Print Media is Running Out of Time

Posted on March 12, 2013 by Lyn Bunch

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.

Lessons from 2012 for Business & Politics

Posted on December 20, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

The 2012 election drives home some basic new realities about how we communicate and conduct our business and our daily lives. The advent of the digital and social world has changed us forever. In politics as in business we see those who are on the leading edge, and the stragglers. Many of my clients, and certainly my future clients, have come to this understanding late.

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.

Big Data vs. Big Money…and the Winner Is?

Posted on December 13, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

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!

The Care and Feeding for The Orange County Register

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

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.

Not Dead Yet! Just a Little Diminished Around the Edges!

Posted on July 22, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

I love the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, circa back in my callow youth, where they were collecting bodies from the ‘Black Death’. If they weren’t dead, a quick bonk to the head speeded up the process. I think in today’s media world we are seeing this played out over and over again. I confess I had bought into this talk, but I think there is still some life ‘in the old girl yet.’

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.

The End of Newspapers…or a New Beginning?

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

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.

What Does Warren Know That We Don’t Know?

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

Warren Buffett - Now Loose with Open Check Book

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.

Integrated Marketing – an Imperative for Success Today

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

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!

Warren Buffet – A Savior for Newspapers

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

“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!

Lomography – Analogs Having Fun in a Digital World

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Lyn Bunch

“Lomography, an Analog Company Surviving in a Digital World” is a blog article by Jenna Wortham in the April 26 New York Times in the Technology section. I was struck by the title of a subject area I live in – Analog people coping and growing the Digital World, but I was totally unfamiliar with Lomography. As a consultant, I work with organizations to help integrate their people “Analogs” with their new digital surroundings and processes. I also work on guiding companies to bridge to our old Analog world and their adoption of digital strategies. Sometimes I feel like a luddite, but then I’m really a geeky nerd of the lower-high level order. I like digital things, but I like people more. Making them play well in both worlds is how I earn my living as a consultant now.

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!

Analog Sherpa

Media, Marketing & Management For A Digital World

Tag Archives: Newspapers