Everyone is a Publisher...and Why this Really Matters (for you Media companies too)

Thanks to BoSacks for passing over this Time article on Content Becoming a Pauper. 

The story is worth the read, but here is a little snippet that sums up the author's point. As you can tell, he is taking the viewpoint on the value of content as it pertains to traditional media companies.

"The value of content has never been ethereal. It has always been directly tied to what owners could 'get' for it, either through advertisers or subscribers. For content to have a value, it could never be free. Its position as royalty depended on that.

Content is rapidly being devalued."

BoSacks Speaks Out
Okay, before I make my comments, I wanted to include BoSacks comments on this topic:

"I'm not sure where to begin with my comments on this article, and perhaps I should wait a day or two before responding.  But then again, that is just not my way - vent first and think about it later.
 
The author keeps referencing the decreased value of content.  I admit that I need to ponder the question, but right now I say that perhaps it is his company's content that is devalued, but not content itself.  That may be splitting hairs, but somebody is always going to make money on content.  Right now it is Google; next year or in ten years it will be somebody else.  Google doesn't make the content, but they sure as heck have figured out how make money on the content.  So it still has as much value as before, but perhaps not by the same companies.  Get over it and start thinking in 21st century terms and actions."

@juntajoe Speaks Out
I think BoSacks' points are close to the mark.  Who can deny that Google is making money off media content? And yes, someone always makes money off content. But the issue goes much, much further and needs to be looked at outside the eyes of the media model itself.

• Content is more valued than ever before. When consumers need to find solutions, they actively seek out content (90% of buying decisions start on the web - Forrester, 2007) to find answers to their problems. It's content that supplies those answers, in the form of text, video, audio, and social media - and consumers have almost unlimited ways to get the content. The difference today is that consumers are finding those answers coming from their peers and their favorite brands as well as the media. Everyone is a media company. Everyone is a publisher.
  
  Almost all marketing tactics are optional today. The one strategy that is not optional is developing ongoing content for your customers to help them make better buying decisions. Organizations and individuals around the world are trying to figure out how to create valuable and relevant content. While there is plenty of bad content out there, great content is in high demand.
• Two Types of Media Companies. To BoSacks point, there is always someone making money off the content, but look at it this way: Money doesn't have to be made DIRECTLY from the content in the form of sponsorships and paid subscribers. Don't get me wrong, I still believe in paid content. I pay for content I really value, and have no problem with doing so (read this article on the suggestion that an online micro-payment content model could work similar to the way people buy songs on iTunes). Smart companies have been using content for centuries to develop relationships with consumers that ultimately (in the long run) sell products and services. MasterCard Small Business uses a content marketing strategy to sell more credit cards (over 50% of new signups come directly from informational articles). LEGO is one of the most prolific publishers on the planet. P&G uses content to sell more feminine products. Like these three examples, companies must produce content to survive as a business, and there are literally no technological barriers.
  
  So, while media companies produce content to profit directly (like Time, Inc., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.), other media companies profit indirectly from the content (MasterCard, LEGO, P&G, etc.). Professionals in both media and marketing need to understand this - we all compete for the attention of the consumer, hoping to build lasting relationships. If you produce software for design engineers, then a magazine brand like Machine Design is not only your partner, but a competitor as well.

While I was writing this post, I was also watching a BtoB webcast we sponsored on Marketing Outlook 2009. Mark Wilson, CMO from Sybase, talked about how Sybase employs "frugal and authentic marketing" as part of their current marketing program. That means that they are producing a ton of targeted, multi-platform content to their customers and prospects.  This includes self-published books, video newsletters, YouTube videos, segmented enewsletters, white papers and other vehicles where they can efficiently and honestly tell their story and get involved in important conversations. Sybase is a media company.

Overall, I strongly disagree with Douglas McIntyre (the author) about the waining importance of content.  It's needed and accessed by consumers now more than ever. Pure media content is still wanted and needed, but there is more competition today, and since the traditional media business model is threatened, quality corporate content is becoming more important than ever (corporations have the money to invest in content).

I'll end with this. I was talking to a media consultant last week who asked me my advice for struggling media companies. I told her that most media companies have great brands, and great relationships with readers. Readership/engagement isn't necessarily their problem. The issue is that their advertisers aren't advertising as much anymore, and their business models are based on advertising/sponsorship revenue. Since that's the case, a media brand can do one of two things:

1. Start charging for content or premium content (much like what MarketingProfs does so well, or a product such as Copyblogger's Teaching Sells).
2. Develop products or services that make sense in their industry. A lot of media companies are starting to do this, such as GIE Media, who has an incredibly strong data/research business.

It's funny. Marketers are trying to become publishers and publishers are trying to become marketers. I wonder when the day will come where we won't be able to distinguish one from the other.

It's closer than you think.

Subscribe  -  Junta42  -  Outsource Your Content  -  Get the Book

Comments

[Kirk Cheyfitz]

I certainly agree that the Time article is way off base. Actually, it is 180 degrees off. Which is completely untrue. It totally misunderstands the world of content and the direction of both technology and pop culture. Interestingly, it's one of a series of off-base articles published by Time about the content business--a business they apparently understand less and less well the longer they are in it. The other really wrong piece they published recently was Walter Isaacson's cover story, HOW TO SAVE YOUR NEWSPAPER. Essentially, it was a wishful plea about turning back history. I commented on it at the Story blog, postadvertising.com: http://www.postadvertising.com/post/2009/02/9/How-NOT-to-Save-Your-Newspaper.aspx

What the traditional publishing industry needs now, before it dies, is an understanding that they can create content that will bring in money the way advertising used to produce cash (before advertising stopped working). This is a skill they could learn from content marketers like all of us. But their culture is preventing them from seeing it right now.

I could go on forever -- but I'll spare you. I'll try to talk it through thoroughly at postadvertising in the near future and not clutter up Joe's site too much.

[Joe Pulizzi]

Kirk...in talking to quite a few traditional publishers over the last few weeks, the sacred cows are being slaughtered and they are desperately seeking a new model. That said, not sure they are willing or able to make the jump (some are, most can't), or whether they want to invest enough money in their customers to do the job right.