Guest posting: In newspapers, the editor is the real marketing director
Newspapers aren’t like other brands – an editor can change perceptions for better or worse far faster than a marketer ever could, argues Adam Joseph, Insights Manager at Melbourne’s Herald Sun.
Marketers like to think they are the true custodians and guardians of the brand, and in many industries they do wield considerable ‘brand power’. But the newspaper industry is an exception. Marketers often wield less power over the masthead brand than they would like to admit.
If we take the definition of ‘brand’ put forward by Faris Yakob as “collective perceptions in the minds of consumers” it becomes obvious that newspaper editors have more power over these collective perceptions than marketers do. In the newspaper business, the editor is the true brand guardian.
Think about it in this way.
Hi Adam,
Thanks for that well argued piece.
It’s probably apocryphal, but I remember hearing that Paul Dacre, the very successful editor of the Daily Mail in the UK, always refused to have anyone within the newspaper with the title of marketing director, because he considered the role to be his.
But I think you’re right – perception and experience of the product is shaped by the editor. The message is the medium, if you like.
But is that any different from the head of manufacturing at a more traditional FMCG? Perhaps the difference is that they don’t have the freedom to go mad on the production line and produce a tin of liquorice flavoured baked beans at the drop of a hat.
As the Sunday Telegraph demonstrated with the Pauline Hanson photos, it’s easier to taint the brand when you have to take those sort of decisions on the fly.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Adam,
I work as a marketing executive for 2 regional newspapers in Birmingham, UK.You are spot on with your comments there – the editor does have more control over brand management within a newspaper, and he can certainly do more damage. But at the same time, as you also said, often they have had little training in skills of brand management, which is when they turn to the marketing team, amongst other times on top of that.
All in all though – very accurate view there
Hi Adam
A very interesting article, i think the most important thing is the speed in which an editor can make or break the brand. As much as brand managers/owners/guardian/value proposition or whatever is the term they wantt to call themselves this week, would hate to admit it, they have very little control over the brand. The foundation of any brand is the product, if the product is wrong the brand will eventually fail it just depends on the nature of the product and the purchase frequency. Your example of newspapers was spot on as being the ultimate FMCG which can change every day and is purchased every day. Where as for computers the purchase frequency is a lot longer years in stead of days so if the product is flawed the repurcussions to the brand take a lot longer to flow through
I think the key is that for any really successfully sustainable brand it is vital that it has a strong brand identity/positioning and a product propisition that matches the positioning – the most obvious current example being Apple. If the two are not aligned the product will eventually fail, in some instances this will be quick e.g newspapers and in other industries this will take a lot longer.
@Timbrella, where can I buy those liquorice beans you mentioned?! I also think Dacre banned anyone using the word “God” for the same reasons.
@fraser, good points. Strong brand positioning is absolutely critical – but the state of play in Australia ‘aint too great, according to this Marketing guru:
http://www.marketingritson.com.....spects.pdf
Most. Positioning. Sucks.