The sad reality is that we largely have an oligopoly online which encourages zero innovation in the online space and sadly there is almost no pressure for any innovation from advertisers who should be asking for more. I deliberately don’t put ninemsn in this bucket as they have always seemed to be a simple online reflection of the more ‘sexy’ traditional assets – TV’s and magazine etc and they have largely existed because of default browser settings in Microsoft Internet Explorer and a vague and schizophrenic relationship with Windows Live. (They have little integration with traditional channels, little identity of products / properties, little understanding of engagement, their audiences and importantly the changes transpiring through social media, broadband and mobile etc.) Small case in point – have any of you seriously used the news.com.au and SMH iPhone apps compared to Wall Street Journal etc? They are terrible!

These online properties exist to be monetised so any discussion must raise the issue of advertising and therefore the advertiser’s part in this lack of innovation. As a marketer and advertiser I have always been reluctant to simply purchase display inventory based upon the very tired and old world model of CPM rates and impressions and of course the very old ‘creative ad unit’ designs and their placements on the Australian sites.

It is terrible that in a land of such creative and innovative talent (and opportunities) that we (media organisations, advertisers and the public) simply choose to reduce our online & digital channels to be mere slaves of the traditional TV, radio & print channels which is counterintuitive to shifts in audience behaviours.

I have never understood the thinking behind media organisations who baulk at innovations like Hulu or those who still espouse the ‘cannablisation’ line because their heritage has been print, radio or TV etc. As a media outlet or broadcaster my monetisation opportunity is around engagement with my audiences wherever they are. As an advertiser if you offer me engagement with my audience via the TV (free-to-air or cable) AND live / on-demand online (Hulu) I see this as a plus not a negative. If you offer me an ‘integrated’ cross channel package (print, online and mobile) which combines reach, engagement and conversion then I don’t see a dividing line between the channels – they are supporting each other and exploiting the strengths / weaknesses of each medium. If ratings methodologies haven’t kept pace then I really don’t care.

So, maintaining separate sales teams, separate marketers, separate product development teams and maintaining siloed organisational structures which simply reinforce the channel divide does nothing for me as an advertiser (let alone audiences and consumers). Importantly, all it does is keep restraining the experience, skills and understanding of these media teams and therefore continues to stifle innovation in online media.

P.S. I am glad that new sites like The Punch are being developed and supported but they still seem to be few and far between and very one dimensional channel wise.

As Tim says “as sites have to be run by a newspaper owner, I suspect it was a somewhat limited category”

So in essence “The Punch” got an award for turning up – last time I checked simply existing shouldn’t be good enough to win an award

This is not just some award for “print newspaper spinoffs”. The awards are given out at an annual event, the Newspaper of the Year Awards, run by the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers Association – which means it’s a NEWSPAPER body, and they give awards to NEWSPAPERS – so of course the Web sites which get the awards are associated with newspapers (can you see that connection?) rather than stand-alone Web-only ventures.

Honestly, sometimes I am SO over the Johnny-come-lately bloggers who think they’re so sh*t hot and the world should revolve around online and that anything involving ink on paper is so second-rate…

Just so things don;t look too fishy, some categories will be “won” two years in a row. But that is always balanced by the other side picking up some of the little prizes.

I was closely connected with the event for many years and can tell you that many “winners” were genuinely stunned at their award since they knew full well that they weren’t putting out the best product.

But that’s not how these things are judged.

so it’s a “print newspaper spinoff” award which would exclude the real innovators in specialist news like Eureka Report, Business Spectator, New Matilda, Online Opinion and Crikey

If memory serves, Fairfax’s Business Day was highly commended in that category. But as sites have to be run by a newspaper owner, I suspect it was a somewhat limited category.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

The Punch is an OK blog at times, but hardly prizeworthy