Comments on: Srsly? http://www.gingersorvari.com/2009/06/srsly/ Musings along my journey. Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:40:27 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Dawn http://www.gingersorvari.com/2009/06/srsly/comment-page-1/#comment-2674 Dawn Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:15:40 +0000 http://www.gingersorvari.com/?p=218#comment-2674 Great thoughts. I think it's actually a good example for society's fear of change. It's the attitude of "we do it this way because it's how it's always been done." An example of not embracing possibility. In this case, if news organizations forget what is at their core without embracing their customers instead of something they're comfortable with (because it's been successfully that way), they will die. Think about customers, not your (meaning NYT) comfort. Great thoughts. I think it’s actually a good example for society’s fear of change. It’s the attitude of “we do it this way because it’s how it’s always been done.” An example of not embracing possibility. In this case, if news organizations forget what is at their core without embracing their customers instead of something they’re comfortable with (because it’s been successfully that way), they will die. Think about customers, not your (meaning NYT) comfort.

]]> By: Scott http://www.gingersorvari.com/2009/06/srsly/comment-page-1/#comment-2635 Scott Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:35:29 +0000 http://www.gingersorvari.com/?p=218#comment-2635 Well, for nearly 30 years hardcore audio aficionados said that digital audio was bad and that everyone should stick with records. Now records are cool. So, the newsprint fans should do the same--let the medium die and then they can have their day in the sun thirty years from now. If it could happen to bell-bottom jeans, the El Camino, and wind-up flashlights, it could happen to newsprint. Well, for nearly 30 years hardcore audio aficionados said that digital audio was bad and that everyone should stick with records. Now records are cool. So, the newsprint fans should do the same–let the medium die and then they can have their day in the sun thirty years from now. If it could happen to bell-bottom jeans, the El Camino, and wind-up flashlights, it could happen to newsprint.

]]> By: Kim Garretson http://www.gingersorvari.com/2009/06/srsly/comment-page-1/#comment-2633 Kim Garretson Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:25:52 +0000 http://www.gingersorvari.com/?p=218#comment-2633 Ginger, I wish all the hand-wringers out there would simply give up the call to save print newspapers because their demise is so clearly in the future for all the reasons you mention, and for the environmental absurdity of printing & delivery. Instead, the focus should be squarely on the most critical aspect of the future of media, the money. With online media content increasing up to 300% a year, and digital ad budgets increasing at under 10%, and the clear failure of most online advertising to deliver good ROIs, we all need to focus on discussions and innovations around such topics as: 1. Making news related organizations non-profits, like NPR. See: http://mashable.com/2009/06/03/npr/ 2. Starting to charge for premium content, via micropayments, etc. 3. If the content is not news, and is more evergreen and focused on topics where there are opportunities to delight viewers with more they can pay for in the same viewing session (other than premium content), how can media companies & brands come together on this opportunity. For example, I am talking to lifestyle media companies focused on enhancing "life at home" with time-smart new services and offers. To date, their Web properties have developed words, photos & videos around home living enhancements and their ad sellers have pitched agencies and brands the opportunity to 'interrupt' the enjoyment or interest in what the experts are suggesting to leave and get pitched some product or service. This is wrong, and clearly never has worked well. What's the answer? That's what the media companies I work with are trying to solve. It's not turning a piece of media content into a shill to buy something from a commercial entity. But, could one idea be for the media company to recruit a cadre of its passionate readers/viewers and then have them become the real-time testers & commenters on the brand partners products and services, with the media company expert editors reporting on, and the cadre tweeting and blogging on, how the media experts and the target market are improving the products and services that achieve the goals of both the media company (good content & money from brands and viewers) and the brands (better products & customer service, not more creative advertising that doesn't work)? Ginger, I wish all the hand-wringers out there would simply give up the call to save print newspapers because their demise is so clearly in the future for all the reasons you mention, and for the environmental absurdity of printing & delivery.

Instead, the focus should be squarely on the most critical aspect of the future of media, the money. With online media content increasing up to 300% a year, and digital ad budgets increasing at under 10%, and the clear failure of most online advertising to deliver good ROIs, we all need to focus on discussions and innovations around such topics as:

1. Making news related organizations non-profits, like NPR. See: http://mashable.com/2009/06/03/npr/

2. Starting to charge for premium content, via micropayments, etc.

3. If the content is not news, and is more evergreen and focused on topics where there are opportunities to delight viewers with more they can pay for in the same viewing session (other than premium content), how can media companies & brands come together on this opportunity. For example, I am talking to lifestyle media companies focused on enhancing “life at home” with time-smart new services and offers. To date, their Web properties have developed words, photos & videos around home living enhancements and their ad sellers have pitched agencies and brands the opportunity to ‘interrupt’ the enjoyment or interest in what the experts are suggesting to leave and get pitched some product or service. This is wrong, and clearly never has worked well.

What’s the answer? That’s what the media companies I work with are trying to solve. It’s not turning a piece of media content into a shill to buy something from a commercial entity. But, could one idea be for the media company to recruit a cadre of its passionate readers/viewers and then have them become the real-time testers & commenters on the brand partners products and services, with the media company expert editors reporting on, and the cadre tweeting and blogging on, how the media experts and the target market are improving the products and services that achieve the goals of both the media company (good content & money from brands and viewers) and the brands (better products & customer service, not more creative advertising that doesn’t work)?

]]>