Summary
For the last three years of my digital media life, I've talked my clients out of putting content behind a gated wall. Why now am I a real advocate for the NYTimes to do exactly that in order to stay solvent in the wake of their upcoming financial obligations? As a digital media planner, the full range of options available to marketers is far more immense than consumers or external analysts could possibly realize. Per a piece in Silicon Alley on Thursday about moving NYTimes.com to a subscription site and charging more for the print piece, I agree almost completely with what many would call overly drastic actions. The Times needs to change their revenue model significantly to include custom publishing and more subscription based models. Here's why.
Analysis
The piece I'm referring to in Silicon Alley is called Our Plan to Fix The New York Times. http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/our-plan-to-fix-the-new-york-times-nyt
Two of the three major recommendations are pretty clear. The other leads to a heated debate.
- Cut costs 40% by 2010.
- Continue to raise print subscription prices
- Explore charging an online subscription fee
Quickly, really bad things happen when you put content behind a wall or an HTTPS (secure) site. You lose your search rankings because Google's spiders don't pick you up, it's tougher for social media options to link to your page, prospects and current customers easily find other options, etc.
So why do it?
From a marketing standpoint, many planners already know it's not enough to align ourselves with top quality edit. We, the marketer, often need to be in the content development game. We, the marketer, really need to be in the conversation. As such, more marketers are finding thought leaders to develop content on their behalf to help their own search rankings and own ability to connect with relevant users. It's custom publishing and it's a model the Times needs to move into. This is a severe example but in exchange for a few ad pages and a few million ad impressions, let Thomas Friedman write something for BP talking about cleaner fossil fuel options that they (BP) can leverage through their channels. It's happening with bloggers throughout the web now and it's a growing brand expenditure for some marketers in 2009.
Secondarily, many marketers are using shrinking ad budgets and shifting dollars into CRM needs but that the C is not just for customer but conversational. Sure a homepage on a branded content site drives some eyeballs but it's not sustainable and it's not a substitute for being able to speak to prospects. 2009 is going to be the year marketers review all assets and really look to leverage what they have more effectively. This means less external media and more romancing prospects within your pipeline.
Finally, the analytics most legacy content providers provide marketers is really weak. Smarter digital companies are doing it better and we're learning more about how users are engaging with the content & the medium. Attitudinal studies aren't cutting it anymore.
I love the NYTimes as a product and I understand why Times Select didn't work in 2005. But for all of these reasons and the fragmented marketing budget, dollars are just going to be moving away from NYTimes.com. Their userbase will shrink substantially and they'll return to a core, loyal audience who's willing to pay for content but that's ok. Marketers will see the value in what remains and they won't be competing with the whole web anymore.
