Washington last summer.  Radio, TV and newspaper journalism has done great things for the world.

But journalism, like Britannica’s encyclopedia business, is a controlled product.  The Internet’s role in doing great things revolves around uncontrolled communications.

As for the whole digital first journalism thing, I do believe that the local news franchise will gradually move to tablets and that newsrooms should be experimenting with ways to migrate to that end game.  In a few decades you will probably be able to Google “the death of local news on TV and in newspapers” and read how it all just eventually collapsed.

But I guarantee you that nobody’s going to Britannica it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn