Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

July 21 2011

15:30

The newsonomics of U.S. media concentration

The rise and potential fall of Rupert Murdoch is a hell of a story. It is, though, closer to the Guardian’s Simon Jenkins’ description Tuesday, “not a Berlin Wall moment, just daft hysteria.” Facing only the meager competition of the slow-as-molasses debt-ceiling story, the Murdoch story managed to hit during the summer doldrums. Plus it’s great theater.

Is it just imported theater, though? We have to wonder how much the cries of “media monopoly” will cross the Atlantic. Is there much resonance here in the States for the outrage about media power in the U.K.? Will the sins (its newspaper unit now being called to account by a Parliamentary committee for deliberately blocking the hacking investigation) of News International impact its cousin, Fox Television, the one part of its U.S. holdings regulated directly by government — or can it build a firewall between the different parts of News Corp.? (See “New News Corp. Strategy: Become Even More of an American Company.”)

Certainly, the tales of News International’s ability to strike fear in the London political class are chilling. Our issues in the U.S., though, are largely different. Both come down to who owns the media, and what we need in the diversity of news voices.

The question of media concentration here is tricky, complex, and a profoundly local question. Yes, there are national issues — but the forces of cheaper, digital publishing and promise of national and global markets easily reached by the Internet have spawned much more competition on a national level.

As to what kind of local reporting we get, we see powerful forces at work, shaping who owns what and how much. Likely, we’ll see some News Corp. fallout in FCC debates now re-igniting in and around Washington, D.C. — as the fire of regulating media burns more brightly here, even as Ofcom, the British regulator, grapples with similar issues.

That said, the question of media concentration, or what I will call the newsonomics of U.S. media concentration, will be fought out on two battlegrounds in the U.S. One is at the regulatory level, as the FCC looks at cross-ownership and the cap on local broadcast news holdings by a single national company, like News Corp., and may take into account its U.K. misdeeds. (Especially if the 9/11 victim wiretapping claims are borne out.) Second, and probably more important, sheer economic change is rapidly re-shaping who owns the news media on which we depend. The fast-eroding economics of the traditional print newspaper business are changing the face both of competition and of journalistic practice faster than any government policy can affect.

So this is how our time may play out. Smart, digital-first roll-ups align with massive consolidation.

First, let’s look at the print trade, at mid-year. The numbers are awful, and getting no better. We’ve seen the 22nd consecutive quarter of no-ad-growth for U.S. dailies, the last positive sign registered back in 2006. Further staff reductions, albeit with less public announcement, continue at most major news companies. This week, Gannett — still the largest U.S. news company — reported a 7-percent ad revenue decline for the second quarter, typical among its peers. Its digital ad revenues were up 13 percent, a slowing of digital ad growth also being seen around the industry.

We see a strategy of continuing cost-cutting across the board, with a new phenomenon — roll-up (“The newsonomics of roll-up“) — trying to play out.

Hedge funds — which bought into the industry through and after 14 newspaper company bankruptcies — are having their presence felt. Most recently, Alden Global Capital, the quietest major player in the American news industry, bought out its partners and now owns 100 percent of Journal Register Company. Alden, with interests in as many as 10 U.S. newspaper chains, apparently liked the moves of CEO John Paton. Paton’s digital-first strategies have more rapidly cut legacy costs than other publishers’ moves, and moved the needle more quickly in upping digital revenues.

No terms were announced, but Paton says “all its lenders were paid in full.” That would be a qualified success, given the bath everyone involved in the newspaper industry has taken in the last half-decade.

In JRC’s case, we’d have to say the push of hedge funds for faster change has been more positive than negative. Pre-bankruptcy, it was derided for its poor journalism and soul-crushing budgeting. Under Paton, who has brought in innovators like Arturo Duran, Jim Brady, and Steve Buttry, the company is trying to reinvent new, digital-first local, preserving local journalism jobs as much as possible. A work very much in early progress.

You can bet that Alden’s move is just one of its first. Sure, as a hedge fund, it may just be getting JRC ready to sell; hedge funds don’t want to be long-term operators. Before that happens, though, expect the next shoe to drop: consolidation.

JRC owns numerous properties around Philly, and a roll-up with Greg Osberg-led (and Alden part-owned) Philadelphia Media Network, has been talked about. Meld the same kind of synergies, and faster-moving print-to-digital strategies of Paton with Osberg’s new multi-point, Project Liberty plan, and you have a combined strategy. Further combine the operations into a single company — removing more overhead, more administration, more cost — and you have a better business to hold, or sell, or still further combine with still more regional entities.

It’s not just a Philly scenario.

In southern California, the question is how the three once-bankrupt operations — Freedom Communications, MediaNews’ Los Angeles News Group and Tribune’s L.A. Times (still not quite post-bankrupt, but acting like it is) — will mate. Over price, talks broke down about merging Freedom and MediaNews (both substantially owned by Alden; see Rick Edmonds’ Poynter piece for detail). Yet, everyone in the market believes consolidation will come. Now with Platinum Equity, another private equity owner, putting its San Diego Union-Tribune back on the market just two years after buying it for a song, we could see massive consolidation of newspaper companies in southern California.

Media concentration, perhaps in the works: Southern California, between L.A. and San Diego, contains at least 21 million people — or a third of the total population of the U.K. Philly and Southern California may among the first to consolidate, but the trends are the same everywhere.

So this is how our time may play out. Smart, digital-first roll-ups align with massive consolidation. It’s time to get our heads around that. That won’t necessarily mean that Alden, or other hyper-private owners, keep the new franchises. Their goal probably is to sell. But to whom, with what sense of public interest?

Which brings us back to broadcast, to which newspaper people give much too little shrift.

Both those in the old declining newspaper trade and those in the mature and largely flat broadcast trade (as an indication, Gannett’s broadcast division revenues grew to $184.4 million from $184 million in the second quarter) are beginning to figure the future this way: there may only be enough ad revenue in mid-metro markets (and smaller) to maintain one substantial journalistic operation. Not one newspaper and one local broadcaster. But, one, presumably combined text and video, paper and air, increasingly digital operation.

So, finally, let’s turn back to the FCC. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals just returned cross-ownership regulations back to the FCC, largely on procedural (“hey, you forgot the public input part”) grounds. In addition, it will likely soon take up the national cap on local broadcast ownership. (Good sum-up of FCC-related action by Josh Smith at the National Journal.)

Which brings us back to the News Corp story. The national cap — how much of the U.S. any one national company can serve with local broadcast — is 39 percent. Fox News does that with 27 stations, and, of course, has lobbied for more reach. So, the media concentration issue may play out as the cap is further debated, and as cross-ownership — a News Corp. issue in and around New York/New Jersey — returns as well. Will Hackgate’s winds blow westward, as local broadcast news concentration comes up again?

Though it may be shocking to many newspaper people, though, local TV news is a major source of how people get the news. Some 25 to 28 million viewers watch local early-evening or late-evening TV news, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. That compares to about a 42-million weekday newspaper circulation, so those numbers aren’t quite apples to apples. In my research for Outsell, I noted that local survey data indicated that reliance on TV news equaled that of newspapers.

As Steve Waldman’s strong report for the FCC pointed out, local TV news is “more important than ever” — but thin on accountability reporting.

So while much of the media concentration questions centers on print, local broadcast ownership, and direction of news coverage, matters a lot.

Combine that local concentration — 39 percent or more — with the sense that the market may only support single journalistic entitities and we’re back to the theme of media concentration, perhaps on a scale hitherto unseen.

A declining local press, with signs of impending roll-up. Stronger local TV news, weaker in accountability reporting, and pushing for more roll-up. Winds of outrage wafting over the Atlantic. Regulatory breezes gaining strength.

These are powerful forces colliding, and in the balance, the news of the day won’t be quite the same.

November 29 2010

15:00

The Newsonomics of eight-percent reach

[Each week, our friend Ken Doctor — author of Newsonomics and longtime watcher of the business side of digital news — writes about the economics of the news business for the Lab.]

We’ll all familiar with the chaos of the moment. Publishers and broadcasters, readers and viewers, search giants and software midgets — they all see that we’re on the verge of the next news and information revolution, as the built-out Internet really begins to power human access to content on an array of digital devices, anytime, anywhere. But it’s not just the media dealing with that revolution. The same chaos of choice that alternatively delights and befuddles envelops businesses as well.

For old-fashioned sellers of newspaper space and broadcast time, it’s been a fitful education, and a reminder that merchants don’t want to buy advertising — they want to find customers, as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The First Amendment didn’t tie merchants to media in a constitutional permanence; it just seemed that way.

Marketing spend — email marketing, social media commerce, search engine marketing and optimization, building and operation of brands’ own websites, events and conferences, among others — is increasing worldwide, while “advertising” stagnates, and that’s due mainly to the increase in digital, increasingly measurable, marketing alternatives for businesses of all kind.

Yet, it’s also clear that we’re at the beginning of this digital marketing revolution, with two numbers convincing me we’re maybe not even a tenth of the way there. I’ll call that the Newsonomics of eight-percent reach, and explain those eight percent in a moment.

Consider first the big picture of marketing spend. Chuck Richard, a fellow information industry analyst at Outsell, has done work showing that marketing ad spend in the U.S. now totals $368 billion, of which 32.5 percent is going to digital and 30.3 percent to print.

It decreased at the rate of only 4.5 percent in the recession-wracked 2009, and should rise about 4.2 percent this year. Spending on advertising alone was down 8.5 percent in 2009 and is forecast to be down 0.8 percent in 2010.

So against those numbers, let’s look at a couple of numbers.

Google reaches about eight percent of the small businesses in the country, estimates Click Z’s Gregg Stewart. That’s 1.5-2 million businesses who use Google’s ad services, contributing to its $27 billion annual revenue run rate. As Stewart points out, Google advertising is a convenience for many harried smaller merchants:

Local businesses face a multitude of challenges daily; servicing customers, generating sales, meeting payroll, and in effect doing what they “do” for a living. Basically, they’ve got their hand in everything and this rarely allows for deep specialization in any one specific facet of their business. Local businesses do not have the time required to research keywords, monitor results, and modify bids and ad creative along with all the additional complexity that is associated with SEM.

Look at that eight percent another way, of course, and we see 92 percent upside, a big opportunity to help merchants make sense of the chaos. Google — along with Yahoo, Yelp, Yellow Pages companies, AOL, and Microsoft — have been plumbing this territory, and so have newspaper companies and a trio of hungry online marketing services companies.

Now Google is making a couple of aggressive moves. It has announced Boost. It’s a product that is built on top of its local listings and Google Maps. Boost — there’s an ironic ambiguity to the name, in that it is intended to boost Google’s revenue and boost some money out of the pockets of local media — adds the ability to put ratings and reviews in place-based ads, and they are sold on a pay-for-performance basis, unlike an earlier similar offering. The Boost test is going forward in more than a dozen cities.

Secondly, Marissa Mayer, Google’s long-time maestro of the search business, is now in charge of the local business. That’s another signal of what an opportunity Google sees in local business, online and on mobile.

How much of the local business market do you think metro newspapers reach? Eight percent, estimates Mike Sacks, VP for operations at Tribune. That’s a number, give or take a couple of points, I’ve heard from other publishers as well. While that total is likely higher for smaller-circulation dailies, its small size is a reflection of the old way of selling, pre-chaos.

Newspapers worked the biggest local merchants for big contracts, concentrating on getting a relatively small number of checks from a small number of deep-pockets advertisers. Now, those advertisers — the likes of Best Buy, Target, and Macy’s — are increasingly going direct to their customers and using all manner of social and engagement media to find and upsell customers (“The Newsonomics of online marketing“).

So, newspaper companies, including Gannett, Hearst, and Tribune, most prominently, are re-strategizing. If the dollars from that eight percent are only half what they were 10 years ago, then we’d better get some revenue from the other 92 percent, they’re saying. They’re doing that three main ways:

  • Retraining salesforces, and hiring more commissioned salespeople, to work the territories, selling not only space in their own papers and sites, but Yahoo inventory, Facebook placements, mobile messaging and more.
  • Telesales: Think “boiler room” lite; more salespeople calling more prospects.
  • Self-service: Sack’s Tribune is one of the companies using the Mediaspectrum platform to enable local merchants to place their own online or print ads. This Orlando Sentinel “Place an Ad” page shows what merchants can choose from. At the sister Sun-Sentinel, in Fort Lauderdale, Sacks says that more than a hundred new advertisers have been added in the year the service has been in place. “Every single cent is a new one…I’d like to see it grow ten-fold,” he says of the prospects of turning an experiment into a line of significant revenue. Sacks says average sized deals come in at about $1,000/$2,000 and also provide lead generation for upselling. Overall, Mediaspectrum’s self-service ad product is in place at almost 100 newspaper titles, including all of the Tribune’s papers (but not broadcast properties), UK’s Trinity Mirror chain, Morris Publications, the Columbus Dispatch, and the Washington Post. Most offer both online and print placements.

As we enter 2011, this new battle for local ad dollars is growing in strength, as merchants aim to make sense of the chaos of marketing choice. This exercise in chaos — and how sellers of marketing services do or don’t take advantage of it — affects more than just newspapers, of course. Locally, commercial broadcasters and Yellow Pages companies — the two other local media with substantial feet-on-the-street sales forces — are sensing the same opportunity to get to smaller businesses, as they, too, lose some of the bigger-business advertising they’ve long held.

Advertising agencies are in the midst of their own identity crises, as their value proposition to businesses is thrown into question, with the advances of pay-for-performance advertising and self-service overall.

The online-only players aren’t just the search giants. ReachLocal, Orange Soda, and Yodle are the companies you hear a lot about when you talk to local site general managers. They are all working the same turf, with ferocity. A recent visitor to the Yodle “sales pit” came away with the impression of “how well trained these guys are” and how their state-of-the-art customer relations management system qualified prospects well.

That 92-percent “open” market — maybe 23 million businesses — tells us how early we are in this digital marketing movement. Commerce change is one thing. For those who care about the news, the big thing to watch is whether those dollars, as they move digitally, move to companies that produce news, distribute news — or have nothing to do with news.

Photo by Leo Reynolds used under a Creative Commons license.

March 09 2010

08:24

Forbes.com: US advertisers will spend more on digital than print in 2010

According to a study from Outsell released yesterday, US advertisers are spending more on digital media than print in 2010.

Outsell’s annual advertising and marketing study, which collected data from 1,0008 US advertisers relating to their planned spend for 2010, suggests that 32.5 per cent of a total $368 billion ad spend will go on digital – email, video ads, online display and search marketing – and 30.3 per cent on print.

But marketers will spend 16 per cent less on mobile in 2010, the report suggests.

Full story at this link…

Similar Posts:



January 20 2010

15:50

Forty-four per cent of Google News users don’t click through to source, suggests survey

A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers’ individual sites

The headline figure from a survey of 2,787 US news consumers by research firm Outsell.

According to the News Users report, when news consumers need instant news, 57 per cent will go to digital sources. In this situation they are also more likely to go to an aggregator (31 per cent) than a newspaper site (8 per cent) the survey suggested.

When it comes to news sites vs aggregators, the research suggested that local newspapers still had the upper hand on local topics, such as family events, but says in its release that there are “cracks in the house”.

Similar Posts:



Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl