-
Opinion
Video: How to win new business
Mumbrella Question Time saw the panel asked the secrets of winning new business. Read more »
Let’s stop the anonymous vitriol
In this guest posting, Peter Bray, boss of The Brand Shop, takes issue with negative comments from anonymous posters on Mumbrella and elsewhere.
There are very few ads that I vehemently dislike. There are also very few ads that I really love. But most ads I see on Mumbrella and other blogs I can usually take something from, whether it is information about the brand, a bit of inspiration or a “watch out”. I’m open to learning as much as I can from others, and encourage those around me to do the same.
My basic assumption, however, is that because an ad has been produced by a professional agency, and had the approval from the client, then the end result must be doing something right. Therefore, without knowing the practical rationale behind the ad, for me to have a strong opinion about whether it is great advertising would be kind of arrogant. There is a reason that awards shows ask for information about why an ad was created: they are rarely judged on end product alone.
So as someone who enjoys watching the work that our industry creates, I am stunned at the level of vitriol stemming from some people’s comments in both this blog and others. Read more »
Read his lips
This is several weeks old, but worth a look. It’s certainly an original way to deal with media criticism.It features Air NZ boss Rob Fyfe responding to weekly current affairs magazine The Listener using the medium of sign language. Read more »
Let’s not be too positive just yet – the nail is still there
It’s more than a year since News Ltd’s marketing boss Joe Talcott used the memorable analogy of a dog whimpering on a nail to describe the structural change the industry needs to go through. Read more »
The AdNews numbers that mislead the market
It’s always a tad tawdry when competitors attack each other, but I hope you’ll bear with me…
Whether cynically or through incompetence, AdNews has been misleading its advertisers by providing them with data that seems to suggest they have six times their true online audience.
Allow me to present the evidence. Read more »
Technology will help us own the agenda – all day, every day
In this opening speech to the Future Forum of the Newspaper Publishers Association, News Ltd CEO John Hartigan argued that news organisations have the opportunity to become more rather than less relevant.
Today I want to talk about a tipping point that heralds the most exciting era for journalism. The most exciting era ever.
This tipping point is already upon us. It has arrived at lightning speed, with the explosion in demand for mobile devices.
I am not consigning newspapers to the scrapheap. Not by a long shot.
But this tipping point is going to change journalism forever. In my opinion, very much for the better. Read more »
The real time shit sandwich detector
In this guest post, Clive Burcham of The Conscience Organisation, relishes the instant feedback of social media.
I’ve been making brand driven content since 1996 and often I’ve been so close to the work that I couldn’t tell the difference between if we were chomping on a shit sandwich or savouring the crème de la creme. From an audience perspective, we wouldn’t know the difference for weeks or months. What excites me most now is that we know within 24 hours if we’ve developed shit or cream. Read more »
SMH shows how to make a home page takeover work
When you’re a commercial organisation, balancing the needs of consumers with the need to make money through ads is tricky.
Among the organisations that sometimes goes the wrong way in my view is Fairfax, with its autostart video ads, for instance.
But today, a bit of unreserved praise Read more »
Inside the Foxtel factory
Having been at the launch of Foxtel’s new season the other night, nine points occur… Read more »
ABC News 24 – a handy service for niche journalists
It may not have many viewers yet, but ABC News 24 saves specialist journos having to leave their desks, argues Delimiter’s Renai LeMay
When media commentators discuss the future of journalism, they usually agree on at least one thing: It will involve much fewer generalists and more reporters dedicated to exhaustively covering niche fields. Read more »
The seven ages of Carlton Draught’s Made From Beer
Today sees the launch of “Slow Mo”, the latest instalment of Carlton Draught’s irreverent Made From Beer series.
It’s been quite a run – from the highly awarded Big Ad, to the comedy of Flash Beer, to the debacle of the abortive banned Tingle campaign. These are the seven ages of Made From Beer… Read more »
Real consumers don’t have ‘brand conversations’. They use search
In this guest posting, Simon van Wyk argues that much as marketers might wish otherwise, most consumers don’t have emotional connections with brands
I have a background in marketing, but my understanding of branding seems at odds with the 2010 opinions I see from social media commentators, marketing and advertising agencies. Read more »
Hot, censoring atheists: Google’s insight into what punters think about pollies and journos
One of the charms of Google is autocomplete, where it takes a punt on what you’re going to ask, based on what the rest of the world has been wondering previously.
And it certainly gives a few insights into the high quality of political debate about the Labor leaders in the run up to the election.
Take NSW premiere Kristina Keneally… Read more »
The copyright-busting election
This is rapidly turning into the copyright-infringing election. Read more »
Digital Fail: The gaping void in digital training is failing our industry
In this guest post, Amnesia Razorfish’s Iain McDonald warns that the industry has fallen badly behind on digital training.
Before I get accused of trolling with that headline, I’ll state what I think is obvious: The current education system isn’t producing or nurturing enough ‘digitally skilled’ individuals to sustain a growing a digital economy. Read more »
Online Aussies: ‘We won’t pay for news’
A large majority of Australians say they would not pay for online news, a survey suggests.
According to a poll of more than 18,000 Australians released today by Pure Profile, only 5% said they would be willing to pay for “high quality articles”. A further 7% said they would be willing to pay if there was no advertising. 10% said they would not pay because the quality of online news was unimportant to them, while the vast majority – 78% – said they would simply refuse to pay for online news.
The figures echo similar ones in a Harris poll carried out in the UK released earlier this week which also suggested than only about 5% of online users would be willing to pay for news content.
The findings are potentially significant because major online media owners, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp have signalled their intentions to attempt to start charging for content.
However, Ed Smith, chief commercial officer of News Digital Media in Australia, has argued that surveys of this kind depend on how questions are asked. Smith tells today’s SMH:
“If you ask them yes or no, everyone says no. But if you do more in-depth research about what they consume, where and why and how they would be prepared to pay for it, you see very different results in line with our strategy.”
September 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- Junior Producer - Sydney
- Senior E-commerce Marketing Specialist – Travel sector - Sydney
- Product Manager - Online Media Company - Sydney
- Marketing Executive - global technology company - Sydney
- 1192 Account Director, Melbourne - Melbourne
- Communications Strategist - Sydney
- Brand Strategist - Sydney or Melbourne
- Senior Account Manager, Sports Marketing - Sydney
- Graduate Analyst - Digital Media, $35,000 to $50,000 depending on experience - Sydney
- Head of Content & Ideation - Sydney, NSW, Australia
Comments
25 Sep 09
11:15 am
Agree (to an extent) with Ed Smith. You ask anyone if they’re willing to pay for something they currently get for free, the vast majority will say no.
Then again, that might be because the vast majority of people are unwilling to pay for something they currently get for free.
Do we really need research to tell us this?
25 Sep 09
11:19 am
My question is, what percentage of the survey sample actually pay for ANY news? IE do they subscribe to a newspaper / Business publication / sports channels on TV?
What percentage of regular paying consumers of news said yes and how many said no?
What are their views on bundles? Will they pay for a paper and a bit extra for online? Or vice versa?
Anyone?
25 Sep 09
11:21 am
I meant sports new / sky news / international news through cable tv…
25 Sep 09
11:30 am
Am I paying for news now? no.
Will that change in future? no.
25 Sep 09
11:52 am
It will be interesting to see what happens to ABC News Online’s market share if punters have to pay to use news.com.au. You can’t really argue that the ABC lacks quality.
25 Sep 09
11:57 am
Am also interested in what type of payment model they are actually considering implementing – that will be a big factor in my consideration my being willing to pay or not – subscription vs micro-payments vs other?
I have no problem paying for quality journalism.
In fact I would prefer to pay with money I can ’see’ as opposed to being paid for by my eyeballs to advertisers with online display advertising.
Hard to justify not paying to read a good article by a good writer (qualified journalist or otherwise) for less than the cost of an SMS text message?
25 Sep 09
11:58 am
Good point Matt…
25 Sep 09
1:16 pm
I prefer the model of:
Free = loaded with advertising
Paid = NO ADVERTISING
But I will NOT pay for it and then have to deal with the barrage of online advertising too.
25 Sep 09
1:52 pm
In Debating 101 we learn to dismiss, challenge and ridicule the source of information which conflicts with our point of view. I wonder when News Digital will accept unless there is added value, people will not pay for what they can get for free. Question the research all you want, but I’d have a plan B in place.
And stop using The Wall St Journal as proof positive that people will pay for content. Most News Limited publications have a populist editorial approach, so the comparison is questionable.
25 Sep 09
2:06 pm
A majority of news stories are full of doom and gloom, death, murders, kidnappings, disasters, economic implosions and so on. Who in their right mind wants to pay for that?
I get most of my news from Twitter and the network of blogs I read, which span most corners of the globe.
I’m not paying now and won’t be in the future. The Age etc are websites I visit least.
25 Sep 09
2:11 pm
Hello,
Steve Browning, head of Corp Affairs for NDM here.
If you’d like more insight into News’ thinking, you can read Richard Freudenstein’s speech to PANPA here
http://www.newsdigitalmedia.co.....Speech.pdf
Cheers
Steve
25 Sep 09
2:27 pm
News.com want to make money selling news, that’s fair, but I think they’ve missed the boat. They’re not in a tiny two newspaper market now – they’re in a world market and the competition actually means they have no market power. So I think they should try it and see. But I’ll put my money on it being a pretty short lived experiment.
25 Sep 09
3:21 pm
Well, as a freelance journalist who writes for many of these news sites, I’d certainly like ANYBODY to pay me for my work.
You write for a mainstream newspaper, they then “own” your stuff, can run it as they like on any of their websites, profit from the advertising, but the author gets nothing.
Soon as it goes online it becomes “public domain” and anyone can knick it.
Hardly seems fair, really!
Having said that – for want of a foot in either camp – I wouldn’t pay for websites either.
25 Sep 09
3:27 pm
I’m buying into this debate late so apologies if this has already been pointed out; but I just can’t see the average Herald Sun reader paying for online news. The Wall Street Journal comparison and model just doesn’t stack up.
25 Sep 09
3:35 pm
Define “high quality articles”
If you mean long-form expert journalism, this is precisely the editorial material which does not translate well from print to online.
25 Sep 09
3:40 pm
I don’t understand … we already pay for news on fairfax, news, ninemsn etc. It’s called ads. The current debate is akin to Channel 7 saying they’ll start charging us to watch.
25 Sep 09
3:44 pm
News have every right to ask for payment, as is evidenced by Brians comments. However it wont work, people will not pay and unless News discovers a new way to monetise the net they will eventually become extinct.
Unfortunately news are looking at this, from “newspaper eyes”, effectively they are just doing the same thing theyve always done..which is sell a subscription/home delivery… but times have changed…unless a new vision appears its all over. Beter sell my shares now at a 30% loss rather than 100% loss in 5 years.
25 Sep 09
3:53 pm
Steve, thanks for entering the debate here and linking to the speech. I have to say it was the most considered speech I’ve seen on the topic from News Limited and the first not to have me guffawing at the arrogance and ignorance on display.
Previously, the speeches by Brendan Hopkins and John Hartigan displayed a distinct misunderstanding of how the web works and were advocating a subscription model – not based on providing something unique, of true value and significantly different to the free alternatives, as Freudenstein says – but because the search engines were “breaking into their homes and stealing their content” or because blog have “limited intellectual value as to be barely discernible from massive ignorance”.
They clearly displayed that they didn’t understand how the internet economy and the sharing of information works and were building a case that the existing news sites were worthy of charging for because it just wasn’t cricket any other way.
Freudenstein seems to have grasped that free news isn’t a crime, it is the default setting on the web; and that to get off the default setting, you need to provide something of greater value and quality to motivate the consumer.
What I wonder is whether NDM realises how big the challenge is to differentiate News Media’s online product and proposition from the free alternatives.
Matt Granfield raises a great point – the ABC is the biggest threat to a paid news model. If commercial news media starts petitioning for a curb to the public broadcaster’s ability to provide free, quality news – as James packer did in his tirade against the BBC in Glasgow last month – then the backlash will be immense. Freudenstein used the example of Sky TV providing a different and better service to BBC television to justify the fees, NDM has a similar and potentially greater challenge.
25 Sep 09
3:57 pm
PS:
http://www.jonathancrossfield......orant.html
25 Sep 09
4:05 pm
But aren’t you paying for the ABC online through your taxes? Isn’t it a rose by any other name?
25 Sep 09
4:21 pm
Kimota,
I can’t speak for Brendan Hopkins, but your criticism of John Hartigan couldn’t be more wrong.
You say that Hartigan didn’t talk about “providing something unique, of true value and significantly different to the free alternatives”.
In the first minute of John’s speech to the National Press Club, he said
“I believe people will pay for content if it is:
- Original…
- Exclusive…
- Has the authority
- and is relevant to our audiences”
In regards to your pondering whether News ‘realises how big the challenge is’, I refer you to the summation of Richard’s speech –
“But make no mistake, News fully recognises the scale of the challenge.
We do not expect people to pay for something that isn’t worth it.
That applies to everything we do – not just online.
But we have the belief in our product and the weight of our history and experience behind us.”
Cheers
Steve
25 Sep 09
5:44 pm
Hi Steve,
On rereading his speech, I agree that John Hartigan did indeed call for an improvement in journalistic practice in order to justify charging. But he also attacked the search engines, news aggregators and blogosphere without which any news service – paid, innovative or otherwise – is doomed to fail.
To quote him…
“The most profitable sites, in fact the only ones making serious money are the sites that aggregate news, like Google and Yahoo.
They pay nothing for content produced by newspaper journalists but make money by supplying it in easily searchable forms online.
The major media outlets have encouraged them to take a free ride on our content.”
http://mumbrella.com.au/hartig.....e-web-7306
He then goes on to slam search engines, news aggregators and blogs – despite the fact that without them, traffic to news sites would plummet. They’re not stealing content, they’re giving you extra eyeballs, extra readers and helping people find your content – for free. They’re not stealing any more than the Yellow Pages is stealing business from you by making money off helping people find your phone number. Search engines aren’t plagiarists, but the online version of the newsstand. Are newsagents to be criticised for making a profit on distributing your papers?
If Hartigan is actually advocating News Media develop something new and far greater than their current offering in order to live up to that claim, as Richard Freudenstein did, then I withdraw that part of my criticism of him. But this new proposition needs to be far more persuasive, though, than merely better journalism. Decent journalism is the cost of admission to be taken seriously on the web – and the cost of admission is free.
The Wall Street Journal example works only because it is specialist information with particular relevance to a niche audience that traditionally has no problem spending money to stay ahead. How other mainstream news sites achieve that same level of relevance, innovation and originality is a major challenge. even though NDM say that they know it is a major challenge, I’m not convinced they know how big the challenge is yet if they continue to attack the infrastructure they will need to incorporate into any successful online strategy – search engines, news aggregators and blog buzz.
Cheers as well (it’s Friday beer time after all)
Jonathan
But to think that search engines, news aggregators and blogs won’t be playing a role in any successful new venture by directing readers to that news content is incredibly naive.
25 Sep 09
5:46 pm
Eeek, comment fail, not deleting a paragraph after I signed off.
25 Sep 09
6:13 pm
For quite a long time I’ve thought that there ought to be a way to tip people in “micropayments”.
Anyone who uses Secondlife would have a basic understanding of what I mean.
The consumer would go to a banking site and pay something like $20au…
This would translate into, for example, a thousand micro dollars.
Then, if you go to a website or blog and like a persons work, then you pay them
whatever you feel is a nice amount… it could be ten to fifty points.
This system would also work for musos who’s music you listen to online and why not tip people for their tweets too, if that makes you happy?
Micro payments might not seem like much, but anyone who’s seen Brewsters Millions might understand the possibilities.
25 Sep 09
10:37 pm
Micropayments?
Why not an all out Electronic Trading Scheme where I can swap two News Ltd bikini galleries for one month of thepunch ?
28 Sep 09
12:39 pm
1] No-one will pay for free press. Not now, not ever.
2] When I pay my taxes the government promises to provide ABC news services for free. It’s always been like that and it always will be.
29 Sep 09
9:54 am
Tim, it’s time we put this ‘pay for news’ question to the ultimate test?
From 1st November Mumbrella introduces a subscription fee.
Pay the fee you get access. Don’t pay the fee, no more Mumbrella.
29 Sep 09
10:26 am
Hi Freepress,
Thanks for the suggestion. If anyone, anywhere, is going to succeed, they’ll need the right technical platform and an enormous marketing budget. If you’d like to help me out with those, I’ll be delighted to give your experiment a go.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
29 Sep 09
11:57 am
I think my choice to pay for online news will be largely influenced by the quality of content and the presentation; good quality news presented in a neat and uncluttered format equals my subscription.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks