Scientific proof that newspapers are better than McDonald’s, Google or Nike

‘conducted with over 1000 Australian residents’. Woah. Even closed panel survey methodology can do better than that.

User ID not verified.

Not really sure why/how they can compare “print media” to an actual company / brand. A newspaper is hardly “a brand”. Apples and oranges.

Also, wasn’t this the same propaganda machine that released some erm..”propaganda” of dodgy, supposed testimonials, that were in actual fact, possible answers from the survey.

Smacks of desperation.

User ID not verified.

Agree with Foobar – some pretty illoogical comparisons here.

Disagree with Tim1 – no amount of sample can rectify shonky research or analysis…and since when is 1000 a small sample size?

User ID not verified.

I just love the irony in that they’re using youtube to prove how relevant newspapers are.

User ID not verified.

I still hate the VO talent they’ve used.

User ID not verified.

Which is a shame as the content and graphics are pretty good otherwise. I like my newspaper more than a big mac and more than a pair of shoes. Why is that such a stretch?

User ID not verified.

Scott, 1000 as a sample size is tiny in the Experiean Hitwise context – 3 million plus Australians a day from memory.

Then of course there’s Google, whether trend or keyword anlaysis.

Both are much larger datasets, sampled more often and from actual use – consumer demand – as opposed to (potentially) leading questions. I know which I’d bet on.

Agree re the apples and oranges too. I don’t look to Nike for reportage or analysis.

User ID not verified.

The research results seem to merely indicate that newspaper BRANDS are ‘reputable’ and ‘dynamic’.
And we want to question that finding?
Next research will show that the ABC is more ‘impartial’ than other TV and radio stations and we’ll all be gobsmacked. Not saying that some newspapers don’t push an agenda, but surely ‘reputable’ is one area where newspaper brands SHOULD have it over other media?

User ID not verified.

does Dr Mumbo always talk about himself in the second person?

should we call for help?

User ID not verified.

@Tim1 True, those provide larger sample sizes, but I’m not sure they fit the bill when looking to measure sentiment, trust or other emotional connections to brands/mediums (the argument of whether these are useful measures or not in this case aside).

Think you put it rather well with your point about (potentially) leading questions. Just make sure your research is good in the first place and your sample size of 1000 should be plenty.

User ID not verified.

@ Foobar, seems a surprise you don’t think a newspaper has a brand. Of all digital brands I’d have to say newspaper brands are one of the strongest online and offline brands. Their problem is getting the same revenue out of the same brand on a different platform.

User ID not verified.

Agree with Scott on this one. I’ll take a well constructed representative n=1,000 over an n=3,000,000 which excludes half of Australia any day.

Disagree with Foobar “A newspaper is hardly a brand”. Hello. Someone put the lights back on please! New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Times, Pravda, Sydney Morning Herald … none of those are brands? Give me a break!

User ID not verified.

some heads need to be pulled out of bums here.

Foobar – the fact that you don’t understand that newspaper mastheads are brands revokes your license to comment on this thread

There’s also no irony in using youtube to advertise newspapers. Newspapers have advertised radio for years. Outdoor advertises newspapers. Other media are used to advertise media.

not every consumer in the world is a 22 year old egotist who has seen little more of life than what’s showing on his/her monitor for 23 hours a day

User ID not verified.

True, newspapers are brands, but i don’t think this research is served all that well by comparing the generic term ‘newspaper’ with more specific brands like nike, google etc.

Maybe the research question wasn’t asked that way, but that’s the way it’s being presented for mine.

User ID not verified.

Sven. Are we still talking about this? It was sooo yesterday. I’m guessing you still get the paper delivered to you daily?

What is a newspaper? It’s a delivery vehicle for “news” (I use the term loosely) and advertising. That’s hardly a brand. Even if you want to use the word in its literal sense, you can’t then go and compare SMH to Starbucks/Nike – they’re not even in the same ballpark.

User ID not verified.

Sven – harsh but fair … and it gave me a chuckle.

Foobar. May I ask the question, “what is Google”? To use your line of ‘reasoning’, it is merely a delivery vehicle for a “search”. So that makes Google NOT a brand either? By extension you are saying that what is probably the fastest growing brand in the world is not a brand? That is just plain illogical.

And Scott, I agree if they lined “newspaper” up against “Nike” or “Starbucks” they have mixed’n’matched categories with brands which is an absolute no-no! They either have to ask “newspapers” against “television”, “coffee”, “sports shoes” (all categories) … or “SMH” up against, “Nine”, “Starbucks”, “Nike” etc (all brands).

Maybe The Newspaper Works or their research agency can clarify the way the questions were presented to the respondents.

User ID not verified.

Brand – n. 1. a. a particular make of goods. b. an identifying trade mark, label, etc.

Surely being able to articulate a preference for one thing over another naturally generates distinctions i.e. identifying marks or labels. If someone enjoys reading a newspaper over eating a Big Mac then that has to be a higher preference for that brand.

Sorry Foobar, I wont be buying your brand

User ID not verified.