No More Time!

The transition from our legacy analog world of ink and paper is accelerating.  Major changes in newspapers over the last several years with revenues significantly down to levels not seen in 10 years.  Growth ceased, and status quo is hard to digest to those in the industry that used to grow by showing up.  Population growth meant circulation growth.  Those trends no longer exist, and print media outlets are starting to drop like flies. First it was newspapers, now the trend has extended to magazines and direct marketing publications.

In a recent Daily Beast article by Daniel Gross “Why Time Warner Felt It Had to Spin Off Magazine Unit Time Inc we see why this is happening.  Its all about stock prices.  This trend is now making its way felt through the entire communications field from newspapers, magazines and direct marketing publications.

 Newspapers were the first to feel the pinch of declining revenue.   The grind of producing, printing and delivering daily papers IS not easy, and its expensive to do it every day, especially on those days when the paper is not full of ads.  Recent changes in newspaper ownership around the county brought some promise of hope when heavy hitters like Warren Buffett bought in and gave some hope to other owners that were still viable.  But Warren likes to buy and hold, and he likes to buy things he knows a lot about – and HE still reads his paper daily.  Not everyone agrees with Warren, nor do they all have his deeps pockets.

Even with his very deep pockets Rupert Murdoch owns bunches of papers in the US and in Australia and England, but Rupert also owns lots of digital media in those markets as well.  He also sees the enduring value in the print, but he was one of the first to see that revenues were lagging in print, and those lagging revenues reflected poorly on the ability for the overall stock value of these publicly traded companies to grow.  He has lead the move to split his holdings into discrete segments – digital on one side and print media on the other.  Future dollars for investment and growth are attached to the digital side, and print you’re now on your own now.

Recently Time Warner felt the urge to ‘unmerge’ its holding and to spin off its magazine unit, including Time, Fortune, Money and Sports Illustrated and make them a new stand alone organization and take them public as their own group.   The magazines are still profitable, but they cannot keep with the market and are thus a drag on corporate earnings.

Harte-Hanks, Inc. originally started off as group of small Texas newspapers, but chose a different way to grow outside of newspapers and moved into direct marketing, and over 20 years sold off all other holdings, including all of their newspapers and became a powerhouse in shoppers publications covering millions of households in California and Florida.  A still thriving industry for small communities covering a market just below that of the newspaper they provided cost effective targeted advertising and in the process stole market share from larger local newspapers.  Those golden days are now over.  Having written down all of their goodwill equity in the declining value of The Pennysaver, they were able to unload them quickly.

In December the Florida operations were sold back to their founder Dick Mandt, a former boss of mine, and his team of highly effective industry managers.  Were they losing money -no, but they had to go.  Sources tell me that the same thing is likely in California where the original Pennysaver circulates.  Staff cuts are being made, offices are closing, and they appear to be on the same trajectory as Florida.  Can they still make money – yes.  But they can’t grow in the manner that a public company needs them to.

Like Time, Inc., Harte-Hanks, is a publicly traded company and must show growth.  The huge revenue base of the Pennysaver could not keep up the growth curve for Harte-Hanks and stock prices lagged. Decision time came, and decisions were made.  Heads rolled, and the new management staff has a mandate for growth, and a tight timeline.  This is the new story for print and direct marketing, especially for those mailed publications.  If you are on the big march and you fail to keep up – we’ll leave you a canteen of water, and a couple of biscuits, but your on your own.  Tough love, I think we call it!  Time is not always on our side.

Here are a few thoughts on how this worked out for the latest election cycle.  Everything we saw as business and communications work nearly exactly the same in business as politics.  One side triumphed over the other, and the reasons were more for business practices in the conduct of the marketing for the election, than in purely political leanings.  Just a few thoughts…

 Nate Silver and the Pundits  The biggest winner of the 2012 election cycle was 538 - by Nate Silver.  The success of Nate with his ‘system’ that followed individual polls, weighted the results, and then posits results by election area, became a new standard for tracking forecasts.  The single poll as a key talking point will recede as conglomerated results become the new norm.  This will also impact the role of the pundit who is basing their forecasts on feelings and not empirical data.  Pundits were especially routed in this election cycle when their results did not match the data on the ground, and the final results.  They are now relegated to mere ‘talking heads’ and all of their wishing on hoping are just that.  Show me the data is what we now expect.

The Role of Social Media  The biggest change in this campaign from 2008 to 2012 was the role of social media.  2008 was the digital campaign yea . 2012 became the social campaign, all of the benefits of the digital conduit for communications, along with tailored messaging, and listening, with their targeted audiences.  Obama’s team built a large social-digital staff that literally drove the campaign.  Nothing did more for the Obama campaign, and this will set the standard for all future campaigns.  Little time here for the details, and I will go into more detail in future posts, but for now, we must see that a return to more traditional messaging will not work in future campaigns.  The die is cast.

The Power of Print Media  Print media still lives, and will still have a key role in future campaigns, just as they do for day to day business, but it will play a lesser role in the future.  The power of the press, and especially of the official endorsements no longer drives the electorate.  Day by day, their hold on the public is loosened.  The results of who endorsed each of the candidates had a low correlation to the final outcome.  We now want newspapers to tell us what is going on, but not who to vote for…we’ll get that from our friends on social media or general social contacts, if we need those at all to make up our minds.

The major dollars spent at the end of the campaign by the Romney campaign in print and television did very little to move the needle.  By the time they ran, minds had already been made up.  Words and print images are simply not as powerful and recent and visual images on the web or on television.

The Party Vs. The Campaign  In this election cycle we were treated again to the real power of incumbency.  Though many thought Obama carried a lot of negative baggage, and that incumbency in a poor economic climate would act as a drag, it did not turn out that way.  As the incumbent, he was able to rebuild his election team from 2008, and take advantage of all of their previous experiences to come up with an even stronger campaign organization.

Romney was perceived to have been a great organizer, but it didn’t work out that way in this campaign.  With a long primary, his team was late coming up to speed, and messaging and marketing continually ran behind.  They also gave up the advantage when the Obama campaign was able to define them before they could build their own image.

Campaign Timing  In past campaigns both sides usually started at roughly the same time, the incumbent having an advantage.  In the current election cycle, the challengers were exceptionally late due to a long and contentious primary campaign.  The party used to play a larger role in the overall campaign, but in recent campaigns it is the candidate who basically runs the entire show.  Funding still comes from the party, but direct campaign funds and the direction of the campaign really are driven by the candidate.

I first saw this with Richard Nixon, who had the California campaign staff taking the lead and driving the campaign.  This worked for most campaigns from Carter, the Bushes and Bill Clinton, but in this last cycle we saw the Chicago group take out the Boston group who struggled to mount the right campaign.  They went to battle ill prepared for what was ahead, and the experienced crew out managed them.  Future campaigns should take heed from this.  Next time there will be no incumbent, but the team with the best plan, crew, message, and funding sources will likely win – all other politics aside.  The same goes in business.  Thinking you have the best ‘product’ will not trump the best marketing campaign, especially in a short ‘campaign’ with a finite deadline on election day.

Digital Donations  The Romney strategy was based on large donations and the use of PACs to drive their message, and they did exceptionally well in this area, both in the primary and election campaigns.  The money was flowing, but the results did not match the massive amounts spent, much of it too late to change minds already set by the other side.

The very large PAC infusion of money, much of it from just a small group of very wealthy donors did not accomplish the goal of total domination.  In the end, the other guys had some strong PACs as well, but even more they discovered the power of small digital donations via text or emails.  The power of small donations by the many, repeated several times by strong messaging did the trick.  The key fact is that the masses that donated also took the time to vote in large numbers.  The ‘engaged’ donor became the very engaged voter.  For me that was the big win that I did not see coming, especially the size of total donations via this methodology.

Audiences and Precise Targeting  In the world of direct mail the Republicans set the standard, and their lists were gold to the party.  Election cycle after election cycle they yielded fantastic results.  I’m sure they performed well this cycle as well, however, the Obama team who switched the ball game to heavy digital marketing outperformed them.  Appeals went out on a nearly daily cycle; immediacy trumped the heavy mail package.

What we found out later is, that in this new 2012 cycle, the digital team advanced the art and science well beyond their initial efforts in the past cycle.  Offers were tested, run, revamped – all within the span of a few hours, something impossible in direct mail.  The single most interesting fact that I found out later were that nearly all of the appeals tested worked…they all worked.  Message may be the key, but in this case it was more likely that methodology triumphed.  For business, resisting digital and social marketing is at your peril.  They must be a part of your mix in the future if you want to win the business in your daily marketing cycles.

Generations & Ethnicity…and Single Women  Perhaps nothing explains the results of the 2012 election than the results shown by generations and ethnicity.  They certainly skewed in both directions.  But the bigger question is what this means to our electoral and business future.  Targeted messaging is critical to identifying and supplying messaging to each audience.  The days of mass marketing producing and mass result in the general marketplace are fast fading.

In future any marketer must target and message for their audiences, each with their own concerns and issues.  Not only is the messaging variable, so is the media.  Fewer of us subscribe to a daily paper.  Confession here, as an old direct marketer and newspaper advertising executive, I used to subscribe to all the local papers on a daily basis.  Now I have just one paper on Sunday, and the other for 4 days a week.  All the rest of my news comes from the Internet via computer, iPad and iPhone.  I also consume at least 3 times more total information as a result.  For me, less is truly better.

For many, the iPhone, and other fully featured phones are now their prime communication vehicle and news source.  Any business, or candidate, who does not take this into account, will not survive the next election cycle if they need that audience to win.  As we saw the older audience does not use these tools as much now, but that audience is literally dying out.  Not good ways to run a campaign in the future, if you want to have a future.

Single women also went heavily for Obama, married women more Romney.  Messaging alone wouldn’t change the results here.  It becomes a platform issue of what each party stands for.  Is a party platform a key component of the message and do they need to be in synch.  Much was made of the distinction in this case and through the Republicans courted single women, their overall message that was ‘heard’ was negative.  Now we need to heed and message to gender, age, marital status, ethnicity and generational location as key factor in future campaigns.  This is a very tough challenge for any marketer in business or politics and will determine the results of most future elections here.

Unforeseen Events  Unforeseen events, like ‘Sandy’ will not be unforeseen in the future. What?  I expect that future elections will forecast for every possible event and preparations will be at hand.  Kind of like packing for a trip to Hawaii, but bring your snow skis anyway.  With the outcome resting on any unforeseen event, they simply have to be built into our future radar.  There is not time to regroup and react – bring the kitchen sink with you, we may need it will be the new motto.

Closing thoughts…  Future elections, and future business will never be the same.  Our digital and social tools have changed everything.  I also expect this trend to continue as newer processes replace the old.  Keepup, use the tools, or lose it all.  No looking back now.

Sometimes things don’t turn out the way everybody thought!

The election is over, and the team clothed in Blue won, and the margin was large.  After such a contentious election cycle I’m sure all would agree -no more.  The question that I raised in my last post on the eve of the election was “Will Nate Silver be a god or a goat?”  Well we now know that he was spot on in his predictions for the outcome of the election with Obama winning nearly all of the contested states.

How did Nate Silver call the outcome?  He did it by an algorithmic review of all polls (he does not conduct any polls of his own) weights the averages, and then forecasts the likelihood of winning the electoral votes in a given state.  No punditry, shear match, some science, and enough sense to lower the values of what were the outlier polls like Gallup and Rasmussen that did not fit the general results of the other polls.  Viola, we have a whole new way to pick the winner.

So, what happened to the Republicans, who were still forecasting victory right up to the last minute which gave us some memorable moments when Karl Rove had a meltdown on Fox, and Mitt Romney had to write a last minute speech that no one thought he would need since it was obvious to them that he was going to win…ouchers.

So this election came down to a couple of very big things – Big Money and Big Data.  On the Big Data side the Democrats used all of the data tricks learned in the ‘08 election, and then brought in a number of new wrinkles.  They built a large team in Chicago to manage the data, armies of staff and volunteers to use the data to blanket the targets with multiples of messages.  No stone was unturned in reaching and motivating their target audiences.  They had a mission and it was about turnout, and they did it, surpassing their efforts of 2008.  I expect now that major elections in the future would be based on these efforts.

On the losing side, the focus had been on Big Money, mainly big donors who gave directly to the party, and to the Super Pacs.  The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson were the big whales contributing an estimated 250 million between the two.  These efforts were supposed to be all that was needed to blanket the airwaves with TV buys that would sway the election in their direction.  In the past this has done it, and more money was spent – over a billion dollars in this heroic effort to carry the day.

The funny thing is that the Obama team also raised huge dollars – they also hit the billion-dollar mark, much by large donations, but a huge portion came from donations, mostly over the Internet.  Their strategy was to go after small sums from a large pool, and then to hit them again and again.  They test all kinds of messaging, and guess what, nearly all of the messaging worked  – and the donations flowed.  The public was really in the dark on the effectiveness of this effort until well after the election – certainly the Republicans were in the dark based on their surprised look at the end of the contest.

I’m not here today to talk politics – my interest lies in the technology and the application of the technology.  I have friends, who are political consultants, and “I forgive them for that, they know not what they do.”  My interest is in understanding how we best influence decisions, mainly commercial or business decisions through communications.  Would the brute force application of traditional print and broadcast media work in todays world – certainly one side thought that it would.  They were experts in direct mail fundraising with golden lists that delivered the manna in each election cycle. On the other side, with a new digital toolbox that worked last time, could it keep up with the promise of a sea of paid media that would not end?  Could they do it again since the other side knew how they were going to proceed?

They did it again…and in my next post I will go into more detail on just how they did it and what this all means to us in our business practices.  Big Data and the Digital World are real and anyone who does not utilize these tools in whole or in part will probably not make it until the next election cycle.  More on Monday!

Did you vote today?

Well the election is finally here, but the outcome is not yet finalized.  Sometime late tonight the call will be made, and hopefully it will stick.  Up to now Nate Silver has called the election for Barack Obama with over 90% certainty, based on his model.  That model, much like the Google algorithms is partially a secret.  It is essentially, a weighted average of all of the polls.

Nate called the election in 2008 and earned his stripes as a ‘gold level prognosticator!  Will he earn additional kudos for his call this year, or will he go down in flames, as at least half of the electorate wants to happen.

Beginning in 2008, and wildly expanded in 2012, we are looking at data being used in magical ways to predict future outcomes with great certainty.  Guess what, this is the world we live in today.  Every time we answer and ad, or respond to an email we are leaving a trail that is being used to describe us, and to target us.

This was used to great effect in 2012, and it will be interesting to conduct a business practice autopsy on the body politic after all the results are in.  Why is this important – this is where we live now, and we need to know how to prepare ourselves for the coming onslaught of more and more messages coming our way in the future.

More to follow on how big data is transforming our daily lives, and our politics.  There is no going back from here.

Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox

I was intrigued to see a number of articles recently  in various media that all touched on some themes that I find are continually playing out in our new digital world.  The trends mirror what I’ve been seeing with my clients as well, but these seem so stunning.  What are they?  In our change from a physical world to a digital and social one, we are seeing some of our premier companies making that transition under the leadership of women.  Apparently there is no glass ceiling in the digital world, and as Martha would say…”that’s a good thing.”

Who are some of these leaders – the heads of IBM, Xerox, and HP.  Some of the bluest of the ‘blue chip’ companies and all facing great challenges, and most are doing well…extremely well!  I was taken by this trend because I started my career as a sales rep at Xerox in the early 70’s.  Xerox then had just recently started then to hire women in the sales force.  They were a novelty to most of the managers, all men, who wondered if they should treat them differently than men.  Xerox had a culture very similar environment to my old fraternity house.  Men got yelled at when they didn’t perform.  Could they do the same with women.  Could they take them into their offices and counsel then=m, with the door closed?  What if they started to cry? The good news is that everyone learned and adapted quickly and within a short period of time, a couple of years, half of all hires were female, and many of the new managers were also women.

At IBM  who we competed with in the copier marketplace we noticed a similar trend taking place and I knew a few of the early female sales managers, and they were great, and they prospered and grew quickly up the ranks as IBM was very interested an taking advantage of the new resource.

At HP, the course was a little different and men were still the dominant group and they intended to stay that way.  I knew a number of HP managers later on in the 80’s and they still acknowledged that it was still mainly a man’s world.  How the world has changed.

In these three organizations, leaders in their fields, are now headed by women, a fact a rarity in the corporate world of giant organizations.  All of these women, and many others, too numerous to list here, have changed the paradigm forever.  Now, a quick look at these three outstanding women.

At Xerox , Ursula Burns,  is now the CEO.  She started at Xerox as an intern, then an executive assistant and then succeeded Anne Mulchay in 2009.  Now that is amazing, for a woman to succeed another woman in a technology company.

“I took over a company that was solid, but every day was becoming significantly less important in the minds of people,” Ms. Burns said.

This transition happened all while Xerox was moving from selling copiers to selling services and providing backoff support.  A big change from 40 years of growth, but they are pulling it off. This is not something easy to pull off – “That transformation is earth-shattering for our company,” she said recently  To cement it, Ms. Burns led Xerox’s $6.4 billion acquisition of Affiliated Computer Services in 2010.

“What we do well, unlike these really sexy companies like Googles or Apples that have these great things you can see and touch and feel, we actually work in the back office of large companies,” she said. “So most clients don’t really know we’re there.”

IBM built the computer industry, and dominated the word processing field when it was all about typewriters, and later copiers.  Now computers are everywhere, but few are in the ‘clean rooms’ of old where IBM was the dominant player.  They now exist on desks, the cloud, your pocket – they really are everywhere, and IBM is leading that charge to conquer the world of ‘big data’.  This is now the third wave of computing they will discover and and learn on their own – just like “Watson” the supercomputer that conquered Jeopardy.  We are now in the age of cognitive computing!

Virgiani Rometty, CEO, Chairwoman of IBM

Leading the charge as CEO and Chairman of the Board is Virginia Rometty who has spent her entire career at IBM.  Under her watch IBM’s stock is now at its highest point in its history.  IBM is now a consulting company and sifting through all of the ‘big data’ that is spewing forth all over the world.  The key for IBM is constant reinvention.  A good metaphor for all of us to keep in mind.  Change is the new constant.

“Part of it is I get the honor of taking over a company that is a strong company,” she said.

But, she said, she knew she could not coast on their success, and instead charted a clear way forward, including work in cloud computing, analytics and growth markets.

“One of the great things I learned from Sam and Lou is no matter what, you always have to focus on reinvention,” Ms. Rometty said. “Never love something so much that you can’t let go of it.”

Meg Whitman, CEO of HP

Meg Whitman now CEO at Hewlett-Packard, is facing different challenges – survival.  After a great career in consulting and early leadership at EBay where she cemented her reputation. Meg Whitman is now heading HP in trying to turn around a company that has suffered over the last several years of a revolving management team and rapidly changing focuses.

HP is struggling to find its focus in software and hardware and to become relevant in a word this is now incresingly mobile focuses and led by Apple and other tablet makers.  After launching their own tablet in 2010 they quickly killed it…too soon many said.  The current forecast is grim for 2013, and Meg is looking for enough time to turn this around.

Though Meg attempted a run in politics in California, losing to Jerry Brown, she maintains close ties to Mitt Romney.  If HP doesn’t work out there could be something in Washington for Meg, if Mitt were to win.  She is a continual winner, and given enough time, she will find a way to win.

Why are these women import to this narrative?  We have entered a new era, and everything is different.  Business is different.  Old legacy businesses including all media is rapidly going digital.  Mobile communications has changed how we communicate, and when we communicate.  Barriers are being broken down that perpetuated the status quo.  Through all of this we have discovered whole new ways of living and working, whether we want to or not there is no going back.  Women are now fundamentally a part of business, and rightfully a part of management.  We are all the better for all of these changes.

OC Register Masthead from Peak Year 2005

Recently I wrote on the future of newspapers, something many of us with roots in the industry do as a daily pastime. In all of my research, I still think the models of the future that Alan Mutter of Newsosaur postulated for newspapers recently best portray a reasonable future as indicated by the paths many current papers are taking.  Briefly they are:

Farm it – The Buffett Model.  Buy and hold…and hope!

Feed It – Rupert Murdoch Model.  Give the fire some fuel and oxygen and hope that it creates a sustainable blaze.  After having split his media empire into digital and non-digital, this may be a real key for many to follow.  Especially to those public companies that have to report their financials.  Print is no longer a growing methodology, and as such, is dead to public companies as a forward-looking model. Even Harte-Hanks, who pioneered the advertising-only Pennysaver model to millions and millions of circulation, has seen the light and is reported to looking for buyers for their huge franchise.  It can still generate some good cash flow, but looks horrible on quarterly 10K reports.  “Time to set those doggies free” my buddy Bill would say.

Milk It – Newhouse Model.   Why bother to feed the cow, just keep milking it for all you’ve got until it runs dry.  Hope you don’t grab a bull…that could be bad.  This is how those in the industry see most of the changes for newspapers, and what they see in New Orleans is not pleasing to the palate of the N.O. residents and readers.

My Experience there – I during the 90s I was in advertising director at The Orange County register. Those were truly the best of times, when newspapers were at their zenith, and competition kept us strong. It was fun to compete with The Los Angels Times, and to add a number of specialty products to our overall marketing mix. At one time, there were as many as 7 OC Register sales representatives who could be calling on any potential advertiser in Orange County. The favorite expression of senior management was quoted” time to impose our will”.  Sadly, that was what we did with rates, and that was the beginning of a long downward slide for the Orange County Register, and a number of other newspapers that followed the strategy.  Newspapers were still mini-monopolies, and the profits flowed.

Revenues peaked during the early part of the next decade encouraging the family ownership to seek an opportunity to cash out. They did and several of those in the family who took the buyout are still smiling today. Those family members who did not and stayed with freedom communications ultimately lost everything in the recent bankruptcy. In talking with some of the recent employees I hear and almost Universal joy and optimism based on their initial meetings with the new ownership group.

However, most also said it’s too soon to tell how things will actually shake out. They’re also saying that they think there will be a change in the editorial focus of the newspaper, and hoping to see a return to a more centrist albeit still Libertarian viewpoint of the paper.  Over the last several years, under the new ownership and management, the paper had gone strongly to the right and far beyond the historical Libertarian viewpoints of the founding families. This was also not reflected in the larger viewpoint of a changing and dynamic Orange County, which is not the singular conservative bastion from the days of John Wayne.   A strict editorial slant, either left or right is not a positive factor in the newspaper world that is searching for the largest audience possible, even the Hoiles family, had understood that factor and kept their politics in check.

Based on everything I have seen and heard I think it is still too soon to tell exactly which model the OC Register is likely to follow, though I think we can rule out the Newhouse – Milk It model.  New ownership would not have invested to simply let it go without some kind of fight.  New money in, especially from someone outside of the established print community as the new owners as probably signals they want to accomplish something, and also want a return on their investment dollars – something unique in print today.

That leaves Feed It or Farm It!  Based on a strong foothold in Orange County we are still a highly desirable market that will rise again when housing takes off in the future.  For now I’ll go with my heart in hand and say they will “Feed It” and try to do everything they can to build a strong multi-media franchise with the paper as the core product.  This fits the community, and what I think is a great opportunity.  They will not be able to impose their will, or dictate a political bent, but I think they can make small gobs of money, year after year if they play their cards right.  I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

What gives me hope is that baby whom cover the industry are starting to see the patterns that are evolving that show some various tracks key newspapers are taking to ensure their survivability. My favorite is from Alan Mutter of Newsosaur who in his recent article “What’s Next for Newspapers”  highlighted three paths that could offer some hope for newspapers and newspaper staffs who are looking for some relief.

Alan’s three possible paths to the future he labels as: Farm It, Milk It and Feed It.  He has plausible representations for each, and it makes for a great read.  This has been made all the more urgent in trying to move towards a recognizable future for newspapers with the decision of Rupert Murdoch to split his media empire into two segments – print and everything else.  That news was met with a round of – “it’s abut time” and the blessings of the market with an upturn.  If anyone really understands the future of media it is Rupert Murdoch.  Whatever sentiment he had for his holdings was dashed with cold water after the media circus in England that has stained his reputation.  His head is now ruling his heart…and his pocketbook.

In the next post I’ll start reviewing these options, and perhaps have some additional ones to through on the discussion pile.  Back soon…now for a viewing of Monty Python on my iPad ap.  A great bargain for a few bucks, and a few moments with some lively songs and the Knights Who Say Nea always leaving me smiling.

From Whence It All Began

As we look at the fall and decline of newspapers as we knew them in the U.S., I came across a recent article in The Telegraph from London.  It highlights the origins of the newspaper in London circa 1700.  The Monitor came alive as laws on libel changed in England and spurred a revolution in how news was spread and shared in the culture that eventually shaped our own.  “Fleet Street: the surprising origins of Britain’s newspaper industry.” By Dr. Matthew Green appeared today and is very enlightening.  I hope you’ll take a moment to read the article; it’s a lively read, and great insights

The Daily Courant was England’s first daily newspaper, and the first daily Fleet Street paper, The Monitor are at the genesis, making Fleet Street synonymous with daily news in Great Britain.  What started with those papers quickly grew to “31 papers – six dailies, 12 tri-weeklies and 13 weeklies – were being hawked on the streets of London, with an average combined weekly circulation of 100,000.”

Dr. Green, the author, points out that the news was always partisan.  Attempts to the contrary to paint it, as ‘vessels of truth and enlightenment’ are just wrong.  We now see that “plagiarism was rife” government scandals ruled the day and writers, well known today like Daniel Defoe, wrote for pay from the highest bidder.

Fleet Street is still the home to the England’s news today, but a lot has changed.  Now all of the papers have digital editions, many of which I read on a regular basis.  They are also heavily in broadcast media – cable in England, and their impact is pervasive.   Recent scandals on their impact and taping of cell phones have lead to the Leveson Inquiry on the link to newspapers and politicians as well.  I guess in many ways little has really changed over 4 centuries.

Like the growth of the internet and later online news version of printed papers, and then wholly digital publications like Huffington Post, the original growth of printed papers from Fleet Street “triggered a new addiction, something the journalist Joseph Addison defined in 1712 as a ‘news frenzy.”

What we see from this profile is that, actually, little has changed.  There is a strong desire to know what’s going on, people will pay, and everyone loves gossip. Four centuries later we still love gossip and salacious news, partisan politics helps to drive the news cycle, and we still pay…though that is probably the crux of where the future of ‘newspapers” lies in the future.

Our daily news cycle still focuses on breaking news, and news of triumph and tragedy, murder and mayhem.  Like the 18^th century, we still love a scandal, and the bigger the better.  If its not really that big, the press will make it big.  Scandal is still key, but now we have better flaks and more media to help bury it.  That and the fact that tomorrows news cycle will bring more scandal, so time, now ever fleeting will help to give it a faster death.

The biggest challenge for newspapers is that their business model, how to deliver the news and who pays for it, are changing.  The dynamics of a 24-hr news cycle and free online content, perhaps not free forever, are key challenges for a print cycle that begins at midnight to deliver it to your driveway at 5am, are now stretched to, what many would say (me too!), is its ‘logical end.’

As we move forward it is also ‘logical’ for us to look to Fleet Street to see how the adapt to the digitalization of news, make it financially viable, and lead us to a future where we can still get all of the news…but still recognize that it will be as partisan as it ever was.  ‘Everything old is new again!”

The Orange County Register

With all of the discussions regarding the future of newspapers, and I am a big participant in those discussions, I found perhaps one of the best pieces by Matthew Ingram, yesterday in GigaOm – “The Hard Truth: Newspaper monopolies are gone forever.”  This is one of the better pieces on what is getting to be a big discussion.  This is almost as big a discussion as the state of the U.S. and world economy.  There are lots of opinions, but not a lot of energy on what to do about it.  Both seem to be heading on their own course, like a mighty river in a flood.  Get out of the way and wait until it subsides.  Truth is the newspaper business is subsiding, and now we are seeing the results.

…And the results aren’t pretty!  Revenues, advertising revenues really, are in decline.  Subscriptions are in decline.  Page counts are down, and the news hole – real news, is down.  Content is up, but we really don’t buy newspapers for content do we?  The truth is, and Matt Ingram catches it well – newspapers succeeded because they were ‘the only game in town – monopolies who could charge whatever the market would stand.

Over the course of the next several days I will try to make sense of what I think all this means to the larger constituencies – readers, advertisers, and the general community.  Can newspapers survive?  Do we care?  Are we worried about the loss, and how can it be replaced.  Is it the loss of the daily paper, the habit we all grew up with, or is it the loss of real journalism – news we care about, and news that enlightened us that we fear losing?

I’ve been wrestling with this for a long time…and I need to get it out – for myself, and for my clients, many of whom come from the same generation and don’t like the changes they see coming.

Next post- from the home turf – The end of Freedom Communications and the OC Register, the Libertarian paper in a Libertarian/Republican county.

Warren Buffett – The New ‘King of All Media

Warren is on the loose…again, and he brought his check book.  What does the Oracle of Omaha know that the result of us don’t.  For one thing he knows a great investment, and that means something he can own for a long time.  That habit is not in vogue in todays fast trading world.  Warren is looking to own assets that will appreciate over time, while bringing in some great cash flow, year in and year out.  I remember those days, but then my idea of long range planning is “what are we going to do after lunch?”  Warren is worried about the next decade, not what’s for lunch!

Warren, really Berkshire Hathaway, bought most of the print units of Media General, sans the Tampa Tribune, which will stand on its own for Media General, or until they find a way to sell it off as well.  Media General got some great cash and a chance to stay alive for awhile, something many major media companies are trying to do.  Warren got all of these holdings at a good price along with the real estate.  The price is significantly lower than the multiples paid in the past decade when all of these media companies sold or recapitalized, and then the bust hit.  Media companies can still make money, if they are not mired in debt – that is what Warren knows.

With our transition to a digital media world, in progress as we speak, there is still room for print media in local markets.  I should qualify that and say ‘print’ is not really the operative word going forward, but news media leader in a local market with a print product is more to the point.  As the ‘voice’ of the community – their earned mantle – they can be important and profitable businesses.  Kind of like having gone through a takeover by a venture capital company.  Make it leaner, and meaner and you can still make a buck.  Lots of jobs will be shed, but then that is better than oblivion.

With this deal Mr. Buffett and Berkshire have seats at the table with Media General, as well as with The Washington Post Company, as well as a stake in The Buffalo News. He is quickly gaining influence throughout the industry by his unabashed belief in the continuing role of the newspaper in the community.  He provides both financial and moral support to an industry in need of both, and at a very critical time.  The biggest players like the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall St. Journal exist on a different plane.  They are national papers of record that large audiences look to, their issues are different. Local and regional papers have different needs and Warren understands.  With his purchases, not only does he have a seat at the table, but now he sits at the head of the table, and all eyes are on him.

Facebook is launching today what could be one of the truly huge IPOs with a value over $100B.  FB is one of the contributing factors to the demise of newspaper readership.  No they are not the main culprit, but more of a symptom of the decline of newspaper subscriptions.  The newspaper was the watercolor content provider for social currency up through the last 10 years.  If you wanted to be able to join the conversation at work, you read the newspaper.  TV was also a source of conversation with your friends and co-workers.  Now you keep in touch by digital means, texting and emailing…and the Facebook.  Newspapers, in this new age, have lost a lot of their relevance of social currency.  By the way it opened at $38 and has moved across $40 where it is as of this post.  Oh for the days when newspaper sales attracted half of the attention of the FB IPO.

Warren understands that the local market is the last great place to have a real chance to still have an open forum in the community.  There is still a chance in our ever growing social world that the local paper can have a real chance to drive that social discussion.  As in the past, this is not about altruism, it is about having a good earning business.  Newspapers will never command the high multiples when they are sold, because they will never be the monopolies of the past.  With low debt and reduced operating costs newspapers can deliver a return that a ‘buy and hold’ kind of guy like Warren can appreciate.  This strategy can be the one that can save local papers, and I don’t see much else that will.

Good luck Warren!  We are all pulling for you and your strategy for the sake of our industry, and our communities.  We’ll be waiting for more good news in the future.  By the way how about some love for Orange County – The Register is available, and I hear the price is too good to pass up.

The Wheel of Marketing Choices

The integrated imperative!  That’s where marketing is today.  Heed the headline, or perish. There really aren’t any options.  Over the last several years my clients and I have noticed that marketing has gotten harder to do well, we had fewer choices and those produced good results.  There are more marketing choices, channels and media options than we thought possible just a few years ago.  Choosing wisely and making it work across channels and markets – integration, is what it really driving our marketing world today…and to do it well is hard!

On May 10, Steve McKee, in Business Week, authored the article “Integrated Marketing: If You Knew It, You’d Do It”  He starts with the opening paragraph – If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, is such a cliché that it has spawned its own cliché: If it ain’t broke, break it. Unfortunately, that’s just what many companies do unwittingly to their branding programs, playing into the hands of public enemy No. 1 in today’s marketing environment: Fragmentation.

The rest of the article made the case for integrating the marketing, mainly keeping a consistency of messaging across multiple platforms we all endure today.  It is a delightful read, and one that many of his readers commented on in a favorable manner.  For the most part I agree, but the key message he iterates is ‘integrated marketing is hard!’  Yes it is, and this is why so few are able to do it well, if at all.

The boomer generation grew up with tightly bracketed marketing channels.  You bought the best and then hoped for good results.  The good news is that your audience had fewer choices and they were generally on the receiving end – be it newspapers, television, radio or out of home.

That world doesn’t exist today, and everything is hard.  So many choices, and so many places for your audience to be hiding.  The digital world is wonderful with all of its options on both sides, but for the marketer it is tough to juggle all those balls.  Three key channel options for most, have now turned into 8 to 12.  On top of that it is now ‘social’ so your audience can talk back to you…and you better be listening, because they’ll carve you up if you aren’t.  Trust me, I have, and they have left scars for not listening and not responding fast enough.

The McKee article is a good read, and I implore you to look at it.  You should also read the reader comments which come mainly from industry participants, who mostly agree, but they also have their particular bents.  They are in agreement that ‘integrated marketing is hard.’  Yes it is, but there is no choice.  The world we knew was broken, and there is no going back.  Multiple channels, both analog and digital need to be attended to and used appropriately to reach your target ‘audiences’ (emphasis on the plural) if you are to survive.

Many of my clients have long histories, they love their new options, but still talk about how it ‘used to be.’  We commiserate, have a cup of coffee, and then get on with reality and plan how to cover their broad patch of media options.  All of this with careful attention to keeping the message consistent and true to each channel of their multi-faceted customer and target base.  It takes more time, and more money, but it produces better results.  Isn’t that what we are all looking for?  It’s a new world, and I love it!

What did they accomplish? According to most who care about the issue – not much.  Lots of posturing, and little action.  Retirement incentives for nearly 100,000 postal employees, a ‘study’ of dropping Saturday delivery, a return of $5.5B in ‘overpayments into the retiree health plan along with not having to continue the onerous advance payments they had been conscripted to do in 2006.  They would also allow the USPS to find some new revenue sources like the delivery of wine and beer which they are forbidden by law to do currently.

Wow – study Saturday delivery.  Oh, and they also sent a strongly worded letter to the Postmaster General not to do any post office or distribution center closings, please, until they got back to them.  Our top 100 legislators in the U.S., and this is all they can come up with.  Now it’s on to the House.

The House is going through its ‘due diligence with no due haste of any many.  With their view they also want to punt the issue down the road.  After having asked for bold solutions and suggested that the Postmaster General and his staff run this like a business, they are now saying ‘ wait a minute.’  It is obvious from their public comments that they in the House intend to do just that…for many minutes.

Notes have been passed back an forth Senate to House to USPS in a never ending cycle and now some news is coming out as of today that the USPS has agreed not to close any post offices for now.  The threat of closing many rural post offices was too much for all of the Senators and Congressman.  We’ll effectively deal with that after the fall election.  Surprised, not so much on my part.

The USPS has many problems, but the courage to create a ‘business plan’ that could stem their losses was not one of them.  They came up with one, but it meant pain, and we don’t do pain well in an election year on any house or on either side of the aisle.  Change will have to come in 2013.  But what kind of change do we really want.

It is absolutely true that we communicate differently now than in the past.  Old legacy media and forms of communications are being changed to newer digital forms.  Mail, newspapers, land line telephones are not the key means to reach out and ‘touch someone’ that they used to be.  Get over it, and move on!  We still need all of these to have total access to information and a free dialog that is so important to our way of life.  We need the USPS, but we do need to trim its costs just as newspapers have had to trim theirs to stay alive.  Let’s hope our national legislators have the real courage to tackle this issue and to help place the USPS on a solid footing for the sake of our future.  I’ll be putting out a Mothers Day card tomorrow, and I hope I’ll get a couple of Fathers Day cards next month – we need the cheer that only they can bring when you pull them out of the envelope.

The USPS is NOT a business, it is a real part of the American way of life, and I for one want it to stay, even if I don’t like all the grumpy clerks down at my local P.O. here in Irvine.  Heck, even I get grumpy once and a while.  I welcome your comments, email or even drop me a card in the mail.  Our friends at the post office will appreciate it too!

“Warren Buffett Says He May Buy More”

by Peter Kafka in  All Things Digital

Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett, who owns the Buffalo News, the Omaha World-Herald and a big chunk of the Washington Post, told shareholders today that he may buy more newspapers. “I think there is a future for newspapers that exist in an area where there is a sense of community,” he said. “I think the economics will be ok, but it will be nothing like the old days.”

If there is one man who can set the direction for newspapers it could be the Warren.  He still sees the value because he see the total proposition, not just the bottom line.  In many of the recent sales of newspapers this kind of logic has prevailed – as in San Diego, Philadelphia, and the potential of Eli Broad buying the Los Angeles Times.  Money seeking influence.  I think we have found our new business model.  As the saying goes “Everything old is new again!

I am a child of two worlds, both the analog, now code for human side of things, and the digital, which is where the world is rapidly moving.  Often the two worlds don’t mix well together, especially for boomers like many of my friends and associates.  Having purchased one of the first iPhones (day 2) I am a card carrying geek, and that is how many of my friends, and family saw me.  The gadget king is at it again.  Now everyone in the family has iPhones, iPads and we Skype on the weekends with our family in Texas.  We’re bought in!

Though I have all the digital tools I earn my living by helping others integrate them into their lives, their businesses, and help them survive a  dark side of digital implementation…distraction, and a sense of loss of real human interaction.  The question of personal productivity and multi-tasking is also now open for discussion.  Not every gadget or digital process really makes us more productive research is recently finding.

That is why I loved this article by Jenna Wortham.  It captures the true sense of ‘surviving in a digital world by humans/analogs.  In 2008 my 20 year consulting practice branched in this arena and I became the Analog Sherpa.  My tagline was, and still is…”An Analog Sherpa for a Digital World.”  Now you can see why this article impacted me so much.

With the  bankruptcy of Kodak recently the challenge of surviving a digital onslaught is high, just ask daily newspapers – or the USPS whose volumes are about to send them down, at least for a re-tooling.

Where did Lomography come from? Lomography started 20 years ago in Austria, by a group of photographers and artists who stumbled across a cheap Russian camera called the Lomo that used 35-millimeter film. The Lomo camera produced unique and charming photographs that often contained artsy blurry streaks and were oversaturated with color due to the camera’s body design and construction.

Matthias Fiegl, one of the artists who went on to found the company started smuggling Lomo cameras back from Russia to Western Europe in the early 1990s and sell them among his friends and then host exhibitions to celebrate the art photographs.

In the age of skype, cheap digital video cameras Mr. Fiegl found something different – sharing actual prints with all of their unique flaws from the film and cheap cameras.  Retro was back, and suddenly it was different and cool.  People got hooked.  Now a large Facebook community is organizing Lomographer meet-ups around the world.  Instant is out, and unusal is in.  Waiting is a part of the attraction for the Lomographers.

They still use digital cameras and the iPhone – instant is not verboten, but the fun of seeing something later, and not perfect is even more cool.  The digital world and the analog world can co-exist side by side…and be cool at the same time.  There is hope for the Analog Sherpa in this digital world…and I’m still cool to boot.  Cool!

 Sam Zell – Tribune’s New Owner

Sam Zell, the new owner of the Chicago Tribune Company, has quite a reputation as a motorcycle-riding, cowboy booted swashbucker who came up the hard way.

He’s on the Board of Directors of Equity International.

He likes to take risks, according to Forbes and he’s #52 on the Richest list.

He’s the biggest landlord in America or was, in 2004.

He’s called the “grave dancer”.

He’s “salty to the point of crass”, according to the CJR.

He owns, at least in part, two baseball teams.

So what does this mean for the LA Times? Got any predictions? Send ‘em our way.

After a short run in which he fleeced nearly everyone in sight, including the employees of the Los Angeles Times where he used their money in an ESOP to fund a major portion of his purchase – Sam has finally met his match.

Judge Kevin Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. ruled that Sam Zell should be the very last creditor to get money in any payout from the Tribune bankruptcy proceeding. The judge found that “Mr. Zell’s investment ranked dead last in the Chapter 11 payment priority competition, ‘at the bottom of Tribune’s capital structure,’” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Ouch…but it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy.  We wish you well Sam.  No, actually we don’t!  Go away and don’t come back again.  You will forever be the poster child for all those who hastened the demise of U.S. newspapers.