famebook™

RESPONSE TO: US Weekly Selling Inventory on Its Facebook Page! Let's not get too excited! ;-)

ORIGINAL POST - Inside Facebook

Though FB provides a great platform for us to communicate within, it is still wholly founded on our data. To that end; whilst prepared to accept the irritation of advertising on my profile without being paid myself, and in lieu of that service; if I now receive increasing invitations to be a 'fan' of something I don't want, continued annoying application requests or even more intrusive advertising of any sort, I will quickly seek a new home.

The elegant advertising dollar relies on environments which can give advertisers originality, style and relevance. The Catch-22 for Facebook and indeed Twitter of course, is that they are trying to create that off the back of data which is not theirs, exists in a fast moving environment and is in reality pretty asinine in value. If I were a Celebrity or Brand, looking to maintain the cache I had worked so hard to achieve in tradtional media, then I'd also be dubious as to whether large numbers of so called 'fans' actually translated into sustainable eyeballs on an ongoing basis and wonder whether leading advertisers may actually feel their brands are compromised in such a viral and unsophisticated sea of opinion which is also awash with cheap unfettered advertising alongside which they will inevitably be compared.

Most successful businesses follow an 80/20 rule where 20% of the top Clients pay for the remaining 80% which earn very little. In Facebook and Twitter's case, (and largely because they, unlike Google, have possibly arrogantly tried to monetize after the fact), I believe secretly they've arrived at a place where that 20% revenue opportunity doesn't actually exist within their current platforms and never will because of the very nature of them.

That's just my opinion of course, but I fear that the excitement of seeing 200m people connecting in one place is clouding many smart people's subjective judgement. Sure the Ashton Kutcher race and Mark/ Evan wowing Oprah is all very fun, but who really cares. Certainly not those with the big cheque books who I think in my opinion would be wise to keep their distance for some time to come, just in case this is another 'emperor's new clothes' model we may come to refer to as sub-prime advertising one day!

For my part, I always want to build something I actually own & earn Bill Gates kind of money so I can give it all away again and shall therefore keep focusing on the 20% and leave the 80% to others.

I think these issues will be resolved of course but I predict some interesting and unexpected partnerships/ mergers/ takeovers pretty soon before the heavily commited VC's realise even hyped IPO's won't deliver much return; as well as knowing of course, some new pretenders will arrive & steal everyone's thunder again!

In Facebook's case their smartest move is in my view not even within their own platform, but more about that another time!

JS

Dear Eric Schmidt @ Google/ YouTube,

"How YouTube could turn your 'Achilles' Heel' into a positive and probably bridge your relationship with traditional media in the process!"  (and hurry because Twitter might beat you to it as well!)

(Based on my new suggested advertising model - 'SENSATION MEDIA' - as highlighted by Britain's Got Talent's Susan Boyle this weekend!)

______________________________________

On the basis that I have a ring-fenced business model which we are developing, that I believe will in execution reward any objective insights I might have on subjects outside that scope, I feel compelled once again to profer an opinion on yet another seemingly obvious missed opportunity. I have geared this towards Google, because you are currently in the best place to make the changes and I suspect the timing could be most relevant.

To explain the thought process I have focused on one specific example as follows:

Like roughly 15 or 20 million other people in the UK this Saturday, I was watching Simon Cowell's 'Britain's Got Talent' with the family and though typically I usually also have half an eye on my Facebook, Outlook (sorry!) and the FT, I did catch the introduction of a woman called Susan Boyle, who at the age of 47 and looking like one of those pre-makeover disaster cases, seemed likely to fall pretty flat. The moment she sang however, the word 'sensation' sprung to mind and the panel confirmed it was one of the biggest surprises the show had yet produced! (VIDEO HERE!)

Later the next day, I duly updated my Twitter and FB status to a You Tube recording of her performance and at that stage she had already had 830,000 views. As at today that same version has had just shy of 5,500,000 views and probably 25,000,000 in all, taking into account other uploads!

I'd now like to point out that none of those 25,000,000 people, who were likely in a positive, happy and optimistic frame of mind, were shown an advert of any sort. Sure we'd all be irritated by anything that interrupted our pleasure directly, but I would have been very receptive to any brand association that was apparent within the window. Nokia's music phone, iPhone's, Android...whatever! But NOTHING? That just seems crazy to my unencumbered and objective mind!

In my humble opinion, your own Achille's Heal is your ability to own valuable quality relationships with the big chip advertisers/ brands who rely on style, elegance and exclusivity...and here it is staring you in the face! I call it 'Sensation Media' and you could so own it as a new genre of ad model. You have the mechanisms in place to react instantly if a video (or any media sensation) is taking off and if you do it right, you could also work with the networks and content providers, newspapers etc. to mutual advantage. If it were me, I'd do a deal with them to share ad revenues around particular examples like this one so as to encourage pre-airing (or pre-print in the case of a news item) notification to give you time to offer it out as a 'Sensation' opportunity to advertisers in advance. You could even sell the mutual opportunity jointly and turn your enemies into partners! All this also before you face increasing pressure from networks on copyright issues.

Susan Boyle will now inevitably be famous (and soon be profiled on www.famebook.com of course) and the moment of her discovery could be owned by one or a few brands, who would have paid handsomely to capture that privilege. The fact that you weren't 'on it' just seems like ripping up dollar bills to me, and in the face of claims that You Tube is a drain on your finances, this is surely just plain wrong! How many opportunities have gone the same way over the past couple of years? (I would strongly advise against adding them up, because you could have solved the world's economic crisis with the money lost, I suspect!)

It would cost you a tidy penny, but if you want me to come and sort this out, just let me know! I might even tell you some of the other ideas I've got!

Yours respectfully,

Jan

© 2009 Jan Simmonds

Response to THE WRAP article - Google Exec Has Formula for Online Newspapers!

ORIGINAL ARTICLE - by WRAP STAFF

My response:

In other words.... you need me to supply you with Google ads within your format in order to survive!

Reminds me of Vito Corleone assuring all the bosses he wouldn't be the one to break the peace before Michael then wipes them all out during the christening of his Godson.

As a 'customer', I still yearn for decent content and though I would like my 'news and sophisticated opinions' delivered to me in a much more portable way, I hope you don't take your pants down any further.

In my humble view you need to start selling your products as an elegant 'service' instead. Don't ruin the brand by allowing get rich ads on your business pages from any third party and by all means charge me a 'membership' for being allowed the benefit of commenting, downloading articles to readers, email etc. and then send me a nice monthly mag to cheer me up too. Maybe you could turn the tables and filter the noise from Twitter etc. too and just give me the best ones and comment with your experience over the top of the amateur sea of opinion. I'd pay more for all that than I currently do over the counter.

BUT asking me to 'subscribe' for just your news won't do it I'm afraid.... it needs to be a lot more sexy, and then you've got me!

Lastly, when you are in the depths of despair, just remember, if I own a wall and invite everyone and anyone to come and write graffiti on it, then what have I actually got? Initially I may have an interesting collage that everyone wants to look at, but at the end of the day, when people have moved on back to quality content, in reality I just have a messy wall. Who’d want to advertise next to that?

For more about this... MY RELATED ARTICLE HERE

RESPONSE - So Now Everything Is Google’s Fault - Michael Arrington's piece!

ORIGINAL ITEM - TECHCRUNCH ARTICLE!

It is clearly true that Google and YouTube have contributed towards the current demise of Print Media, TV Networks, Film Studios and of course the Music Industry, but as my Father has always said to me, and I now say to my young son; ‘don’t get mad, get even!’

The fact that the industry was beaten to this inevitable milestone of media progress by ‘outsiders’, is nobody’s fault but their own. It’s called complacency!

Instead of moaning about it, they need to prepare for the next milestone; which in my opinion is an eventual realisation that people don’t actually want to drown in a sea of abundant static or realtime c**p, and would happily pay for trusted environments and brands who can filter the best of the best on their behalf and to their specific tastes.

Richard Rosenblatt at Demand Media has seen that and so have a small handful of others like us.

Don’t forget, Google, You Tube and even Facebook are wholly founded on our content and don’t actually create any of their own. To that end what do they really own? Sure for the next few years, we are all still discovering where we want to go, but the day will come where we all know our destination and our friends, so search and random user-generated content, might just become redundant in the face of awesome content providers and amalgamators of the future! Sure, you may want to search for the occasional item that you can’t get referred from within your social network, but I personally believe that like the financial markets have proven, Google’s success like most others, is not immune to following a curve as opposed to a straight line.

Why do you think that Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL et al are piling so much money (badly at present IMHO) into content environments! Maybe it’s Google who are now currently being complacent, by not doing so? Sure they are expanding their front window ambitions with their product suites etc. but they are wholly relying on our continued reliance and interest in shallow content and perpetuation of that. When it visibly starts starving the consumer’s favourite traditional choices, they will surely respond and there will be new world’s to inhabit I suspect.

In any event, I’m not a fan of Billy Bragg per se, but for my part am confident that we will all want to invest in our stars of the future so feel secure in the knowledge that what goes around will come around…

Just remember, if I own a wall and invite everyone and anyone to come and write graffiti on it, then what have I actually got? Initially I may have an interesting collage that everyone wants to look at, but at the end of the day, when people have moved on, in reality I just have a messy wall. Who’d want to advertise next to that?

Pre-register at www.famebook.com for updates!

Twitter Breaks Down the Wall Between Star and Fans - What a nightmare?

Response to original article in the fabulous 'The Wrap' - Twitter Breaks Down the Wall Between Star and Fans!

I wish I could remember which movie it was where the insects all buzz towards the UV light saying 'it's so beautiful'....(***Just Amended - Thanks Shane via Techcrunch - Bug's Life! - SEE CLIP! = Celebrities heading out to Twitter and Facebook - in my opinion!)

That's my own personal take on these once hugely bankable Hollywood brands whose rather asinine online antics are, with every tweet or poorly presented profile, increasingly making them look like just another girl or guy next door.

I predict a story arising in the not too distant future where a studio dumps on an 'A' list act, citing the fact that their unadulterated social networking antics have blown their credibility and they no longer carry sufficient gravitas for a multi-million dollar movie.....failing that who will be surprised really when a movie bombs, because the leading lady who is going to save the world from nuclear disaster is everyone's best mate on Twitter and just doesn't cut it as a red carpet icon anymore..

Beware also the Good Will Hunting backlash when those new friends turn on you and say "with all those gifts, it's an insult to us to be hanging in the neighbourhood. You're either guilty of trying to manipulate/ sell to us or at best destroying all those memories of great sporting moments or iconic movie/ music moments we hold in such high esteem, by taking that privilege for granted by trying to look ordinary". Success reinforces hope and none more so than a leading movie star etc. Do we really want to see you and your movie star husband rubbing our noses in your apparent contempt for the pedestal we gladly, as paying audiences, invested in providing over so many years?

Maybe I am Legend....and alone on this.....maybe not... but this whole thing could be a virus which was meant as a cure for our communication....and unchecked could wipe out all the things we value most. Paul Newman will always be Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy or Henry Gondorff to me and thankfully at least still a Hollywood great. I wonder how many of my young son's future Hollywood great's will not have, themselves ruined the value of that regard, by succumbing to the light and still be around for him to put on a pedestal?....not too many at this rate...how sad!

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you would like to know more about how to manage yours' or your Client's online activities more elegantly, or to pre-register for a meaningful connection to your favourite celebrity, sports personality etc. visit www.famebook.com ...launching later this year!

Newspapers - Lateral thinking - Nice FB dialogue with the great Samir Arora @ Glam.com

Samir Arora In Japan: Talking about the future of News. This is a topic that now consumes me. From NYT to CNN, looking at ways to re-enable news media:

Michael Parekh at 4:47am March 25

And make it profitable at far lower revenue run rates :)

Samir Arora at 5:48am March 25

That nails it. Exactly. Needs a complete re-think: content creation, News Services Content, Editing, Curation, and Distribution. Total lower costs to drive profitability at lower revenue levels. Yes.

Jan Simmonds at 11:14pm March 26

Why don't newspapers flip the marketplace? Create an environment where they'll filter the Twitter noise for me and override that with serious journalism. I pay for membership and get the Twitter stuff delivered elegantly and auto-linked to the 'real' news; plus special privileges like ability to comment, cater my favourites, tick box facility on/ mark all articles for 'snoozd' (later enjoyment in bath for example!) - print, download, kindle, etc. and maybe once a week or a month I get a nice round up of the best articles to my tastes mailed to me by post or email... They could have more for that than I currently pay on buying off the shelf....and it would mean I could kick back on rare occasions and my 'new..newspaper' would be a right proper treat!

I always qualify my peers opinions against AllthingsD for example anyway...and I don't even live in the US yet.

But then I'm a snob and like quality... am I Legend?

Samir Arora at 12:57am March 27

Jan, this is a darn good idea. I have always believed that the value of News Sources is their Point of View, not just their created content.

Jan Simmonds at 1:03am March 27

I have one a minute... we should talk more ;-) and maybe enact some!

Jan Simmonds at 1:03am March 27

btw http://www.snoozd.com

Response to: Robert Scoble piece - Why Facebook has never listened and why it definitely won’t start now!

Original Post - Why Facebook has never listened and why it definitely won’t start now!

Some fundamental issues here which IMHO skew this argument:

1.

This nirvanic vision is based on the assumption that Facebook will secure sufficient traction with companies and brands that they may monetise those relationships somehow within a format which is wholly constructed on user-generated content…which is of course inherently inelegant and unsophisticated. By example, my personal impression of the once bankable commodity, now known as @mrskutcher is that she’s now, to me at least, just another girl next door with a geeky boyfriend. Which leads to…

2.

For every ‘brand’ that is personified via Twitter, Facebook or invaded by Google adwords; its once preserved cache is gradually eroded by its proximity to adverts for viagra or get rich schemes. As a case in point, the wedding ring I bought with pride and excitement X years ago at Tiffany & Co in New York now feels a little less of a reminder of a special moment and more like a cheap cop out purchase from a chain store, now that Tiffany are rushing so blanketly into new media destinations like Facebook. It just doesn’t feel the same as a full page in Vanity Fair somehow and nothing Facebook does will change that. Do we really want our most admired brands and celebrities to look ordinary?

3.

There is a complete dichotomy between those that advocate Facebook as a means to communicate with family and friends only, (including Facebook themselves based on their own set limits on anything which exceeds those ambitions), and an expectation that we will all marry an adjacent and seemingly incongruous desire to muddy that environment with endless asinine sales pitches from the brands we used to admire. Anyone of my Facebook friends who deletes me in favour of a fan page is overestimating my interest levels in their activities however famous or revered they may be. I admire many people including you Robert, but am a fan of noone.

4.

The only thing that Facebook truly has as leverage on all its 175m users, is the inconvenience of exporting one’s contacts and data to a better offering if it comes, but I suspect that many like me are also keeping local copies of all their Facebook data or at least emails.

5.

Unlike Twitter, Facebook isn’t truly open and so in order to connect with someone you are interested in, know or would like to know, you are bound to ‘friend them’ or be patronised into pronouncing yourself as a ‘fan’. In terms of reaching phase 7, I think Facebook has a brick wall to push through before that becomes a reality and I’m not sure it is achievable in the face of fickle audiences whose own content the whole model is built on.

6.

As the banks have demonstrated, investors will always buy into the emperor’s new clothes and perpetuate the myth, until one day everyone just sees a naked man standing there. In my opinion, Facebook really ought to look at what has brought 175 million people to sign up so far and being visibly contemptuous of their opionions if they don’t fit in with a master plan is a pretty risky strategy. Most people canvassed recently bought into the concept of a place where they could share and communicate with friends, family and peers in a secure and manageable way. They didn’t sign up to be spoon fed daily messages from people trying to sell something so reliance on that as the holy grail will I feel indeed leave them naked in the wind.

7.

I’ve been harping on about user-generated advertising as a new concept for a while now and it is something we are building into our own projects. Basically what Facebook should do is allow users to sell advertising on their profile in return for a share on the profits. It is the best route to hyper-local and would make your suggestion of finding a great sushi restaurant make sense. (Say I persuade my local restaurant to buy an ad on my profile, then I could earn some income from that and the like/ dislike functions could apply as well.) Similarly I could choose adverts from a library [and/ instead], that I think suit my audiences and get a (smaller perhaps) share of income too. At that point you have potentially everyone registering their credit card details and the commercial options suddenly becomes more self-perpetuating and interesting! (Paypal?)

8.

I do have a certain discomfort which I have to reluctantly admit as well; in that being a long admirer of your career and reputation, there is now a sense that in light of your new role at Rackspace, any commentary on a big ticket organisation like Facebook is against a backdrop of your new employers being a significant industry supplier whose interests are best served by seeing Facebook promoted and justified. I do think that Rackspace are one of the best run companies in the world, but nevertheless, it does take the sheen off a little for me, and you’ll appreciate that irrespective of your usual integrity and impartiality, the sense of a potential conflict is bound to arise.

Attn: Jeffrey Bewkes @ Time Warner - The answer is right under your nose!

According to Wikipedia today, Time Warner Inc. is the THIRD largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world, behind News Corporation and Walt Disney and I have to confess, (which some may say is a little strange), that ever since I was child, I have dreamt that I might one day build a company which I might sell to one of the above for gazillions and perhaps earn myself a seat on the board, where I may then have the opportunity to contribute on a much bigger scale again, to the kind of magic I grew up on... for my children and grandchildren. I'm afraid I didn't dream of being a footballer or astronaut rather, I have always wanted to make dreams come true for others and be at the heart of one of the few industries that defines and challenges who we as human beings are.

If you write down a list of say 20 of the biggest moments in your life and then think of the music that you associate with those moments; or the news at the time; the hollywood star of the day...etc.etc., it is nigh on impossible that one of these names isn't responsible for providing a backdrop to those moments in some capacity.

So what's the point?

Because ideas are two a penny and execution is king, together with the fact that I have my own agenda for our current business which down the line I believe will realise the dreams mentioned above anyway; I believe it is in all our interests that the dreammakers like Time Warner, Walt Disney etc.  survive, thrive and preserve all that experience and history and not allow the current media equivalent of an ice age to destroy them.

In less than ten years time, it will be the 100th anniversary of Warner Brothers and this year on 4 February 2009, Time Warner posted a $16.03 billion loss for the final quarter of 2008, compared with a $1.03 billion profit for the same three months of 2007. This doesn't bode well for my shamelessly stated ambitions above in about ten years time, so here (finally) is what I think could make at least part of the difference...

TIME - The media landscape is changing at break neck speed and as every day goes by, the previously incumbent positions taken for granted by the old guard of media conglomerates are being eroded right in front of our eyes as the likes of Google, Facebook et al plant their flags on ever growing swathes of the new frontier. Some have tried to buy into this space, but not necessarily in the right places and most importantly, the world's audiences will, especially in brand recognition terms, more and more be thinking Google, Microsoft and Facebook first and Warners and Disney et al as subsequent and hardly recognisable mere content providers, assuming you can still provide that content in such a way  so as to keep your brands visible.

The one thing that every individual on the planet owns and we media creators buy, borrow or steal from them is their 'TIME'. Social networking, communication, entertainment, news, work, play, sleep, love, family, travel etc. etc. is all routed in TIME, and the one thing that noone has yet done successfully is stake a claim on helping 'me' or one of my fellow human beings manage our TIME.

I'm one of those people who, for better or worse, always looks objectively at everything, so to me this seems a pretty obvious opportunity to use a brand you already own to create perhaps the most appealing and unifying platforms possible and cement your future in the process. People will always assume AOL still means America Online only and Bebo, simply can't in its current guise hope to do anything other than spiral in the wrong direction. Imagine however a single online window, which I can log into and work, connect, stay informed, play, buy, be entertained, learn, give, create and so on...but above all be somewhere I can trust to make the very most of my TIME.

Now I know that Time as a magazine format has a long history of its own and so the thought that the brand might be sacrificed for a higher cause will scare many of the old school, but let's face it, losing a brand name in favour of a refreshing new alternative is better than losing their job surely?

I'm not about to describe what this should all look like, because I'd expect to be paid a king's ransom for that, and in a quixotic sense, I'd prefer to see this as a collaboration between otherwise competing content providers or even some of the current enemy too. I can in any event see, as clear as day, a vision for a brand that is right under your nose, defines in itself the necessary journey you so need to take and ensures that on your 100th anniversary for Warners, your wider reputation becomes again one that; my son as he grows up and then his children, still believe is synonymous with trust, magic and that noblest of all things; serving the human condition.

We are not far off our TV's and PC's being one and the same, and all our media will be cloud based and delivered at will wherever we are and whenever we want. Whose name is going to be on the screen when we turn on or log in???... I personally wouldn't mind if 'TIME' was one of the options... but it will take a few phone calls and some pretty radical new thinking before that happens I suspect!....and if you need some suggestions for how to re-align the magazine as well, just give me a call.

Jan

Newpapers/ Magazines - How to mend what isn't really broken! - Jan Simmonds

Whilst a consumate entrepreneur, I am a salesman at heart and so I find myself looking at this  whole debate through the presumed eyes of existing sales teams at the organizations we are all referring to and in my opinion, that's where the clarity starts. Liberated from the foggy and disparate opinions of the boardroom and intellectualised opinions from bankers, marketeers and hugely expensive consultants, things actually start to look quite obvious; at least to me! Perhaps if anyone had asked them, the sales guys might agree with me?

 

Firstly, just go to the homepage of the WSJ, NYT, LA Times, etc.etc. and just look at it. I've done that a minute ago and here's the upshot:

 

WSJ

 

- 1 x 377 x 50 JPEG top image advertising subscriptions for WSJ

- 1 x mid page large rhs flash ad for Fisher Investments (Doubleclick)

 

NYT

 

- 2 x Top 184 x 90 JPEG ads for Holland America Cruise Ships

- 1 x mid page large flash ad for nytimes.com/conversations

 

LAT

 

- 1 x 120 x 60 Static Gif for Verizon Wireless

- 1 x mid page RHS large flash ad for Zetabid foreclosure sales (Doubleclick)

 

Then check out on the same basis all the major sections like sport, business etc. in the same context and now compare that with www.telegraph.co.uk one of the UK's leading newspapers alongside the FT:

 

HOME:-

2 x Highly visible combined flash banners for major UK bank with continued web brand on click through. No apparent intermediary.

 

SPORT:-

1 x Top Banner for Sky and One large Mid Page Flash for HSBC Bank

Golf Page has large top banner for singles Golfing Holidays and a sponsors logo from RBS.

Cricket Page has Orange Mobile and HSBC

Horse Racing has HSBC and Virgin Atlantic

Tennis has Orange, Rolex (Rich Media Sponsor of TV) and HSBC

 

BUSINESS:-

2 x highly visible combined flash banners for Virgin Atlantic with continued web brand on click through. No apparent intermediary. (On reloads ads for financially relevant Companies appear)

Link to great article by Amanda Andrews http://tinyurl.com/dkl6gx

 

The glaringly obvious difference here is that The Daily Telegraph has started to provide their sales teams the platform to sell top slice advertising on a relevance basis to brands concomitant with their long established cache and gravitas which is of course further preserved in that process. I don't know whether they are running the actual delivery mechanisms or monitoring in-house, but assume they are. In any event, unlike the WSJ and NYT there isn't a flat JPEG ad in sight and I am certain that the difference in net billing is in a different league.

 

Most importantly, the top news feed on my iGoogle homepage is guess what... and to borrow and bend a line from The American President movie with the totally edible Annette Bening; if the WSJ et al insist on going for a pay-for-content model, they won't just have lost my affection, they will have lost my custom! To avoid this, these are my top five tips to newspapers for mending themselves before they are irrevocably broken:

 

1) PRICING

 

Ignore anyone who tells you that online advertising prices are wholly fixed by volume. This is a myth perpetuated by third party providers who are feeding off your belief in, and consequent support of, that fallacy.  If you provide great content and can qualify that certain demographic audiences are loyal to you, then you can decide on what that is worth by your direct relationship with your advertisers. (It is, after all, in the interest of big brands to have sophisticated and elegant environments to promote themselves to appropriate audiences and not see them evaporate.)

 

2) OWN IT ALL

 

DON’T OUTSOURCE – It is not rocket science to create and deliver rich media in websites and in terms of monitoring, surely that is 100% part of your relationship with your advertisers and dependent on what they are looking to achieve. This is nobody’s business but yours and your Clients and is again not hard to automate based on your own specialist USP’s.

 

3) LOCK THE DOORS ON TROJAN HORSES

 

Don’t let anyone else benefit from advertising within your brand. If you want to include a third party search function, that’s great, but any advertising within YOUR platform should be owned by you. The moment you let an advert for 'get rich schemes' into your highly regarded business sections you have destroyed your own credibility. If you have to, then create your own search algorithm to work within your website.

 

4) DON'T CHARGE FOR CONTENT - IT WILL KILL YOU

 

Don’t Charge for content – It will NOT work. Not enough people will pay for what is already available for free and it will just further isolate you from the ability to prove you have a loyal following. A modest charge for ‘membership’ however with certain privileges like the ability to comment, a physical  monthly magazine by post full of rich content and a special treat like the monthly ‘How To Spend It’ magazine in the FT, downloadable ‘mobility’ content to your Laptops or Kindle’s maybe even via your own branded Readers… (So that people can choose content individually and amass it in one place for reading in the bath, on a plane or even in audio as a further paid for service?) – That list is potentially endless and people will pay for creativity and value in that area; just look at people’s fascination for private clubs etc. (I know myself it is my one biggest irritation with content even before the internet. Most times in my hectic life I would like to be able to tick a box next to an article, blog entry etc. I wish to save for enjoying later and would very much pay for that. In terms of the future, that is what your R&D effort should focus on most. How to package and deliver great content on a totally portable basis and in a way tailored to the individual tastes of the reader.)

 

5) ASK THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO MATTER!

 

Lastly, why not ask your audience! I have yet to see a newspaper brand or indeed their leader come out publically in their journals and ask their audience what they want. You still have access to millions of opinions; why not show you care about them by asking. I think you’ll be surprised what the reality is. That is not a license to go spend even more money with an external marketing consultancy, it is a suggestion that a small online survey or cut-out coupon proposing some membership advantages for print, online and combined and see what people tell you. Maybe hold some seminars with your advertisers and ask them what they think. Maybe you are already…but if you aren’t, then…

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

In summary, like all owners of an opinion, it is just that until someone else makes it a revelation or simply a case of stating the obvious. Either way, I am a CUSTOMER and a SALESMAN so I believe my opinion is better than anyone’s… Naturally!

Response - How The New York Times Could Make Micropayments Work (NYT)

Jan Simmonds (URL) said:

Feb. 09, 9:21 PM

Apart from referring to previous blogs posts/ comments at http://famebook.typepad.com on this subject, I just wanted to try and look at this from a different and objective perspective, which is what I think has been missing from the debate:

Firstly, who says Google is always going to be the front window to all information...or any of the other names in the search environment either? I currently use iGoogle to amalgamate all my 'feeds' and bookmarks, but I was talking to one of our Famebook teccy's the other day and he has simply designed his own 'homepage', which is I imagine, if not now then soon, an option many might pursue from a seemingly impartial provider (as a download or service). At that point, Google or whoever simply become just a small search button in the corner!

Secondly this isn't really about monetising individual content items, as much as it is new and existing brands ring fencing their own quality environments and creating their own value for it by relevance and traction. You only have to look at the brilliant Samir's Glam Media to see it can be done right or conversely to some of the world's oldest newspaper brands who have let Google permeate their front pages and/ or business models and whose best efforts to sustain their core values have been to contract out their ad sales on a CPM basis via third parties.

In my opinion, the future will actually be about being the de facto destinations for types of content via a 'single window provider' and instead of the catastrophic effect of trying to charge to see the horse, when it has already bolted...which is what newspapers are doing, they need to be focusing on the roots of their industry...exclusive stories, focused articles, celebrity content etc. etc. I am certain that advertisers of household name brands will be equally glad of an opportunity to work their ad budgets within elegant environments and pay accordingly, as much as Google and Facebook and all the others alike, are equally totally incapable of offering one themselves!

As those that know us are well aware, that's what we are working towards! Jan CEO @famebook