Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next

Menu

Category results for "Featured Post"

Featured Post | Revenue

Thinking inside the box: A look at news, niche, and inspired subscription strategies

For the foreseeable future, publishers are pinning their hopes on digital subscription, on reigniting the direct relationship they initially lost in the initial pile into digital publishing. A recent study from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that 69% of US and European publishers employ some form of paywall around their content, with the vast majority following a metered or freemium model.

Regardless of which model of subscription or membership each outlet has deployed, they each have similar challenges when it comes to the acquisition and retention of users. In that sense they are very similar to other subscription-based products in the entertainment space, from the OTT video services to the innumerable video games subscription services that have been launched in the last year.

The challenges are especially acute for news publishers, however, since news has become a commodity. The news market is flooded with free alternatives and news is not the subscription product most consumers opt for.

Boxed goods

However, just as the challenges are similar, there are success stories around other subscription products that news publications should consider emulating in their own approach to consumers.

One of those increasingly lucrative consumer subscription products is that of the subscription box. These generally take the form of a batch of products curated and delivered directly to you monthly, sometimes in partnership with a publisher. The range of products offered spans from apparel to hot sauces to sustainably sourced fruit and vegetables. And consumers are responding: Royal Mail predicts the market will be worth £1bn by 2022, and that over a quarter of the UK population has already signed up for a subscription box.

Katie Vanneck-Smith is the founder of Tortoise, a “slow journalism” publisher with a focus on membership. She told me that publishers can take valuable lessons away from the rise of products like subscription boxes, and that publishers have “only just started to catch up with the consumer behaviours in the industry”. So what can news publishers learn from the growth of those products, particularly around engaging and retaining subscribers?

Curation as a service

The value of a subscription box lies in the fact that its contents have been specially selected for the consumer base. Subscribers trust that the brand behind the box has the expertise required to choose only the best goods to serve up. And this is doubly true when the box contains luxury products rather than staple goods. Boxes like Loot Crate and Stitch Fix trade off the fact that they have the connections and knowledge to deliver products that are relevant to the receiver. Crucially, they both play up the fact that human editors are the ones ultimately doing the curation, rather than just an algorithm.

In that sense, those subscription offerings are very similar to products from high-end publishers. This includes The Times & Sunday Times, which make the curation of stories relevant to their audiences a core tenet of products like The Brief. Both leverage the fact that, in a sea of products, there is value in having an expert pick out only the best ones on your behalf.

Churn is a fact of life, so cater for it

It typically costs around five times more to acquire a new subscriber than to retain an existing one. That’s why so many publishers are avidly focused on the development of their own internal engagement scores, to determine when people are likely to jump ship and hopefully to intercede. The Times in particular has invested a huge amount of money in reducing churn along every part of the process, but it is effectively a universal concern among subscription-based products.

However, while the quality of the provided service is ultimately the best guarantor of user retention, sometimes factors outside of a publisher’s control will inevitably cause people to consider dropping off. In that case, as with subscription boxes, publishers need to offer solutions that cater to their audience’s changing situation. Ecommerce platform Cratejoy found that customers typically gave financial reasons as the cause for cancelling a subscription box, and advises that subscription boxes offer a “downgrade” option.

Increasingly, publishers are doing the same. They offer flexible options or discounts to the subscribers who contact them to cancel. Some publishers are also considering a wider rollout of a pause option for subscribers. This has the dual benefit of keeping them within the logged-in ecosystem for marketing purposes while also negating the high cost of reacquiring a lapsed subscriber.

Have a mission

Subscription packages like ODDBOX make a social mission part of their sales strategy: much of its messaging is based around the notion that food wastage is a significant issue, and that subscribing is the right thing to do to combat a problem. Similarly, the Guardian found that the rhetoric it employed around its membership scheme had a significant impact, and that choosing to support open access to journalism for everyone was frequently cited as one of the most important reasons people chose to donate.

Notably, when the Guardian reached its milestone of a million paying users, it chose to change the messaging from one of survival to one of sustainability. Consequently, it saw its best week ever in terms of donations. This ran counter to internal misgivings that fewer people would choose to support it no longer appeared in peril.   

The fourth subscription

At the World News Media Congress in Glasgow, co-editor of the Innovation in News Media World Report Juan Senor suggested that a consumer is likely to pay for four subscription services. The first two would likely be entertainment services, the third a general news subscription, and the fourth to a niche site they have a personal interest in.

While people typically feel affinity to newsbrands, the trend towards personalization of content means that publishers can typically serve up content tailored specifically to them. Effectively, they are increasingly hybrids of the third and fourth subscriptions. For example, The Telegraph recognized that its rugby content was of particular interest to its audience. So, it recently made all its content around the sport a key part of its subscription proposition, one of only three types of article to sit exclusively behind the paywall.

When it comes to marketing that specific content, publishers could do much worse than to emulate the techniques employed by subscription boxes, which are by their nature niche. The products themselves – news and goods – are very different in nature, but the lessons around messaging and retention are universal.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Behavioral advertising: The mirage built by Google

Important new research was recently presented at a major economics conference and reported on by the Wall Street Journal. The comprehensive study was conducted over nearly five years by Veronica Marotta, Vibhanshu Abhishek and led by Alessandro Acquisti, who is globally recognized for his work studying behavioral economics and the impact of privacy on digital society. The bottom-line: Acquisti’s team found that behavioral advertising, as measured and delivered based on third party cookies, increased publisher revenues by a mere 4%.

If you’re nodding your head unsurprised by this statistic, then you’re likely in the 67% of publishers surveyed recently by Digiday who answered that behavioral advertising doesn’t help their business. But make no mistake, the findings are profound as to how they inform the future of digital advertising. They will also have a strong influence on the next steps in US privacy legislation. Put simply, nearly all of the growth touted by the industry benefits intermediaries rather than the publishers who provide the news and entertainment. And for the first time ever, there is empirical research to dismiss long-touted industry arguments that privacy rules will kill the golden goose that pays for free content.

Implementing new rules

This empirical study makes it clear that the absence of rules has overwhelmingly benefited intermediaries. (This would also explain the market caps of a few of the biggest intermediaries.) And now, there remains a singular challenge: No individual publisher can change tactics unless all significant publishers move in lock step. That’s because individual companies would lose significant revenues moving on their own, even on behalf of consumers. Therefore, the bar must be raised equally, through a combination of tech and regulation.

Google is the most critical company with the most to lose and will have a seat at the head table no matter where the market or regulators take us. It will be critical for individual publishers to be able to move in the best interests of consumers and their fellow publishers without being held back by Google’s stronghold. Reuters reports that “Google has repeatedly said that it acts in the best interest of its users and offers sufficient warning to industry partners potentially affected by its moves.” We’ll see.

Recent experience suggests that Google will not cede ground. A friendly reminder that when GDPR rolled out last May in order to better protect the privacy interests of EU citizens, Google waited until the final days to push through its own interests. Global publishers had to send a formal letter of concern to Google’s CEO. They also filed a copy with every major competition authority in the western world.

Built on a shaky foundation

Much of the digital advertising marketplace and Google’s business have been built on direct-response advertising in which clicks and audience targeting are valued more than the media that surrounds it. This presents a challenge for media companies which have invested heavily in high-quality, premium news, and entertainment environments. Unfortunately, the largest part of the digital advertising market was whittled down to little more than an efficient delivery vehicle for cookies auctioned off to the highest bidders. And little has been done to dismantle this poorly-built foundation. Rather, our entire industry – data brokers, ad tech platforms, agencies and publishers have fueled these direct-response metrics by doubling down on them through behaviorally-targeted advertising.

The premise? That the new capabilities to collect and use browsing data across the web eliminate the waste in advertising, giving marketers their long-sought dream of one-to-one targeting with real-time measurement and publishers a share in the spoils to help fund their digital growth. And, through these same data reservoirs, advertisers could focus on cherry-picking consumers as efficiently as possible. This spawned a slew of sites optimized not for long-term relationships with loyal audiences but instead for their ability to create diverse cookie pools for these real-time markets.

The 800lb gorilla

Google was a company built for the direct response economy post-2009. Due to several years of belt tightening after the 2008 financial crisis, chief financial officers had more pressure to ensure that marketing investments met the quarterly demands of shareholders. And boy did Google deliver. Google did everything it could to maximize the personal data in its coffers and to minimize friction for advertisers who wanted to micro-target people based on it.

Some history:

  • When web browsers were on the cusp of consumer privacy innovation by restricting tracking cookies, Google lobbyists hindered industry progress.  At the same time their own browser, Chrome, took a dominant seat in the market.
  • When consumer ad blockers became a risk to Google’s data collection, Google began a series of secretive deals and payments in order to whitelist their own data collection tags and later commandeer a browser solution to protect its own ad formats. This saved the company billions in revenue while everyone in industry took a hit.
  • When a more privacy-focused mobile environment emerged from Apple, Google continued investing in its privacy-porous Android device. It earned a $5.1 billion fine for its efforts. Google also launched its own code layer in AMP. This provided the company deeper influence on what can be on publishers’ websites.
  • Google wrestled control and influence over the ad tech supply chain used by competing publishers through a series of targeted acquisitions.

Market dominance

The fruit of its labors is an advertising market optimized for its own interests.

  • Who conducts the most bids to buy advertising in these real-time markets? Google.
  • Who offers up the most bid requests to sell advertising in these real-time auctions? Google.
  • Who operates the most negotiations between buyer and seller? Google.
  • What is the most valued asset in digital advertising? Personal data.
  • Who owns the most personal data? Google.

Put another way. Google is the largest buyer, seller, and transaction vehicle for digital ads that leverage personal data. And Google has by far the most personal data. At this point, it should hardly be a question whether this is a rigged market.

The numbers are startling. In the past decade, Google’s SEC filings show that the advertising revenues Google delivers across its vast network of millions of publishers have barely doubled, having grown from $9 billion in 2010 to $20 billion last year. However, in the same ten years, Google has quadrupled its owned and operated advertising revenues from $28 billion to a whopping $116 billion last year.

Search was (and is) the monopoly that privileges entry into any other business by Google. However, the rich interest profile that can be assembled by harvesting personal data across its operating system, browser, ad services, analytics, and its own properties comprises a behavioral advertising fortress.

The anticipated Department of Justice decision to investigate Google is the company’s worst nightmare in terms of timing on these issues. Already we’re seeing influencers and former competitors begin to open up about bad conduct in Mountain View. Inevitably, there will be more details and more reports. It’s critical to the process—and the future of digital media—that light be shone on their activities.  

Without a doubt, the investigation means that Google will have a harder time finding friends in the publisher and ad tech communities. However, it’s unlikely you’ll hear publicly from many of them. And therein lies the ultimate symptom of antitrust: No company wants to cross Google. But the word “frenemy” will cut in a different direction now: You won’t find anyone watching your back when you’re under the regulatory microscope.

The rise of ad tech intermediaries

All of this said, Google wasn’t alone in its attempts to reap the spoils of the behavioral advertising marketplace. In the period between 2010 and 2016, hundreds (if not thousands) of new companies spawned in the ad tech wild west. By my count, there were 78 ad tech companies starting with the letter “A” in 2016 and today 64 of the 78 have either been acquired or disappeared from the industry. History will determine whether most (if any) of these companies had a lasting impact on the industry.

The core proposition of nearly all of them was to serve a burgeoning programmatic marketplace in which third parties could be inserted into the supply chain in return for value. The typical webpage went from dozens of third parties to hundreds. This triggered a real-time competition for eyeballs, most often represented by third-party cookies.

Personal data was collected by these third parties without consumer knowledge or control. The data was then used to target consumers across the web, as cheaply as possible. All of this was done outside of consumer expectations which led to the “adtechlash” with the rise of ad blockers, various levels of tracking protection launched into Chrome’s “competition” web browsers Safari, Brave and Firefox, and new privacy laws like 2018’s GDPR and CCPA rolling out in 2020.

Now we find ourselves on the eve of new laws globally to better align with consumer expectations. Publishers need to be fierce defenders of these consumers and protecting their experiences. Ultimately, the fight to defend behavioral advertising likely isn’t worth it. At the very least, every publisher and their representative organizations should make certain whose interests they’re fighting for. This will determine who benefits over the next ten years.

Featured Post | Innovation

The bots among us: Artificial intelligence and automation are hard at work in the media business

C-3PO as a nightly news anchor? Alexa winning a Pulitzer Prize? These silly scenarios sound like the stuff of science-fiction. But the reality is that automation, which often takes the form of artificial intelligence and machine learning, is increasingly infiltrating the fourth estate and impacting how media companies gather, report, deliver, and even monetize the news.

From transcribing to fact-checking and polling to tweet parsing, artificial intelligence has been hard at work in newsrooms for years. However, the number of organizations large and small—including giants like The Washington Post, Forbes, AP and Reuters—using AI and machine learning to compose content is on the rise. And that’s got the industry and consumers sitting up and taking notice.

Naturally—along with those in a number of fields—there are journalists worried about being replaced by automation. However, there are many who embrace these technological advancements, seeing them as useful assistants that help process and distribute the news.

“AI can help journalists cover and deliver the news more efficiently by freeing them from routine tasks, identifying patterns in data, and helping surface misinformation,” said Lisa Gibbs, the Associated Press’ director of news partnerships.

Chris Collins, senior executive editor of breaking news and markets at Bloomberg, agreed. “Technology is good at repetitive tasks and newsrooms tend to be overloaded with those. If you leverage technology to help with them, journalists can spend more time doing journalism—interviewing sources, breaking news, writing analysis and so on,” said Collins.

Success stories

Bloomberg built Cyborg, a program that extracts key info from corporate earnings reports and press releases. Bloomberg also has AI-assisted monitoring tools that rely on machine learning to filter out spam, recognize key names, and classify topics to cut through this noise and capture specific events relevant to Bloomberg’s financial audience.

“By doing that, we’re able to be more competitive when it comes to identifying news events,” said Collins.

AP uses a similar AI resource to automate corporate earnings articles. It also employs video transcription services that create transcripts for its broadcast customers, saving AP’s video operations personnel precious time.

Additionally, the AP’s newsroom is beginning to focus more on how AI can help the news-gathering process itself. “We recently completed a test of event detection tools, such as from SAM, which uses algorithms to scan social media platforms and alert editors when it has identified likely news events,” said Gibbs. “What we found is that using SAM, in fact, does help our journalists around the world discover breaking news before we otherwise would have known.”

Reg Chua, COO of Reuters Editorial, said his organization has been using AI for several years. “A lot of it is your basic automation stuff like scraping websites and pulling stuff off feeds and then turning them into headlines published automatically or else presenting this information to humans for checking before we publish. We also employ quasi automation and technology that scans and extracts important information from documents,” said Chua.


Reuters News Tracer filters noise from social media to help discern fact from fiction and newsworthy angles from countless tweets and posts.

One of Reuters’ newest AI tools is News Tracer, which filters noise from social media to help discern fact from fiction and newsworthy angles from countless tweets and posts. “News Tracer’s core function is to tell journalists about things they didn’t know they were looking for—to quickly find news that can be reported on,” said Chua, who added that the tool provides a newsworthiness score and a confidence score to help reporters determine what to focus on.

Big and small papers benefit, too

RADAR (Reporters and Data and Robots), a London-based news service, has been a trailblazer in the realm of AI-reported local news.

“We operate as a news agency with a subscriber base of UK local news publishers,” said Gary Rogers, RADAR’s editor-in-chief. “We employ six data journalists. Our reporters work largely with UK open data, seeking out stories that will be relevant and informative for local audiences. They work as any data journalist might in finding the stories, but they use software as their writing tool in order to produce many localized versions. These are distributed to local news operations all over the UK.”

Rogers noted that AI allows RADAR to achieve a scale of story production that would not be possible by human effort alone.

“We tackle about 40 data projects each month. Each project will yield an average of 200 to 250 localized versions of the story,” said Rogers. “Since last autumn, we have been producing between 8,000 to 10,000 stories per month.”

Smaller community newspapers are investing in big machine learning capabilities, as well. Case in Point: Richland Source, a Mansfield, Ohio daily, uses a program called Lede AI to automate local sports reporting.

“Lede Ai writes and publishes game recaps for every high school sporting event in Ohio immediately after it finishes,” said Larry Phillips, managing editor of Richland Source. “If it’s a big game, we will send a reporter and Lede Ai writes and publishes the first draft; our journalist adds color, flavor, and flare that can only be done by being at the game. With Lede Ai, we’ve never received a complaint about inaccurate reporting, and we’ve published over 20,000 articles.”

Education and transparency

News media professionals worry about human obsolescence in the face of such quickly accelerating automation. Yet many believe those concerns are premature or misguided.

“While this has been true in most industries and may happen in media, there is a broader picture of AI’s enabling rather than employment-destroying qualities,” Rogers said. “AI can take over repetitive and boring tasks, which frees journalists to do more important work. It can help journalists find stories by sifting large amounts of information. In our case, it allows our reporters to amplify their work, write a story in the form of a template, and produce hundreds of versions of the story for local newspapers across the UK who lack the resources to do it themselves.”

Consider, too, said Phillips, that “AI still can’t ask follow-up questions, can’t knock on the doors of multiple sources, work a beat, make a follow-up call, do the shoe-leather grunt work, garner an off-the-record comment which leads to a story angle, and certainly can’t replicate the human element, the nuance, that encompasses the very best work in the profession.”

Even if their human resources are relatively safe for now, news organizations have to navigate carefully through uncharted waters when it comes to ethics around and disclosure of AI practices.

“As these technologies evolve, having standards around transparency and best practices – such as how do we prevent bias in data from impacting our news coverage – will be critical for the entire industry,” added Gibbs.

Bloomberg’s Collins echoes that sentiment. “It’s essential to understand what technology can and can’t handle. Clearly, as with all journalism, you need judgement, best practices and processes in place to ensure what you are writing is accurate, fast and worthwhile,” said Collins. “You need to be transparent about how a story was produced, if it was assisted or published using AI. In our experience, the combination of years of human journalistic experience with technology such as AI is powerful. Obviously, the technology isn’t left to run the newsroom. It is trained and overseen by journalists, who are learning new skills in the process.”

Reading the tea leaves

Looking ahead, artificial intelligence will create exciting new capabilities as well as troubling obstacles, say the pros.

“As newsrooms increasingly embrace AI, it will help with everything from spotting breaking-news events, to finding scoops in data to audience personalization,” said Collins.

But prepare for even more fake news fiascos.

“Distribution of so-called deepfakes, assisted by AI, is a troubling trend,” Collins cautioned. “How technology evolves to both spread and combat misinformation will be a major challenge for the industry.”

Yet Richland Source publisher Jay Allred and others remain optimistic.  “In the near-term at the local level, I think AI will largely be used for two things. First, it will fill the gaps on informational journalism tasks that simply are not done anymore due to shrinking payrolls,” said Allred. “Second, it will surface insights from public databases—finding out, for instance, how a particular city floods and where, how many speeding tickets were issued and where throughout a state, where do the most citations for drunk and disorderly conduct occur within a city. This will spur and support investigative journalism that wouldn’t otherwise happen.”

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

What policy makers can learn from privacy-focused products

The legal and policy community continues to debate the impact of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the ins and outs of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and how (or whether) Washington should regulate consumer privacy. While the debate rages on, we are seeing a stream of consumer-focused privacy-oriented product rollouts. It is interesting to look at what these controls actually do and how they might inform the policy debate.

In a concession to consumer privacy, Google recently announced that it would allow consumers to block companies from tracking them across the web when they are using Chrome. Specifically, they will differentiate between 1st party and 3rd party cookies. As such, they will allow consumers to delete 3rd party cookies while preserving the 1st party cookie, which, for example, allows a website to remember a consumer’s log-in information. In addition, Google will soon roll out features to prevent companies from identifying consumers via device fingerprinting, another method used to track consumers across the web.

Let’s be clear, Google is late to the privacy game given the long history of privacy protections offered by Apple and Mozilla. Apple has famously blocked 3rd party cookies by default in Safari and recently introduced Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP), restricting the ability of companies to access cookies when a consumer is not interacting with that company.  

Services that care for consumers

When a consumer visits YouTube on Safari, Google can access the cookies they have set on their browser. However, as soon as the consumer navigates to another website, Google can no longer access those cookies. ITP essentially breaks the ability to track consumers around the web.  Apple has also worked to block loopholes where cookies, set by companies like Google and Facebook, pretend to be 1st party but are then used for tracking and secondary use. Unfortunately, it is hard to muster much confidence that Google will be anywhere as diligent as Apple in closing loopholes, given its business model is built on its ability to expertly track consumers.

Mozilla, on the other hand, offers multiple ways for consumers to block third party tracking in Firefox. Mozilla is also considering rolling out a “Super Private Browsing” mode, which would incorporate Tor privacy features into Firefox.

Beyond the most commonly used browsers, a whole suite of new services have popped up. Duck Duck Go, a search engine, and Brave, a browser, offer strong privacy controls as their primary value proposition. As we’ve noted for several years now, more and more consumers are turning to ad blockers to protect themselves and/or improve their web experience. Forcing these massive platforms to once again compete on privacy will be good for everyone, particularly consumers. The question, of course, is whether some of these companies are simply too big to change at this point.

Policy implications

Back to my original question: What can policymakers learn from these new consumer privacy controls?

For starters, consumers increasingly demand more and stronger protections of their data and digital lives or the market wouldn’t be headed that direction. You can reasonably debate whether Google’s recent announcement went far enough. But the fact that a multi-billion-dollar company like Google did anything at all speaks volumes.

It’s also worth pointing out that all of these new controls, which curtail the ability of companies to collect consumer data at scale, are not actually breaking the internet despite the frequent claims of ad tech lobbyists. In fact, given this push to meet consumer demand for greater privacy controls, it’s funny and a little sad to look back at the hysteria from some of these lobbyists.

Meeting consumer demand

The big takeaway is how these companies and their engineers are designing services and features to meet consumer expectations for privacy. This new wave of privacy controls gives consumers the ability to stop companies from tracking them across the web. Yet, these services preserve the ability for websites and apps to collect and use consumer data when the consumer is interacting directly with that company.

This approach makes sense. Consumers share their data so that companies can use it to provide a service or content. In this fair value exchange, the consumer can choose to engage or not. Consumers do not expect companies to track them outside of that fair value exchange and doing so is simply bad business.  

It isn’t a question of whether consumers want their privacy protected, these market moves demonstrate the demand and inevitability. And, as policymakers consider how best to craft consumer privacy protections, it’s worth noting how today’s best engineers have attempted to meet consumer demand and expectations for privacy.

Featured Post | Marketing | Perspectives

Are the NewFronts still worth it for publishers?

Certain terms like “new wave,” “new school,” and “online video” start to lose their meaning over time. The same seems to be true of the “NewFronts,” now in their eighth year in New York. The showcase for traditional and digital native publishers selling their video offerings to marketers has been split up into twice-per-year affairs (with a fall showcase in L.A.). Just 16 publishers presented in New York this year, down from 36 in 2017.

The idea of the TV Upfronts and NewFronts are to dazzle advertisers and get them to commit a chunk of their advertising to the publisher, though there is less scarcity online. Have the NewFronts made progress over the years? Most definitely. Has that progress meant there is no need for them anymore? Not quite.

What’s most interesting at this year’s shindig is that traditional players are pushing new acquisitions and initiatives, while the digital natives are trying to sound more traditional with ongoing series. This points to a convergence of purposes and the fact that online video, OTT, streaming video et al have commingled to the point of absurdity. This leaves marketers grasping at just what they’re buying and how they can track and optimize it all. And yet there’s still a place for publishers at the NewFronts as a showcase for offerings and to generate much needed buzz.

Platform domination

The biggest challenge for publishers, as always, is trying to stand out from dominant players like Hulu, YouTube, and even Twitter. And the dominant players just get more dominant. YouTube casts an immense shadow as the largest ad-supported video platform online. But, as Digiday’s Sahil Patel points out, YouTube users are spending 200 million hours per day watching YouTube on a TV, up from 100 million hours last October.

And Hulu hit $1.5 billion in ad revenues last year by offering a mix of legacy TV programming and original shows. During its NewFronts presentation, Hulu execs pointed out that they have 26 million paid subscribers, and a much younger audience than cable, at 31 years old vs. 53 years old. Plus, 80% of Hulu viewing takes place on a TV set, up 75% from last year. (And Hulu even sponsored Digiday’s coverage of the NewFronts.)

This puts many publishers in a bind because they have to sell their uniqueness to advertisers while also cutting deals with the platforms to expand reach.

“Mass reach is still a thing,” Mediahub’s Michael Piner told Digiday. “And there are certain partners that are being prioritized because they can achieve the mass reach of TV.”

What do publishers get?

So what do publishers get for their money and trouble at the NewFronts now? Well, the decrease in presenters means they do get more attention from attendees. And at least one publisher, Studio71, was touting its upfront ad sales.  The company has presented at the NewFronts from 2016 through this year’s edition. Studio71’s CEO Reza Izad told Digiday that 85% of their revenues each year came from upfront commitments. They boast 100 million unique viewers per month on YouTube and vet each piece of content on the network.

Still, many publishers such as Group Nine and Refinery29 decided to forgo the NewFronts for a private tour to increase intimacy – and likely save costs. The increased competition for digital video ads is partly to blame, and people are also paying more for services such as Netflix and HBO that don’t serve ads at all.

But it’s still hard to ignore the growth of digital video, especially if you sell video advertising in entertainment. The IAB’s Video Ad Spend Report surveyed marketers and found they would be spending $18 million on average this year on digital video ads, up 25% from last year, with the Media/Entertainment vertical up a whopping 75%. (And yes, that means studios are buying more ads on other media.)

Switching places

Meanwhile, notable presentations from Meredith and Conde Nast discussed new shows for their OTT services, and Meredith is also distributing them through its local TV stations. And as OTT moves into broadcast, cable network Viacom was showcasing content on its newly acquired PlutoTV OTT service. 

“Viacom is embracing digital inventory, and at the same time we see Condé and Meredith pushing themselves into the OTT universe,” Wavemaker’s Noah Mallin told AdAge. “They are starting to resemble each other more and more.”

As AdAge’s Jeanine Poggi’s so astutely points out, this is the year when the NewFronts actually looked a lot like the regular TV Upfronts, with the themes of brand safety, original programming, and scale. “This year more publishers spoke about renewing existing shows, creating long-form content akin to TV and positioning themselves as the new ‘primetime,'” Poggi wrote.

So where does that leave publishers and the IAB? Perhaps the time has come to ditch the NewFronts and merge them into the regular TV Upfronts. More importantly, publishers need to calculate carefully the benefits of a flashy program on stage at the NewFronts, and whether that still beats a private tour or other marketing outreach. Ultimately, it will take a new round of upstart video-centric publishers who want to make a splash to inject new energy into the NewFronts.

Featured Post | Marketing | Revenue

The cannabis business is booming. So how about the cannabis ad business?

Do a search for cannabis-related articles and thousands will come up in the results. And with good reason: Recent years have seen the legalization of it in 10 states now, with 33 states allowing marijuana for medical use. This has given way to countless articles written about the burgeoning legal industry and startups offering cannabis and CBD products.

Billions of investment and consumer dollars are flowing into the legalized cannabis space. Last year, legal cannabis was a $10.4 billion industry in the U.S., employing a quarter of a million people, according to New Frontier Data, a cannabis market research firm. According to a report from the Associated Press citing New Frontier Data, “Investors poured $10 billion into cannabis in North America in 2018, twice what was invested in the last three years combined… and the combined North American market is expected to reach more than $16 billion in 2019.”

But for all the explosive growth of this new and legal market, the advertising part of the equation has not kept pace. The largest digital platforms don’t allow cannabis ads. Cannabis articles may appear on many publishers’ sites, but few allow advertising of these products. The fact is that cannabis is still a Schedule I drug in federal law, and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 prohibits advertising and selling of such products. State laws vary widely, causing many with ad space to sell to err on the side of safety.

It’s no surprise, then, that many of the publishers reached for this article just don’t allow cannabis advertising, particularly in national publications. One major publisher with a number of popular titles said that it doesn’t accept cannabis advertising. Though it does accept ads for topical cannabidiol (CBD) oil products to the extent allowed by law.

Publishers leery of cannabis ads

Meredith Corp. said that it doesn’t accept any marijuana or cannabis-related products (including Marijuana-based THC, Cannabinol [CBN] or CBD products) or any other product that’s illegal under U.S. law. One exception the company now allows is Epidiolex, which contains CBD and has been approved by the FDA to treat childhood epilepsy and can be legally advertised for such use under federal law.

Meredith said it also now accepts industrial hemp-related products, including Hemp-based CBD or CBN products, with THC content of 0.3 percent or lower. Hemp products of this sort were previously illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. However, they were made legal under the 2018 Federal Farm Bill, enacted in December 2018.

There’s more leeway on the local publication front. Local newspapers and publications in states where cannabis is legal for recreational use may have an easier time accepting ads, depending in state law. The Seattle Times, for example, accepts cannabis advertising.

“Cannabis advertisements are reviewed by our staff to ensure they meet our general advertising creative and copy policies. There are Washington State rules for this category of advertising, and we comply with those requirements,” said Gary Smith, VP of advertising at the Seattle Times. “While there are complexities around accepting this type of advertising, it has been a growing part of our overall client mix. And we’ve had very few customer complaints associated with the inclusion of this ad content in our products.”

Is the duopoly doing it?

Publishers need not worry that they’re losing out on cannabis ad dollars to Google and Facebook. Both have shied away from allowing cannabis ads. Google’s policies state that ads promoting products that alter mental state for recreational use, including “legal highs,” are prohibited.

Facebook similarly prohibits such ads, though the company reportedly formed a group to “examine its approach to cannabis,” which suggests that it could be moving towards a more permissive stance. In the meantime, state legal cannabis businesses are allowed to create verified business pages on Facebook, and appear in search results (they were previously blocked from search),” according to Bloomberg Law.

Varying state laws are a hurdle for brands that want to market cannabis products in multiple states where it’s legal. And given that that Google and Facebook don’t allow cannabis ads, and that many publishers shy away from them, Cannabis brands often rely on outdoor advertising and sometimes even events.

The brand perspective

Jason Deland, co-founder and chairman of cannabis brand Dosist and founding partner at ad agency Anomaly (which handles advertising for Dosist), said that their media strategy has largely prioritized outdoor advertising for creating awareness. Zoned areas that allow for outdoor cannabis advertising in California have helped Dosist build its brand, as has its retail location on Abbot-Kinney Blvd. in Los Angeles’ Venice Beach.

Dosist has also had event partnerships with Barry’s Bootcamp, with messaging focused on sleep and the health benefits of cannabis. The company also has advertised with Cannabis-friendly publications like High Times. As for social media, Deland says that Dosist creates organic content on its own pages.

Other brands have tried to circumvent the social media ban on cannabis ads by using influencers to promote their products or promoting prices on their own social accounts. However, that can have its own set of headaches and influencers can sometimes have murky return on investment.

For now, it seems like unless there is a change to the categorization of cannabis at the federal level, most companies with ad space to sell won’t allow cannabis advertising anytime soon. There are the rare exceptions of course, as noted above with Epidiolex, and more of those may come in the future as pharmaceutical companies look to get more cannabis-related drugs approved. Others are hopeful that with the recent allowance of industrial hemp products to be advertised – thanks to last year’s Farm Bill – that the federal government will ease up eventually on cannabis, but only time will tell.

About the Author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial and communications strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor, and spent 12 years at Ad Age covering agencies, digital media, and marketers.

Featured Post | Innovation

The New York Times helps consumers decide where to draw the line on privacy

The waves of negative press about privacy intrusions and breaches are becoming a regular occurrence. Yet the outrage cycle seems to have a short lifespan and there’s confusion and a range of expectations when it comes to data collection and usage. That said, consumers need to remain vigilant about new and unexpected ways digital organizations leverage personal data collection.

Already, we face some pretty significant questions: Do you want your genealogy company to sell analysis based in your DNA? Your smart doorbell clips accessible by warrant? Mugshot-matching facial recognition capabilities?

That’s why Stuart A. Thompson, graphics director of The New York Times Opinion section, and his team set out to figure out how people report their comfort levels in terms of sharing different kinds of personal information. The work, published earlier this month, is part of the ongoing Privacy Project at the paper. It’s a series examining the different ways private groups and governments are using personal information.

Understanding the limits

Perhaps encouragingly, The Times found that consumers are taking notice of the data collection policies of the services they chose to use. But they’re not exactly excited about it when they find out. Many of the activities asked about — which were found to be outside of 90% of respondents comfort levels — are already employed by tech companies.

Readers were asked about their comfort level about the various ways companies use, or could use, personal information. Credit: New York Times.

Thomson also said that there the results offered clear take always for digital publishers. Acknowledging the reliance on third party tracking in the news site business, he explained that blind acceptance of those practices could be coming to an end. “Even if you have an airtight privacy policy that you feel ok with now, you might not feel as okay with it when people start paying attention to what you’ve done or criticizing what you’ve done,” said Thompson.

Privacy by design

Thompson said the goal of this project is to learn what was “the line” for his readers and he used a pretty clever page layout to do so. Readers scroll through increasingly intrusive privacy scenarios and then place a line over the example which they felt uncomfortable with. This skeuomorphic interaction is a technique that The Times has previously used with good results.  

“Drawing things was a New York Times/Upshot trademark way to get people to interact with us,” said Thompson. “We were talking through as a group, and I think we kind of fixated on the line.”

One element Thompson wanted to address head-on was the idea that consumers continue to make privacy related decisions that aren’t in their interest, dubbed the privacy paradox.

Understanding the big picture

However, to Thompson, they’re not acting irrationally or unexplainably. People are just caught in larger systems. Individuals aren’t given real opportunity to give consent of the personal data use, such as in cases where data is required to be handed over in order to access a service, and there aren’t consumer guardrails around those practices.

With appropriate regulation, consumers shouldn’t “have to read every detail of a data policy or a privacy policy to consent to what’s happening, because you have to do that a dozen times a week,” said Thompson. “We’re not prepared for that kind of activity and we’re not very good at it.”

He added that tech companies have taken advantage of consumers’ difficulty with risk management. As a result, governments and regulatory bodies have had to enact legislation like the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union.

The stakes get bigger

Another example of the push back against the surge in the surveillance economy was a lawsuit against the efforts by Alphabet subsidiary Sidewalk Labs in Toronto. The plan to build a smart city in the portland’s of Canada’s largest city could incorporate any number invasive new forms of data collection.

To nip that in the bud, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched an application to sue on the grounds that the wholesale data collection of people who just happen to be in the area aren’t allowed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections including against unreasonable search and seizure. While this case is immediately relevant for the smart city project, it could help society establish a point at which it “draws the line” about privacy overall.

But at the end of the day, the path to better privacy management could start closer to home.

“As publishers are working in the public interest, maybe they have an additional responsibility to declare what they’re doing,” said Thompson. “You could argue that they are acting in this pure business sense and they have their own lines that they’re willing to to draw, [but] maybe publishers should think about what they’re comfortable with.”

Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives

In a crowded streaming market, content alone will not ensure survival

The cord-cutter’s dream of paying less for entertainment content is already on the rocks. Early analyst warnings about the reality of subscription saturation have filtered through to the mainstream, with a Mashable article titled ‘There are officially too many damn video streaming services’ reaching the front page of reddit. In it, Mashable’s Senior Tech Correspondent Raymond Wong argues that while Disney’s annual $69.99 fee is probably worth it for access to Disney’s vast stock of content from Marvel, Pixar, Fox etc., the arrival of yet another challenger to Netflix’s streaming dominance may ultimately be bad for the consumer.

Between Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Video, CBS All Access, the upcoming Apple TV+  and any number of other services, it’s easy to see why. Each has exclusive content across a wide variety of genres, so in theory each at least have one or two shows of interest to most audiences. It’s the ice cream stall dilemma on a larger scale: A huge amount of choice, but actually picking one feels more like denying yourself access to every other service.

How much is too much?

So, to get access to all those films and shows would require a number of subscriptions, the total cost of which will run into the hundreds of dollars per month. Small wonder that redditors pushed the Mashable article to the front page; the promise of cheaper, unbundled OTT entertainment is now in doubt. Subscription saturation is already here, and there will be casualties. Even Netflix has already borne the brunt of Disney’s entrance into the space, having lost as much as $8 billion off its market cap in the aftermath of the announcement.

To compound the problem, it’s highly unlikely that the number of streaming services has capped out. For media companies with huge back catalogues of film and television shows, it is far better to own the distribution system, audience data, and direct revenue. So, expect more efforts like The Criterion Channel to launch. Meanwhile, to differentiate themselves from the giants like Netflix and Amazon, smaller streaming platforms like Shudder are making a play for niche audiences clustered around a particular genre.

Standalone value

However, while people are more habituated to pay for entertainment content than digital news, there is still a finite amount of subscription revenue out there. More than any consideration, the exclusive content available on a streaming service will be a deciding factor for audiences. That does not mean, however, that the broadest range of films and shows will necessarily win out.

The lure of a new show is what typically attracts subscribers to a streaming service in the first place. CBS All Access made the exclusivity of shows like Star Trek: Discovery the tentpole of its marketing. It even went so far as to commission some short episodes between the first and second seasons to convince subscribers who might have been tempted elsewhere to remain with them.

Similarly the announcement of Apple TV+ notably contained no information about pricing. However, it did showcase the triple-A nature of its commissioned shows and movies, with names like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams, Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston, and Kumail Nanjiani already on board.

Originals approach

Netflix, wary of the media companies whose content is has licensed until now pulling their content, is also heavily investing in originals. It is reportedly spending $15 billion in 2019 on content, with a commensurate increase in its marketing budget so that everybody knows about it. Analysts expect a close to $3 billion marketing budget this year. It is obvious, then, that the range of content each platform has is currently seen as the differentiating factor for the bigger players in the space.

(This issue is muddied slightly by content considerations, with some US ‘exclusives’ being carried by competitors internationally as with Star Trek: Discovery appearing on Netflix elsewhere, and the requirement for streaming services to create a proportion of their content domestically when they enter a market like France.)

As mentioned earlier, however, there are some services that are making their niche nature the selling point to consumers, trading less mass-market appeal for a more targeted approach to exclusives. Horror-based service Shudder (owned and operated by AMC) has both negotiated the exclusive rights to certain horror movies and commissioned original content, while DC Comics’ VOD service (currently only available within the US) offers access to shows based around popular characters from the comics.

These services, with lower price points, are wisely trying to avoid the crush at the top by offering services that are additive to the larger services rather than in direct competition.

However, as the field becomes more crowded, it is unlikely that content alone will be the sole deciding factor for audiences looking to optimise their subscription spending.

Here, then are three criteria that might help determine which of the current services will be among those counted as ‘winners’:

User experience

Much has already been written about the discovery and recommendation options offered by Netflix, Amazon Video, and their ilk. Between the wealth of user data to which they have access and some smart people at the helm, those services have made user experience as smooth and effective as is possible. In April 2017, UX expert Justin Ramedia wrote:

“Netflix, through an easy-to-use interface, showed us how simple watching entertainment through the internet could be. They used strategic partnerships with Nintendo, Xbox, Roku, Amazon and more to ensure that people didn’t have to watch from their computers. Anyone could sit with their friends and family and stream thousands of hours of media whenever they liked. That genie won’t go back into the bottle.”

One of the criticisms that was most frequently levelled against The Criterion Channel’s defunct predecessor FilmStruck was that its UX was lacking. While in the UK, VOD services like the ITV Player and the BBC’s iPlayer are serviceable lack some of the recommendation tools that have been instrumental in making sure that users stay glued to Netflix even after the whole series has been binged.

The reality is that as newer entrants into the market begin offering exclusive content, they will inevitably be measured against the best in the environment. In order to succeed they’ll need to be as good or better to compete, as we’ll discuss later.

Platform availability

As Ramedia pointed out, Netflix made it a point to have a presence on each and every possible platform, from desktops to connected televisions to games consoles, including the shockingly poorly selling Wii U. Now, Disney appears to be following suit: Its announcement included a slide that showed each piece of tech hardware it intends the service to run on.

The point about existing across all these platforms isn’t that those streaming services believe they’ll necessarily get tons of sign-ups through those platforms or even because they exist on them. After all, the install base of the Nintendo Switch, while impressive for a relatively young console, is far smaller than the number of people who will sign up on desktop or connected TV. Instead, it is primarily in service of providing a holistic service to their subscribers, ensuring that they always have access to one particular streaming service on each and every device they own.

As with UX, the idea is to reduce any possible friction for a subscriber base, to ensure that no competitor gets a look-in or advantage from existing on a device that Disney+ does not. And as another plus for us Switch owners, it all but guarantees that Netflix will join Hulu on the console sooner rather than later.

Entrenchment

For many, Netflix’s early entrance into the market all but guarantees it success. It is the go-to comparison when we talk about rival streaming services, and its ubiquity has led to ‘Netflix-like’ comparisons for other digital services. Its entrenchment in the market is primarily due to the early mover advantage it has enjoyed, of which the service is keenly aware. As its competitors gear themselves up to compete in terms of content, Netflix appears to be digging itself in deeper by prioritising maintaining market share above profit. As Variety’s Todd Spangler reports:

“One reason Netflix is continuing to make big investments now is that it’s going to face serious new streaming competition from media giants Disney, WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal starting later this year. So it’s focusing on building out a wider moat instead of delivering profits, a strategy Wall Street continues to praise.”

That makes it an uphill struggle for any new entrant into the market. This is the case even for those without the deep pockets of Amazon, Apple or Disney who can gradually chip away at Netflix’s 139 million global subscribers through offering lower price points or a greater back catalogue.

Despite the ongoing success of the larger streaming services, growing consumer dissatisfaction with the total cost of subscriptions and a soft cap on the amount people can afford to pay means competition is only going to get fiercer over the next few years. And as the dismal performance of YouTube Red (now Premium) demonstrates, investment in original content alone is unlikely to be the sole differentiating factor. Instead, a combination of the other three criteria and harder to measure qualities including audience affinity with a brand are likely to be the determining factor for success in the streaming world.

Featured Post | Perspectives

Publishers have their mojo back

I’m calling it. 2019 is the year publishers get their mojo back. While there’s still work to be done – and the rewards for many are further down the road – the signs are pointing in the right direction. 

More than ever, digital media companies understand that their most precious assets are their audiences and advertisers. They understand that they must foster this relationship over time through their programming, advertising opportunities and the overall experience they create wherever they touch their customers. And, they understand that their brands are proxies for this trust. Without a doubt, the companies that publishers choose as business partners — whether distributing their content or advertising — can, and do, have a lasting impact on this trust.

Those of you who have been in the digital media business for a while are probably thinking: “Haven’t we been here before?” and perhaps you’re wondering what’s really changed in the past two years. Here’s the way I see it:

Facebook: pivots around publisher content

Initially, publishers believed the promise of a fire hose of traffic to their sites but eventually grew tired of the hoops they were jumping through to address Facebook’s changing priorities. From organic content to paid promotion, external traffic evolving into Instant Articles, embedded video becoming Facebook Watch, and everything-must-be-free to efforts to support paid subscriptions – it’s mind boggling. But all of this has resulted in publishers wanting to control their own destinies more than ever before.

Apple: push for consumer privacy

While Apple’s push for consumer privacy in its Safari browser is a laudable approach, it has hamstrung publishers’ ability to monetize their web inventory. At the same time, it pushes publishers towards Apple’s closed app platform where they cough up 30% of their revenues from selling subscriptions to their own apps. In an odd way, this 30% take-rate by Apple has made its reported 50% take on its new Apple News+ product seem more acceptable. In any case, growing consumer trust through a higher privacy bar while building in real support for publisher ad and subscription revenues are steps in the right direction.

Google: control of advertising supply chain

Google has demanded that publishers allow it to track their customers and collect their behavioral data across the web. At least if they want to get the full benefit of what has evolved into a Google-influenced, if not controlled, advertising supply chain. Google has also essentially made it a requirement for publishers to participate in AMP if they want to avoid being lumped into a news black hole on mobile. The relationship with Google can easily be one of the more sensitive issues inside any media shop and rocking the boat will almost certainly have consequences. However, consumers aren’t happy with unrestricted tracking, and that bodes well for trustworthy publishers who are transparent and handle consumer data with care.

Emerging platforms: a chance to get it right

There are new platforms growing quickly, which will succeed or fail based on their ability to fully appreciate the value of high-quality programming. Each one surfaces new negotiations and concerns. Roku is one to keep an eye on as they have the chance to reinvest in high-quality, brand-differentiated programming by truly partnering with their publishing partners. Or, they may be the next Blackberry — steamrolled as their market advantage is lost to other larger platforms that can beat them on technology alone. However, the path to success for emerging platforms will be true partnerships with trusted content brands.

What’s next? 

While we may never know exactly what has caused this shift, it is a positive sign that digital media companies here and in Europe are also asking for the same things, which I’ve seen first-hand. Publishers now speak of Facebook, Google, and even Apple not simply in terms of opportunity but with skepticism. They see the positives of each in driving new audiences, innovations, and experiences – and to be a part of what is “next.” However, they’ve turned a critical eye to each platform’s motivations and are pressing for better terms, including:

  • Protecting and preserving the relationship with their audience. They know that trust and value reside in the relationship: The data, the brand and two-way dialogue with the customer. 
  • Ability to drive subscription or membership revenue. For too long, this was antithetical to the interests of platforms, which wanted to touch as many users as possible for the purpose of mining their data for targeted advertising. The global discussion around this issue has shifted, starting in Europe. Now, the rest of the industry is trying to catch up. 
  • True partnerships. They’re not looking for another quick fling, featuring a spotlight appearance at Facebook’s or Apple’s soiree. Hopefully that no longer carries the glamour it once did as the hangovers are real. Instead, publishers are looking for fair value and a long-term commitment by the platforms to work together, solve issues, and build success for all parties.

Publishers everywhere are looking at these opportunities with a shrewd business eye. They recognize that these opportunities are being designed and offered by an intermediary to their customers. And, as the stock market clearly demonstrates, these intermediaries are focused on maximizing their own profits.

Whatever the reason, or confluence of events that caused it: The non-negotiable, take-it or leave-it discussions from platforms are in the rear-view mirror. Change is here and publishers have rediscovered their mojo.

Now it’s time to put it to work.

Featured Post | Innovation

Media tech bosses talk innovation, disruption, and delivering great experiences

Media businesses today juggle a lot of C-suite acronyms. When it comes to tech-related execs, there are established staples like the chief information officer (CIO) and chief technology officer (CTO). However, in recent years we’ve seen the emergence of the chief digital officer and chief data officer—two titles that share an acronym but can have distinctly divergent duties. Yet all share a common purpose: using technology to aid operations, increase revenue, and outpace the competition.

In the world of digital media, those are some big responsibilities, especially today, when artificial intelligence, machine learning, neural networking, and analytics increasingly perform more of the heavy lifting involved in marketing and sales. Folks in these positions are at the forefront of the new technologies and innovations implemented by a media business. Yet they often aren’t the ones you read about, as presidents and CEOs commonly get the lion’s share of quotes and media attention when such matters are reported on.

However, spend just a little time with a CTO or CDO and you quickly get a sense of how stimulating and forward-thinking their jobs are as well as how in tune they have to be with the latest tech trends that will shape and impact companies pushing content for a living. Case in point: Jess Szmajda, Axios’ recently hired CTO, who’s been brought aboard to help the enterprise build its paid product offerings. Szmajda’s got boundless energy and enthusiasm, but she’s also got a lot on her plate.

Business Driven

“I lead Axios’ tech team in building tools and advancing capabilities for Smart Brevity—our innovative storytelling format that gets to the point and tells you what you need to know and why it matters,” says Szmajda, a transgender woman and the first female CTO of a major media company. “From the forward-facing items that our audience interacts with.” These range from “Axios’ infinitely scrolling stream, newsletters, advertisements, or podcast—to our behind-the-scenes efforts, like ensuring user privacy and supporting highly performant responses during traffic surges, our tech team touches almost every part of the company.”

Not every media property is alike, however, which means that the tech chief’s role can vary, depending on the company. Take, for instance, Joe Simon, Vice Media’s recently enlisted CTO.

“My job involves being across and responsible for all technology activities, including business applications, basic and post-production infrastructure, the cloud, all things digital—like websites and apps—and our broadcast and media operations,” says Simon. “The business functions of CTOs can be extremely different. For example, we support post-production and broadcast, while another CTO may work closer with clients and be in charge of developing new technologies.”

Szmajda notes a common misconception about CTOs—that their main objective is to advance technology for technology’s sake.

“What CTOs actually focus on is finding ways to make technology work better for people. One of my personal goals throughout my career has been to try and build technology that enables and enhances human abilities,” she says. “That’s what the tech team and I are focused on as we develop and innovate Axios’ efficient and valuable way of communicating.”

Data that Delivers

A media player’s CDO, on the other hand, often has a wholly different set of duties. Consider Mike Smith, chief data officer for Hearst Magazines. He’s charged with managing strategy and ongoing development of the firm’s digital advertising operations, data capabilities, and ad product offerings; Smith also supervises CDS Global, a Hearst division that delivers outsourced business solutions across various industries.

“We help our advertisers predict their prospective customers so they can better target ads. They give us data and our data scientists study and merge it with our own collective audience data using machine learning models,” Smith explains. “My role is data-centric but in the service of sales and editorial.”

Smith’s challenges include educating the data scientists who work for him about how advertising works and trying to satisfy advertisers who expect the data richness inherent in a Facebook ad.

“Premium publishers need to hire people who can qualify the data better and serve advertisers better when it comes to their media buys,” adds Smith. “The advertiser wants to purchase your display ads but with data informing that buy. The question is, how do you charge for that?”

Disruption and Distribution

Simon, meanwhile, faces down other types of complications.

“The media industry is going through some pretty big and disruptive changes, and Vice is right in the middle of it. Audience tastes and consumption patterns are all changing, and we need to evolve with those changes—all while focusing on current and expected revenue,” he says.

While the obstacles vary by position, there’s one thing all three of these pros can agree on: The job comes with rewarding perks beyond the paycheck.

“I’m very excited about new distribution options, and I’m fascinated by the diverse and evolving consumption options for our audience. These new opportunities give us a chance to change our business model and offer new products,” Simon says.

As for Szmajda, she’s excited about the prospects of pushing her company forward—in more ways than merely technological.

“One of my favorite things about serving as CTO for Axios is the incredible runway I have to build and scale our tech team,” notes Szmajda. “I have always had a people-first mentality and an intense focus on diversity and inclusion in tech. The field is dominated by white, heterosexual men, and many people don’t see people who look like them or identify with them or think like them, making it hard to break into. Through top-notch hiring efforts and community engagement, I’m really excited to build out this team and its culture.”

Featured Post | Perspectives

Taking a bite out of Apple News+

This week, Apple announced a new suite of services including Apple News+ and Apple TV+, subscription services for news and video content respectively. It’s an interesting move for Apple, which excels at creating premium experiences, enjoys strong customer loyalty, and has the ability to potentially deliver audience scale. There are, however, serious questions about the revenue split, consumer relationship, app-market dominance, access to content, and Apple’s long-term commitment to publishers.

While few details are available at this point (particularly about Apple TV+), it appears Apple News+ will cost $9.99 per month with Apple taking a hefty 50% cut and distributing the remainder to all of the participating publishers. Tim Cook did not announce a price point for Apple TV+ but it seems likely to have similar characteristics as Apple News+, including a similar revenue split and distribution structure. 

A Lopsided Relationship

With these news services, Apple will control not only the relationship with the consumer, but will also control the data about the consumer.  It’s hard enough to build a subscription business without having another company serve as the middleman between the content creator and their audience.   Moreover, as New York Times’ CEO Mark Thompson put it, “Bundles always dilute the brand.”

More troubling is the fact that Apple runs the app marketplace itself via the App Store while simultaneously offering a media consumption app that competes with publishers’ branded apps as well as those of other aggregators such as Flipboard. An example of the inherent conflict of interest is that Apple places its own apps front and center, pre-installed on more than a billion phones worldwide. Beyond a glaring competitive advantage, controlling the marketplace and delivery mechanism of its competitors’ apps gives Apple unprecedented insights into the transactions of those companies (think Amazon selling its own brands while seeing everyone of its competitors’ transactions).

Market Monopoly

Apple forcing the reported levels of revenue splits and data terms underscores larger concerns about the dominance of platforms.  As Senator Blumenthal, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee has stated, “[t]here is much stronger agreement among me and my colleagues that there needs to be more aggressive enforcement action on tech companies.”  Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently called for the break-up of Apple and the other platforms. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has long voiced concerns about potential bias of big tech firms. Members of Congress are concerned that big tech platforms have too much influence and are harmful to society.  Although Apple has avoided a lot of the privacy gaffes of other tech giants, the fact that Apple can boldly propose such lopsided terms shows how the landscape is perilously tilted in favor of the big platform companies.

Bringing further voice to the concerns raised by policymakers, Spotify filed suit against Apple claiming that Apple “purposely limited choice and stifled innovation.” Spotify claims that Apple uses its platform to disadvantage competitors in the music streaming business, including by taking a 30% cut of subscription revenue.  While Apple is not proposing to get into the news business, the Apple TV+ product sounds like Apple will be both distributor and competitor.

And, considering the fact that Apple has expressed concerns in how digital advertising works, it seems an ironic choice for the company to favor advertising-based business models over subscriptions for publishers.

Quick Fix or Long-term Success?

Publishers are also rightly concerned about whether Apple will maintain a long-term commitment to this initiative. Facebook famously changes their terms, goals and algorithms about every six months, which makes it extremely difficult for publishers to build a sustainable business. Other social platforms have rolled out paid incentives to content producers only to withdraw them as soon as the programs are off the ground.  Publishers have rightly grown wary of purported platform support.

At the end of the day, Apple needs to make a serious commitment to making distribution work for high-quality news and entertainment. As we have seen in Google and Facebook’s own (hardly altruistic) need to invest in the production of content that their business models undermined, building a model that sustains quality content creation is the bedrock of long-term success.

Featured Post | Perspectives

Breaking up the tech giants? How that could affect publishers

The drip, drip, drip of ideas to regulate tech companies continues. And when it comes to privacy, even the tech giants realize that regulation is coming and want to help craft those regulations. But 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren went even further, calling for the breakup of large technology companies with her Medium manifesto and a #BreakUpBigTech hashtag.

Her idea in a nutshell is to make any company with a marketplace of goods or ideas and $25 billion in revenues into a “platform utility” that cannot participate in the marketplace with its own goods or services. “Amazon Marketplace, Google’s ad exchange, and Google Search would be platform utilities under this law,” Warren writes. “Therefore, Amazon Marketplace and Basics, and Google’s ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well.”

That means Facebook would lose Instagram and WhatsApp and Google would lose Waze, Nest, and DoubleClick.

Whoa. Does that mean that suddenly publishers get their online ad mojo back? Not exactly. Those independent companies would still wield outsize power, and this campaign manifesto has a loooong way to go before it becomes real-life public policy and legislation.

Breaking Up is Easy to Love

But before we come down to Earth and reality, let’s look at just how attractive this #BreakUpBigTech idea is to so many people in media and public policy – and how it even crosses ideological boundaries. After Warren released her plan, she gave a keynote at the South by Southwest Conference in Austin on March 9. To say it was a phenomenon would be an understatement. The SXSW conference had already been trending against big tech, and Warren’s proposal and keynote lit the match for even more heated discussion and argument.

She won converts such as high-profile investor Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor who slammed the company in his new book, “Zucked.” At SXSW, he said that, “I think Warren’s proposal is brilliant. There’s a behavior that’s rampant in the industry of people owning a marketplace and then participating in it. They do so in the detriment of competitors.”

And it wasn’t just the Democrats and those on the left cheering on Warren’s proposal; she also gained some strange bedfellows on the right who have been suspicious of the growing power of tech giants. Their arguments have not typically been about economics but about how social platforms are biased against speech from conservatives.

Even Ted Cruz supported Warren’s idea on Twitter: “First time I’ve ever retweeted @ewarren But she’s right — Big Tech has way too much power to silence Free Speech. They shouldn’t be censoring Warren, or anybody else. A serious threat to our democracy.” He was referring to Facebook actually taking down some ads Warren ran on the platform to promote her #BreakUpBigTech ideas – though they blamed the takedown on her use of Facebook’s logo.

Criticism from Tech and Media Pundits

But of course: the devil is in the details. Warren’s broad plan was an easy target for tech pundits like Ben Thompson to point out its shortcomings. Thompson notes that “the reason why all of these companies have escaped antitrust scrutiny to date in the U.S. [is that] here antitrust law rests on the consumer welfare standard, and the entire reason why these companies succeed is because they deliver consumer benefit.” In other words, they remain free services that people largely like, and it’s not realistic that Apple would sell you an iPhone without apps or an App Store.

From the right, the National Review’s Rich Lowry says Warren has hit on the perfect catnip for liberals and conservatives by calling for the breakup of tech giants, but her prescriptions wouldn’t work and are too draconian. As Lowry wrote for Politico, “Their business practices aren’t above scrutiny. But any real offenses should be addressed with fixes addressing specific conduct, rather than with a massive politically imposed reorganization across the industry.”

And in the media and journalism world, an anti-trust breakup wouldn’t really move the needle for smaller local publishers who are dealing with much more intractable issues. As Free Press director Tim Karr told Sludge, “Even under a scenario where the largest online platforms are broken into their component parts, digital advertising will remain under the control of non-news media; newsrooms will continue to be shuttered and reporters laid off.”

While Warren’s proposal is a great thought experiment that builds more momentum to regulate tech giants, it is mostly a half-baked proposal that needs more details and a better way to support independent media outlets. Yes, it’s nice to dream about a more level playing field when it comes to online ads, privacy and trusted information, but we also have to realize that tech giants have armies of lobbyists and change will happen incrementally.