So it's finally happened. After months of speculation the first of the UK national newspapers will start charging for online content from June.
It's a brave move which will be watched with interest by many different parties. And despite the confident soundbites coming out of NI there's no doubt that this is a high-risk move.
However it's not necessarily as risky as some are making out. Only the quality papers, which attract an online savvy audience, will be going paid-for initially.
TimesOnline currently has 1.22m daily users. Even if only 5% of these convert they would bring in £1.8m on a daily pass. The initial success of TimesPlus suggests that these numbers aren't just pipedreams.
Moreover the new Times and Sunday Times sites will be very popular with advertisers. In a similar way that paid-for papers bring in a better quality response than the freesheets so NI will have an effective monopoly in this sector and could theoretically charge accordingly.
If Murdoch follows through with his promise of improving content to differentiate his sites from other publishers' then NI may well succeed in stealing consumers away from the free sites. It's no coincidence that this announcement comes hot on the heels of the BBC's declaration that they will be significantly reducing their online offerings.
But it still feels like a very risky move. TimesOnline simply does not inspire the same brand loyalty as Guardian.co.uk, MailOnline and the behemoth that is the BBC. While there are so many other free alternatives out there it's hard to see what NI can offer consumers to put themselves far enough above their competitors to justify charging for content.
Chris Skone James, Senior Planner Buyer
Showing posts with label online media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online media. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Monday, 22 February 2010
Adding some rigour to social media measurement
Measuring the effectiveness of social media marketing is a fairly fuzzy activity. Putting a little structure around it can therefore be useful.
There are three main types of measurement you can consider. There's absolute data – data that measures size. There is trend data – data that measures change. And there is comparative data – which you could use for benchmarking.
Absolute data is factual – I might have 5000 Twitter followers, or 37 people might have commented on this blog post. Or perhaps 6000 people viewed my video on YouTube. Or my brand was mentioned 5000 times in forums. Etc etc. Some of this can perhaps be assigned a value in media terms. And while it isn't always easy to assign an appropriate value (what is a Facebook fan worth?) at least you can make a start.
Trend data is also factual – but as you are comparing two sets of data, as you can with tools like Alterian's SM2, the important fact is the change in the data. Thus if there are 10,000 positive mentions of my brand through social media in August that may or may not be good: it's hard to know. But if there were 9000 in July and 12,000 in September I can be pretty confident that I am going in the right direction and that the value of those mentions in September is 125% of the value in July.
And there is comparative data. I might have 12,000 positive brand mentions in September. But if my competitor got 50,000 that month I'm not looking so bright!
We can also separate the results of social media conversations into four areas: views, conversations, actions and effects.
First there are views. Sometimes it's possible to measure the number of people who have seen some of your social media conversations – for instance by measuring visitor numbers to your blog. You won't always be able to measure that – but where you can this may be a helpful metric.
Often these numbers will be small – perhaps too small to be relevant in media terms. But they might not be. If Sony Bravia gets a couple of million views of its ad on YouTube then that's worth something. Probably more in fact than 2 million OTSs on TV.
Then there are conversations. These are simply mentions of your brand or your competitors in various places – forums, blogs, file shares etc. They can be good, bad or indifferent (and you should be measuring that). At its simplest it equates to your PR agency counting the press clips.
Next there are actions. This is when people have done something – taken an action of some kind, perhaps signing up to follow you on Twitter, or responding to a comment you have made in a forum.
Again often the numbers here will be very small – and the real value may not be in terms of media but in terms of the opportunity they bring to engage with brand advocates.
And finally we have effects. This is when you can see that social media activity has had an effect on something else you are doing. For instance, and at its simplest, you could measure the effect (or at least some of the effect) of social media on web traffic by tracking people from appropriate sources such as social networking sites.
Other effects might only be measurable through data analysis, for instance identifying links between social media campaigns and calls to a call centre or online sales.
Of course the effect might well be softer than a measurable and identifable action. It may be a shift in purchase propensity or brand favourability on the part of people exposed to your social media. That's harder to measure although not impossible using standard quantitative research techniques.
So there you have it. A little 3 by 4 matrix that should help you put some rigour into the process of evaluating social media.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
jeremy@mcand.co.uk
There are three main types of measurement you can consider. There's absolute data – data that measures size. There is trend data – data that measures change. And there is comparative data – which you could use for benchmarking.
Absolute data is factual – I might have 5000 Twitter followers, or 37 people might have commented on this blog post. Or perhaps 6000 people viewed my video on YouTube. Or my brand was mentioned 5000 times in forums. Etc etc. Some of this can perhaps be assigned a value in media terms. And while it isn't always easy to assign an appropriate value (what is a Facebook fan worth?) at least you can make a start.
Trend data is also factual – but as you are comparing two sets of data, as you can with tools like Alterian's SM2, the important fact is the change in the data. Thus if there are 10,000 positive mentions of my brand through social media in August that may or may not be good: it's hard to know. But if there were 9000 in July and 12,000 in September I can be pretty confident that I am going in the right direction and that the value of those mentions in September is 125% of the value in July.
And there is comparative data. I might have 12,000 positive brand mentions in September. But if my competitor got 50,000 that month I'm not looking so bright!
We can also separate the results of social media conversations into four areas: views, conversations, actions and effects.
First there are views. Sometimes it's possible to measure the number of people who have seen some of your social media conversations – for instance by measuring visitor numbers to your blog. You won't always be able to measure that – but where you can this may be a helpful metric.
Often these numbers will be small – perhaps too small to be relevant in media terms. But they might not be. If Sony Bravia gets a couple of million views of its ad on YouTube then that's worth something. Probably more in fact than 2 million OTSs on TV.
Then there are conversations. These are simply mentions of your brand or your competitors in various places – forums, blogs, file shares etc. They can be good, bad or indifferent (and you should be measuring that). At its simplest it equates to your PR agency counting the press clips.
Next there are actions. This is when people have done something – taken an action of some kind, perhaps signing up to follow you on Twitter, or responding to a comment you have made in a forum.
Again often the numbers here will be very small – and the real value may not be in terms of media but in terms of the opportunity they bring to engage with brand advocates.
And finally we have effects. This is when you can see that social media activity has had an effect on something else you are doing. For instance, and at its simplest, you could measure the effect (or at least some of the effect) of social media on web traffic by tracking people from appropriate sources such as social networking sites.
Other effects might only be measurable through data analysis, for instance identifying links between social media campaigns and calls to a call centre or online sales.
Of course the effect might well be softer than a measurable and identifable action. It may be a shift in purchase propensity or brand favourability on the part of people exposed to your social media. That's harder to measure although not impossible using standard quantitative research techniques.
So there you have it. A little 3 by 4 matrix that should help you put some rigour into the process of evaluating social media.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
jeremy@mcand.co.uk
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
The future of online content revenues
I went to a Westminster eForum meeting yesterday. On the agenda was "The Future of online content" and much of the discussion revolved around business models.
Several contributors seemed to feel that advertising revenues would ride to the rescue of media owners and that other revenue models were not worth bothering with. In particular, video advertising was held up as a powerful revenue generator.
It is certainly true that you can pay over £20 cpm for some video advertising inventory. But you can also pay £2 cpm!
The reality is that the marketplace for video advertising is still forming and value is still being established. Online enables you to click through to a website from an advert - which can be considered as extra value. And online targeting and ad-serving does allow campaigns that are more sophisticated than TV, where small groups of people can be shown sequential advertising based on their previous online behaviour for instance.
But you can buy TV advertising of £3.50 cpm or less, and even prime-time TV can be bought for well under £20.
Is a pre-roll online ad worth so much more than TV? My belief is that media owners will struggle to maintain a premium for online video advertising – or will perhaps only be able to maintain it for highly targeted (including time targeted) inventory.
In addition, does a linear video ad, which by necessity has to be capable of delivering its message without audio, represent the best way of advertising online? Surely more interactive formats, where people can somehow "participate" in an ad, are likely to be more engaging.
Given that online display revenue actually declined last year in the UK, it seems unwise to rely on video advertising to rescue the online media industry. And while video advertising will no doubt have a part to play, media owners need to examine all other opportunities for generating revenues. These will include:
- Subscription - possibly along the lines of that being trialled by Johnson Press, or possibly of certain premium elements of a site - which common sense would dictate will be elements that are hard to find elsewhere and which are particularly suited to delivery in an online environment
- Data - which can be used to help advertisers understand marketplaces, deliver advertising messages that are effective and develop new products and services
- Syndication - but only where this doesn't have a major impact on subscription revenues
- E-commerce share - which can involve specially developed readers offers or simply a share of revenue from sales made by third parties
- Pay to participate revenues - which might include fees for joining communities (e.g. dating), talking to specialists (e.g. astrologers), competition entry fees, and fees to participate in online games and virtual environments
Of course, advertising will also be an important source of revenue - indeed it may remain the largest source of revenue for many media owners; but on its own it is unlikely to be enough to be enough to deliver a robust online business for most media owners.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Will local newspapers succeed in charging for online access?
Johnson Press’s decision to trial subscription on some of its local sites, including the Northumberland Gazette, is a sensible experiment, and particularly interesting given the recently announced plans for News International titles to do the same.
The idea of local newspapers charging for content might just be supported by the apparent early success of local titles such as Newport Daily News in charging for content.
However, it would be dangerous to assume that if something works in the USA, it will work in the UK as well. The structure of the newspaper industries in the two countries is very different, with local newspapers being held in far higher importance in the USA than they are in the UK, partly because of the absence of national newspaper brands, and partly because of the locally focussed attitude of many Americans.
Nonetheless local newspapers do have a hold on the UK psyche. And local newspapers have content that is not easy to find elsewhere. If you want to learn how Steven Young gave Choppington Travellers Rest the lead at home to Woodhorn Lane, then there are few places you will be able to find that information outside the Northumberland Gazette.
The question for Johnson Press is – are sufficient numbers of people willing to pay to find the latest on sporting prowess of the Choppington Travellers Rest soccer team.
Maybe. Certainly Johnson Press seem to have chosen an attractive price point, £5 for 3 months. If you are willing to pay something, surely you will be willing to pay that.
And the way that the Northumberland Gazette offers you a tantalising view of the first few lines of the content is surely going to work better than the approach taken by Newport Daily News where only the headlines on the front page can be read.
But Johnson will have to do better with their sign up process. At the moment visitors:
1.see an invitation to subscribe
2.and are then pointed to a log in page
3.which contains another button to a page where users register
4.after which they go to their email
5.where they confirm registration by clicking on a link
6.which takes them back to the newspaper
7.where they click on a story
8.and then see the subscribe button (again!)
9.and then (and only then) are able subscribe.
Come on guys, that’s just silly!
And remember, even if Johnson Press do make this work for their local papers, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the same will be true for the News International titles, which may well prove to be far more “substitutable”.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
jeremy@mcand.co.uk
The idea of local newspapers charging for content might just be supported by the apparent early success of local titles such as Newport Daily News in charging for content.
However, it would be dangerous to assume that if something works in the USA, it will work in the UK as well. The structure of the newspaper industries in the two countries is very different, with local newspapers being held in far higher importance in the USA than they are in the UK, partly because of the absence of national newspaper brands, and partly because of the locally focussed attitude of many Americans.
Nonetheless local newspapers do have a hold on the UK psyche. And local newspapers have content that is not easy to find elsewhere. If you want to learn how Steven Young gave Choppington Travellers Rest the lead at home to Woodhorn Lane, then there are few places you will be able to find that information outside the Northumberland Gazette.
The question for Johnson Press is – are sufficient numbers of people willing to pay to find the latest on sporting prowess of the Choppington Travellers Rest soccer team.
Maybe. Certainly Johnson Press seem to have chosen an attractive price point, £5 for 3 months. If you are willing to pay something, surely you will be willing to pay that.
And the way that the Northumberland Gazette offers you a tantalising view of the first few lines of the content is surely going to work better than the approach taken by Newport Daily News where only the headlines on the front page can be read.
But Johnson will have to do better with their sign up process. At the moment visitors:
1.see an invitation to subscribe
2.and are then pointed to a log in page
3.which contains another button to a page where users register
4.after which they go to their email
5.where they confirm registration by clicking on a link
6.which takes them back to the newspaper
7.where they click on a story
8.and then see the subscribe button (again!)
9.and then (and only then) are able subscribe.
Come on guys, that’s just silly!
And remember, even if Johnson Press do make this work for their local papers, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the same will be true for the News International titles, which may well prove to be far more “substitutable”.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
jeremy@mcand.co.uk
Monday, 30 November 2009
Life Begins at 40 for The Sun
Along with millions of others I celebrated The Sun’s milestone anniversary: 40 years.
Having worked in media for nearly 35 years The Sun has been a remarkable constant in my working life. As a wet-behind-the-ears media buyer working on Hotpoint I remember the verbal assaults you received from the wild bunch at the Currant Bun, if you dared not to give them at the very least space parity with the Mirror.
I knew my career was on the up when the then ad manager Mike Moore complained to Chris Ingram about my unreasonableness and bloody mindedness. Result, a £50 spot bonus!
The Sun has fared pretty well over the last 40 years. It’s developed from a rude red top into a testimony of what makes Britain tick.
Its ability to muster public opinion is remarkable, from Guardian-esque environmental causes such as forcing Starbucks to turn off its taps, to deliciously spiteful barracking of hapless England football managers.
Iconic is an over-used expression but in the case of The Sun , especially relating to some of its headlines, it fits. Everyone has a favourite headline: mine is that gloriously succinct anti-Europe sentiment, “Up Yours, Delors”. Priceless.
In commercial terms, The Sun has maintained and enhanced its position as a major media force compared not to just other press titles but to the likes of Google and MSN. The well-trodden media fact that The Sun is read by more AB readers than The Times has even more validity, standing at 932,000. What’s more The Sun's persona has been successfully transferred to new media.
Love it or hate it The Sun just can’t be ignored. And long may it continue for the next 40 years!
Ian Prager, Planning Director
Having worked in media for nearly 35 years The Sun has been a remarkable constant in my working life. As a wet-behind-the-ears media buyer working on Hotpoint I remember the verbal assaults you received from the wild bunch at the Currant Bun, if you dared not to give them at the very least space parity with the Mirror.
I knew my career was on the up when the then ad manager Mike Moore complained to Chris Ingram about my unreasonableness and bloody mindedness. Result, a £50 spot bonus!
The Sun has fared pretty well over the last 40 years. It’s developed from a rude red top into a testimony of what makes Britain tick.
Its ability to muster public opinion is remarkable, from Guardian-esque environmental causes such as forcing Starbucks to turn off its taps, to deliciously spiteful barracking of hapless England football managers.
Iconic is an over-used expression but in the case of The Sun , especially relating to some of its headlines, it fits. Everyone has a favourite headline: mine is that gloriously succinct anti-Europe sentiment, “Up Yours, Delors”. Priceless.
In commercial terms, The Sun has maintained and enhanced its position as a major media force compared not to just other press titles but to the likes of Google and MSN. The well-trodden media fact that The Sun is read by more AB readers than The Times has even more validity, standing at 932,000. What’s more The Sun's persona has been successfully transferred to new media.
Love it or hate it The Sun just can’t be ignored. And long may it continue for the next 40 years!
Ian Prager, Planning Director
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
What’s Murdoch up to with Google?
What’s Murdoch up to with Google? Can he really mean to stop Google from spidering his sites so that people can’t find the news that he is planning to charge for?
It seems barmy.
But you’d be barmy to write Murdoch off as a luddite and a fool. He is certainly neither of those things by a long way. (Pace Stan Schroeder writing in mashable).
So why the - on the surface - rather odd stance?
Well, Google does need taming. I’ve nothing against Google personally; it’s my search engine of choice (or is that habit?). But it is a very dominant (far too dominant) player in the online advertising arena.
And that dominance, enhanced by ill-informed “last click counts” models of ROI analysis, is skewing the marketplace and taking advertising revenue away from editorially-based media owners like Murdoch’s newspapers.
(If you don’t believe that then ask yourself why online display dipped this year while search continued to grow.)
Murdoch wouldn’t necessarily lose that much by REPing his sites. He would of course lose the traffic from Google – but most of that traffic is from people searching on news stories, much of which is one-off, high-bounce traffic coming from overseas and which from an advertising perspective isn’t particularly valuable. Traffic from loyal media brand visitors would be unaffected.
My problem with this is that I don’t really believe that Murdoch would do much harm to Google if he turned his back on it.
Even if all the other commercial media owners followed him (and that's a big “if”, and even then presumably the BBC wouldn't play ball) then Google would just be a slightly different beast: a place where people search for products and goods but not for content. That would be pretty unlikely to affect Google’s PPC revenue which is founded on people who are searching for products and goods.
Google would still be the medium of choice for advertisers looking to generate click through to their sites. And, until advertisers learn that the last click doesn’t count for everything, it’s likely to remain so.
Jeremy Swinfen Green
Digital Director
It seems barmy.
But you’d be barmy to write Murdoch off as a luddite and a fool. He is certainly neither of those things by a long way. (Pace Stan Schroeder writing in mashable).
So why the - on the surface - rather odd stance?
Well, Google does need taming. I’ve nothing against Google personally; it’s my search engine of choice (or is that habit?). But it is a very dominant (far too dominant) player in the online advertising arena.
And that dominance, enhanced by ill-informed “last click counts” models of ROI analysis, is skewing the marketplace and taking advertising revenue away from editorially-based media owners like Murdoch’s newspapers.
(If you don’t believe that then ask yourself why online display dipped this year while search continued to grow.)
Murdoch wouldn’t necessarily lose that much by REPing his sites. He would of course lose the traffic from Google – but most of that traffic is from people searching on news stories, much of which is one-off, high-bounce traffic coming from overseas and which from an advertising perspective isn’t particularly valuable. Traffic from loyal media brand visitors would be unaffected.
My problem with this is that I don’t really believe that Murdoch would do much harm to Google if he turned his back on it.
Even if all the other commercial media owners followed him (and that's a big “if”, and even then presumably the BBC wouldn't play ball) then Google would just be a slightly different beast: a place where people search for products and goods but not for content. That would be pretty unlikely to affect Google’s PPC revenue which is founded on people who are searching for products and goods.
Google would still be the medium of choice for advertisers looking to generate click through to their sites. And, until advertisers learn that the last click doesn’t count for everything, it’s likely to remain so.
Jeremy Swinfen Green
Digital Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)