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.
If an editor and a marketer set out to trash their brand, who would do the most damage to brand equity in the shortest amount of time?
Let’s imagine the editor turned his (or her, but usually his) paper into the opposite of what readers want. Maybe putting Paris Hilton on the front cover of the paper for a whole month … or campaigning in the paper for something deeply non-populist like eating dog meat (“it’s the new chicken“). Newspapers have strong brand equity with their readers, which makes them more forgiving when it comes to the occasional indiscretion. But every consumer has their breaking point. At some point brand associations would be so tarnished that brand equity – and newspaper sales – would go to hell. I reckon after a month or so there would be very few traditional readers left purchasing the paper – although Paris Hilton fans and Koreans might stay.
Now let’s imagine how much damage the marketing director could inflict in a month if she (or he, but usually she) set out to try and trash the brand. Marketers would start by running a heavyweight ad campaign on TV which would be aimed at causing maximum irritation. Trouble is, most TVCs fit this description these days so they would have to be determined to be different. Many readers might see these and think ‘what the fuck?!’ and the brand would be scuffed-up a bit, but there’s a very good chance they would keep buying the newspaper if it was still a good read and fine-tuned to their interests.
In the traditional “4Ps of marketing” the Ps for Product, Price and Place rarely fall under the full control of the marketer. In this way, many newspaper marketers cling firmly on to the P for Promotion.
But even if marketers did their very worst promotions, it’s likely that the brand love will go on, as Celine Dion might say.
So you have to ask yourself – who really has the most power over the brand when it comes to the newspaper industry? In my book, it is the editor. Editors have much greater influence over brand associations – one of the two key components of brand equity, alongside brand awareness – than consumer marketers do.
Newspapers are the ultimate FMCG product – major papers sell millions of units each week through thousands of retail outlets. But unlike most FMCG brands, the product changes every single day – as does the packaging.
Editors are the real brand managers here, however much marketers may disagree. Most metro newspapers are ubiquitous in their communities and they also shape the broadcast news agenda of the day, which means editors even have a strong influence on the perceptions of non-readers.
All this should make newspaper executives very worried. The inherent danger is that editors rarely have any formal or informal training in the skills of brand management. Ask an editor to define the newspapers ‘brand equity’ and you’ll probably get a puzzled look. Ask an editor to show you his ‘brand tracking’ data and he may well show you circulation figures. ‘Brand architecture’ will most likely be taken to mean the logo on your office building.
In many industries marketers wield far greater power over brand management. But with most major newspapers, the editor is the most important member of the marketing team.
Adam Joseph Twitters at http://twitter.com/adamjoseph1
Linkedin
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
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
@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.
User ID not verified.