I mark the beginning of my digital education more than twenty years ago when an executive at Hachette USA (now owned by Hearst) asked me how to spell dot com. He was on his way to give a luncheon speech about digital strategy and wanted to start out on the right foot.
In the late 1990s, Hachette was no different than most companies. It invested in a number of digital startups, including enews.com (a digital subscription platform eventually sold to B&N), endured the internecine warfare between print and digital, and over time made the digital incubator part of the mainstream business. Echoes of these strategies, disruptions, and hiccups can be found in most publishing companies of size. It simply took publishers a long time to understand digital, get on the right side of the browser wars, figure out how to sell subscriptions at scale and develop the technical savvy to be able to deliver content to all platforms, such as Time Inc.’s All Access effort, an industry blueprint.
Laura Lang, Time Inc. CEO, recently announced that the company would focus on global growth, growing paid content and creating a broader consumer content experience. To help with the latter, the company had introduced Amplify, a new digital ad unit, some months ago. Amplify “marries” editorial content with brand marketing messages. Given the company’s ability to layer subscriber data with social and behavioral, this promises to become a very interesting platform.
Pat Corpora, a friend who ran Rodale’s book division some years ago, started most strategic meetings with the observation: “What you propose will cost twice as much as you suggest and take at least twice as long as your propose.” He was usually right, but he might have to expand his time frame for digital. Soon I’m going to write a book on the psychology of digital, focusing on the generational, societal, cultural and organizational impediments to the movement. Inertia has enjoyed a long and successful career.
It is no secret that for a long time magazines looked at digital through the print lens and digital products became add-ons to the central business. Some still do. What is most heartening these days is that magazines are changing their business models and, God forbid, even rethinking the church/state nexus. This is hinted at in the above remarks about Time Inc.’s effort to “marry” editorial and marketing messages. This will help consumer marketers become more adept at marketing to digital consumers.
These Time Inc. initiatives bode well for the industry because the company is an industry leader and is surely its first citizen. But it’s equally important to note that other companies, often smaller and more nimble, are making interesting structural moves by re-visioning content, sometimes in dramatic ways. GigaOM’s Matt Ingram tells us that there are five reasons we should pay attention to The Atlantic as the company pushes the transformation to digital. They include: creating web native offerings rather than apps, new forms of content like the Atlantic Wire, and native advertising or more specifically, branded content that looks like what the content readers are used to.
I have previously blogged about Forbes’ effort to re-think content. Forbes has done this more substantially and more elegantly than any magazine or content producer I know. And Lewis D’Vorkin is the Forbes evangelist. In describing Forbes’ new home page, D’Vorkin explains that each magazine constituency “is represented in one of four equal modules, or as we call them, stacks.” These include: the Journalistic Agenda: Forbes is a brand that has meaning; the Social Agenda, which is based on Forbes’ Velocity, “an algorithm that weighs page views, sharing and comments;” the Individual User’s Agenda: personalization with serendipity; and the Marketer’s Agenda: brands are publishers, they create content, and are experts in their fields. For marketers, Forbes provides a perfectly transparent AdVoice platform. According to published remarks by Forbes CEO Mike Perlis, this platform will also have very high content standards. They won’t be publishing just anything. D’Vorkin has written that this advertising trend will shake up 100 years of journalism. I think he’s right.
Other magazines will find their way to this place. There is a lot of experimenting going on. Good magazine, launched in 2006 and shut down a few months ago to predictable headlines, is coming back to life as a community platform named Good.is. According to a variety of published reports, Good.is will leverage Jumo, a social activist platform acquired from Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.
I have no idea whether this will work. What I find interesting is the effort to develop a community, aggregate this muscle, and in turn create branded sponsorships around calls to civic and social action. This seems an ingenious, viral and legitimate “social” way to bring brands into the conversation in a manner that will extend the brand and help underwrite the business. The effort might take the form of branded challenges. Apparently IBM, Toyota, and UPS are interested.
I’ve sat through too many meetings where the very thought of using what is called “deep advertising content” was dismissed out-of-hand.
Three cheers for the companies that are re-visioning content and re-thinking their business models from the ground up in elegant and profound ways.