 Baekdal PlusStrategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- The Old World of Media Licensing - (by @baekdal)
Last night as I was finishing an article, I was sharply reminded by just how ridicules the media licensing industry is. Not only are they still living in a print world, they also requiring all their customers to live in that world, preventing publishers like me from licensing their products and using them online.
But before we go into that, let me tell you a story of something that happened to me ten years ago. At the time, I was working for one of the largest fashion companies in the country, as their 'digital manager'.
This was back when the TV series "Sex and the City" was in full swing and extremely popular. And since one of our brands (we had several) was right smack in the middle of that target group, our marketing team thought it would be a great idea to get one of the 'Sex and the City' actors to model for us.
The result was that we hired Kristin Davis to be our model for three months.
It was a brilliant idea from the perspective of advertising. We have the right products, the right target market, the right celebrity, and it was all done at the right time and place. In terms of ROI, this campaign was a huge success.
...except for me.
You see, when the CEO and CMO arranged the deal with Kristin's agent, they completely forgot about the web. The result was they only bought the print-only rights to use Kristin Davis in our advertising.
They came back with all these wonderful pictures, I started working on creating a plan for how to create the best digital campaign imaginable. Until someone remembered to tell me that I couldn't use any of the pictures online.
Wait... what??? Are you freaking kidding me? I can't use this? What the heck I'm supposed to do then?
I ended up being forced to create a digital strategy that used none of the pictures, nor did it mention Kristin Davis or Sex and the City in any way. When people went to our websites, we were only showing our normal (and very boring) model pictures.
Can you imagine how surreal this must have seen for our customers and shops? Here we had this brilliant print campaign, but when people went to our website to learn more, there was no mention of it. All because the images were licenced for print only.
Actually, it was even worse than that. The images were not only restricted to a single format, they were also restricted for use within a specific time. Which meant that we had to point out to the press that they couldn't use them in their magazine if the next issue exceeded that limit.
It was just awful. And I don't blame the CEO or CMO for this. It's wasn't their fault. The fault was in how media licensing works in the world of print. It's designed around these limitations. That's the business model.
Of course, even with all these limitations, the campaign was still a huge success. But just imagine how much more we could have done if we had been allowed to use it digitally as well.
Surely this is not how it works today, Right?
It's now been ten years, so surely in today's connected world where digital is taking over everything, this *must* have been fixed? But no.
These forms of licensing limitations are just as much a problem today as they were 10 years ago. The world of media licensing is still operating as if digital was never invented.
Take Getty Images. It's a wonderful photo site filled with perhaps the best pictures you could ever want. The quality of the pictures on Getty Images is often far higher than what you will find anywhere else. But the licence for Getty Images' rights managed photos are impossible to use in the digital world.
Last night, as I mentioned, I needed to find a photo and, after failing to find anything useful anywhere else, I turned to Getty Images. Within seconds I found just the photo I needed, and decide to buy a license for it. Except, this was what I got:
First I was asked to define what the image would be used for. It makes sense to differentiate between advertising and editorials. With advertising, you imply an association with the people or places in the images and the brands using it, and that not always acceptable.
With editorials, you don't have the same association. So it makes sense to define that some images can or cannot use for one or the other. But Getty Images goes a step further and demands that you define whether you are a newspaper, magazine, broadcast, or electronic... in other words, what format it is.
What if I'm doing a broadcast that is used on more than one channel? Getty Images still lives in the old world of single channels. That world doesn't exist anymore. Look at New York Times. They have a printed, web and app newspaper. But on Getty images you have to choose only one.
Secondly, when choose 'editorial - electronic', you are only allowed to archive this image for up to five years. In other words, after five years, you are required to delete the article from your site.
I don't delete old article. Why would I do that? This a print mentality where the use of the material is limited to the print cycles. On the web, our content doesn't have an expiration date.
Next I had to define the specifics of how I'm going to use the image:
First they asked me about circulation, yet another thing that only exists in print. I have no idea what the circulation of an article is before I publish it. In print, you know because you define how many magazines you are going to print before you put them on the market.
In the digital world, we publish the article and the circulation is then determined by how popular the article is, and how much it is shared. I have articles on this site that has been seen more than one million times, and others that only reached a couple of thousand people.
I cannot define my 'circulation' because circulation is a print metric.
Even I choose to define it as, for instance, 100,000, it would completely wreck my site. Imagine if I purchased a license for 100,000, and the article then became so popular that more than those wanted to see it. Once I had reached 100,000 page views, I would be required to delete the article.
That simply isn't acceptable in the digital world.
Next they asked me about distribution, yet another element from the print world. This is the same print mentality that causes so many magazines to create iPad only apps.
The digital world is not defined by a single channel. It's defined by multiple channels. Imagine if I limited the image license to tablet and mobiles only. I would be required to disable sharing because, once people start to share an article, they are doing on the web.
This is just ridiculous.
Finally, I'm asked to define the duration, again another model from print. it makes a lot of sense when you are publishing monthly magazines. A monthly magazine needs a license for a monthly duration.
But the digital world doesn't work this way. We don't operate with durations. We don't know when something is going to end. The digital world is endless by default.
As you can see, not only do I have to define the duration (which I can't), I'm also limited to a maximum of two years. This just makes no sense from a digital perspective. It only makes sense in the print world where keeping something alive means doing extra print runs.
Next, Getty images ask me to define the target market, and yes, you guessed it, it's yet another thing that only exists in print.
In the print world, where you are limited to geographic regions (usually defined by country borders), it makes sense to only buy a photo for the country where you are selling your publication. But in the digital world, we don't have the limitation of geographic boundaries.
When I publish an article on this site, it is seen by people from more than 150 different countries. In the digital world, we don't define target markets in geographic terms. We define our target market in terms of the interest of people.
So the only way for me to license this picture is to buy a license for every single country on the planet. It's highly unlikely that I will get any visitors from Bhutan, I still have to buy the rights for it. I don't get to decide where you are coming from.
Also, if I have already defined my circulation, why do I have to define the country? If I buy the license for 100,000 views, what does it matter if it is in Germany, France, or both? It's just a useless limitation ... even in print.
But because print is naturally defined geographically, they insist I define it. They are creating limitations for the sake of limitations.
Yes, I could just buy royalty free images, but those are often more expensive and not as good as the rights-managed ones. But the problem here is that these licenses are impossible to use in the digital world.
I didn't understand this 10 years ago, and I certainly don't understand this today. But this is the fundamental problem with the world of media. Whenever a newspaper create an iPad only app, when a TV station limits a show to US viewers on HULU only, when a book publisher insists that a book cannot be purchased from Amazon.com by a person living in the UK, or when brands limits shipping to only a few countries, it's the same print mentality there is at play.
What people need to understand is that the digital world doesn't revolve around the format. That's not what this is about. The digital world is eliminating the limitations of the past.
- We don't have a single channel
- We don't have circulation figures
- We don't have a limited publication cycle
- What we publish doesn't end after one month
- And we are certainly not defined by a country border
If you want to succeed in the world of digital, you have to let go of the limitations of the past. And when you do, you will realize just how much of today's media world that is defined by those very same limitations.
It's the limitations that prevent you from embracing the digital world. Stop defining your business around them!
Переслать - The Complex Path to Sale - (by @baekdal)
Google Analytics is out with a new nifty tool that allows you to explore the complexity of the customer journey for different industries.
Disclaimer: I was hired by Google as an adviser on this report.
I want you to specifically look at the media vertical. As you can see, most sale requires several days of decision making, compared to the other industries where most sale happens on the first day.
What is really interesting about this study is just how big a difference there is between verticals.
Consumer packaged goods, travel and finance are almost exclusively based on instant sale. And this is where you need to understand the purchasing funnel. People don't just buy financial services on impulse. Instead, it's far more likely that what we are seeing here is that people are researching what to buy before they go to their bank or other financial service.
The same with travel. People don't just buy a trip to Taiwan. Instead they spend a long time deciding if they want to go, and then once they have decided what to do, they go to the travel site, find a good offer, and take it.
On the other hand, people probably don't think too much about what groceries to buy. They check their kitchen before they leave and buy what they need as quick as possible. You don't need to spend four days of interactions to decide what milk to buy.
BTW: In the future this is likely to change. Once people start to buy groceries online, many will add products to their shopping cart as their run out (instead of managing shopping lists), and by the end of the week they will order all the products in the cart.
With media products, however, people do spend a lot of time going to the store contemplating if they should or should not buy that new tablet or TV.
This study helps you see these patterns. But it's up to you to figure out why people are behaving in one way with one type of products and another way with another type of products.
We also see that average order value goes up with longer purchasing paths. There can be several reasons for this. It might simply be that people buy more expensive products and because of that take longer to decide.
We can't really tell from this data, but it's something that you as a brand should look into. Why do some people take longer to buy some products? Is there a correlation between the time spent and the cost of the product? Is there a correlation between time spent and the type of products?
You need to answer 'why' ... because the data can only tell you 'what'.
But it's a very interesting study, and it's part of the shift to the next generation analytics where 'multi' is the new normal.
Переслать - The Shocking State of Newspaper Analytics - (by @baekdal)
Here is a case of the blatantly obvious. Journalism.co.uk posted the story that the New York Times has now set up an analytics team so they can learn something from what articles their readers interact with...
Really? It took them this long to do this?
Aron Pilhofer, who also runs the Times's interactive news team, social media team and communities team said:
We know next to nothing in the newsroom about how people consume our content, whether we're publishing in the right way, whether all the time and effort we're putting into creating these interactives actually work
Although the metered paywall has been in operation for two years now, this data stays on the business-side of the company, which is kept separate from editorial.
Now, with a dedicated analytics team for editorial, the aim is to help the newsroom "make data-driven decisions" where appropriate, Pilhofer said.
I don't think everything should be approached that way. I'm not even sure most things should be approached that way, but having the ability to make data-driven decisions, I think is super important.
How could they set up a paywall without sharing the usage data with the people who had to bring value to it? And they are not even sure that most things should be approached this way? Are you kidding me?
This is just surreal. I'm absolutely shocked that the NY Times is only now starting to bring analytics into their newsroom. This should have happened 15 years... shocked. In fact, this should have happened 50 years ago, back when they were only doing print.
Of course, this is nothing new. Pretty much every single newspaper I have worked with over the past two years are separating their editorial teams from their 'innovation teams'. The people designing their digital future have no influence over the editorials of the newspaper, and the editorial teams have no insights into why or how people are consuming content differently in the digital world ... except for page views.
For instance, I do not know of a single newspaper who can tell me which type of articles that create the most amount of new subscribers. I have yet to come across anyone who can tell you what articles create the highest level of loyal readers, or what type of articles that creates the most valuable form of sharing. Most newspapers are not even measuring actual readers.
It's just shocking.
In the same sense, last month Huffington Post talked about how they were planning to use reader engagement to influence what is displayed on the front page (and how), as if that was something new.
How do they think Amazon works?
It's shocking!
The simple truth is that the newspaper industry can no longer exists by default. In the past, people would a buy a newspaper for the same reason they bought a TV. It was just something you needed to have. But in the connected world, this is no longer true.
The reality today is that newspapers have become brands. Brands that has to sell a product. And like every other brand, you need to understand what is that your customers want, what they need, why they need it, how they need it and when they need it. This means you need to look at your analytics.
I'm not saying that you should just follow the numbers. That's not it. The thing about analytics is that it only tells what happened in the past. It's your job to analyze this in such a way that you can identify the patterns, the trends, and the needs and desires for what your readers want you to do in the future.
But analytics is the key to all of this, mixed with your expertise and your influence.
I have written two reports about analytics specifically for publishers:
The first one was in 2011 called "The Future of Analytics for Publishers". It's a good starting point, but it's also somewhat traditional in its approach.
So in 2012, I took this a step further with the report "Modern Analytics for Subscription Based Media".
And if you think this is only a problem for newspapers, think again. We see the same problem with most brands. Analytics from a brand's webshop is often only shared within marketing and possibly sales. But the product team, the ones responsible for coming up with new products, rarely (if ever) see the data.
In a world of abundance, data is what helps you understand how to distinguish yourself from your competitors. Use it to win.
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
msg_
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario