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 logo

Menu

Category results for "Innovation"

Featured Post | Innovation | Revenue

Beyond news: How publishers are building subscriptions around non-news products

A welcome consequence of the abortive chase for scale is that publishers, no longer slaves to the Big Number, are diversifying their revenues. News events, podcasts, even forays into long-form video content – everything is back on the menu. At the same time, many media companies are also recognizing that they have the expertise in selling subscriptions to launch new paid-for products and services, rather than catering to anonymous audiences on platforms.

The collision of those two factors has inevitably led to a reappraisal of publishers’ ongoing activities around which they could conceivably launch a new subscription service. The New York Times’ success with its dedicated Crosswords app is well documented, for instance, with fully 400,000 people subscribing to the service as of February this year. Beyond that, some publishers are seeking to capitalize on their existing reputations when launching new subscription products. Forbes, for instance, recently announced the acquisition of stock prediction tool Quantalytics AI Labs, which Digiday reports could well be spun out into its own subscription tool using Forbes’ expertise.

The ARPU (average revenue per user) of those non-news subscriptions is often lower than the core proposition. However, they have advantages that the core news membership proposition often doesn’t. At the NYT, for example, they’re growing faster: “News product subscriptions totaled approximately 2,713,000 at the end of 2018, a 21.6% increase compared with 2017. Other product subscriptions, which include subscriptions to our Crossword product and Cooking product, totaled approximately 647,000 at the end of 2018, a 56.7% increase compared with 2017.”

Here, then, is how news publishers are looking past current affairs for subscription revenue. Some seek to monetizing loneliness, others want to owning gambling, but all are building upon their reputations to diversify their revenues.

Lifestyle and aspiration

Cooking apps – both paid-for and ad supported – are big business. The NYT prices a subscription to its Cooking portal and app at $1.25 per week, while in the UK Immediate Media acquired the BBC Good Food magazine and ad-supported app in part because of how valuable recipe content performs for its ad business.

Hearst’s All Out Studio

Equally lucrative, the health and lifestyle vertical is prompting some traditional publishers to launch new subscription services. Hearst, for instance, launched a new video on demand platform and mobile app dedicated to workout videos in July. All Out Studio features content centered around its brands like Men’s Health, Runners’ World, and Cosmopolitan, and is priced at $15 a month. Meanwhile Stylist is moving from the current affairs space into evergreen fitness subscriptions with Stylist Strong, which is based around real life events in London.

Meanwhile, off the back of its existing lifestyle content – and a savvy bet that people can’t get enough parenting content – the NYT launched its Parenting vertical earlier this year. At launch, The Times Open Team explained that it was important that the standalone product strike a balance between being identifiably part of the NYT brand and having its own identity: “While establishing how to structure content and topics in the product, we also invested in developing the site’s visual language. We knew that we needed to build on The Times’s brand equity while making our product feel distinct and premium, much like Cooking and Crosswords.”

The Guardian’s standalone Soulmates dating app similarly offers in-app purchases, and builds upon the longstanding digital service provided by the website through the branding.

The Guardian’s Soulmates app

VICE’s ‘Astro Guide’ astrology app (which offers in-app purchases) is almost completely standalone in terms of branding. Nevertheless, it feels like a Vice product in terms of the language used and audience at whom it is pitched. As the team noted in the Astro Guide launch announcement, “We were all proud of the site’s daily and monthly horoscopes and their growing readership, and we wanted to figure out what could come next. We ignored practicality for a moment – obviously, it was Pisces season – and dreamed up something entirely new.”

Meanwhile, as with the Quantalytics example mentioned above, health and science publisher Stat News is explicitly launching new products outside its core Stat Plus subscription model. One of those, Expert Advantage, offers the subscriber the chance to listen in to conference calls with leading researchers. Another hearkens back to the age-old technique of selling reports, this time with a digital slant.

Not one of those products is based around the core news and current affairs proposition of its parent publisher. That said, they each have something in common: They rely upon the audience knowing and feeling affinity with the brand, even if they would not necessarily pay to access their news content. They are, then, effectively a bet that news publishers can still take advantage of the fact that people are more likely to pay for entertainment or lifestyle subscriptions than they are for news.

Beyond beyond news

In addition to working as additive revenue, it’s been noted that standalone products can act as connective tissue between user and a news subscription. The NYT’s crossword and cooking subscriptions, for instance, are priced at half the amount of a news subscription. That’s welcome in its own right, but in terms of creating brand loyalty and habit, it’s incredibly valuable.

Similarly, efforts like The Telegraph’s Fantasy Football and Fantasy Rugby services, and their respective apps, potentially generate ad revenue. The real benefit, however, is that they encourage users to log-in, which works in service of The Telegraph’s stated aim of having 10 million registered users by 2023.

They can also be bundled as part of a wider subscription package. The fact that they also exist separately serves as inducement to pay for the more expensive news package, as the NYT notes in its 2018 annual report about its Cooking and Crossword subscriptions.

The sheer variety of non-news products demonstrates that there is plenty of opportunity for news publishers to diversify their range of paid-for products. That isn’t to say that every newspaper should suddenly launch a standalone cooking vertical, however.

For one thing, there are far too many recipes out there already. Competing with free and an already crowded market is something news publishers should be particularly wary of. Instead, as the NYT did with its Parenting vertical and Vice did with its Astrology app, the best new product launches will build upon successful brands and their understanding of what their customers are most interested in. Yet to succeed, they will also standalone, apart from the company’s core value proposition, and offer their own distinct value for consumers.

Innovation

The Atlantic ventures into new digital waters

When you’ve been in the publishing business since 1857, you can rightfully say that you’ve learned a thing or two about longevity and how to make a product continually appealing to ever-changing consumers. The key to maintaining that allure today, apparently, is to make things look simple without losing your sophistication. For The Atlantic, that means taking an A-to-Z approach, beginning – literally – with a capital “A” and ending with a close eye on Gen Z, your future readers.

Investing in growth

To better compete for eyeballs in an increasingly digital world, the publication recently undertook a significant redesign of its magazine, website, and iOS app and rolled out a new digital subscription service. To support these initiatives, the brand made several prominent new hires, including creative director Peter Mendelsund, senior art director Oliver Munday, and director of photography Luise Stauss. And over the past year, the product, engineering, and growth teams were doubled.

The results so far have been promising. September and October both drew record numbers of subscribers—more than double the number of subscriptions and revenue originally forecast. The website now tallies 30 million unique visits monthly and the magazine boasts a paid circulation of 500,000. And in the five days following the redesign rollout, The Atlantic had twice the number of subscribers daily, on average, as there were in the same period before the redesign.

New look, same savvy

Readers who visit the website or use the app today will likely take instant note of the streamlined design and sparse template at work. A bold red “A” logo has replaced the title’s previous iconic emblem. The words stand out consistently in a clean new custom typeface. Clustered or crowded content is a thing of the past thanks to a generous infusion of white space. And the top navigation bar is a simplified element better served by a hamburger menu icon in the upper left corner.

But what hasn’t changed, insists Adrienne LaFrance, executive editor of The Atlantic, is the quality writing, diversity of content, and journalistic integrity. “The way we will continue to stay competitive is by showing people how we are different than other publications—reminding them of our extraordinary writing, unmatched narrative journalism, beautiful design, and photography,” she says.

“Were lucky because we have a really differentiated and highly valuable product that people already love and have loved for a long time. But it was time for a redesign, with a focus on giving people the best possible user experience and helping them get to the best of our work even more easily.”

Mobile matters

First introduced in 2011, the improved iOS app (plans are afoot to launch an Android version) is designed to function as a compact version of the print magazine while retaining the cleanly legible look and unconstrained feel of the website. A dedicated editorial team exclusively manages the app, which has more carefully curated and diverse offerings for subscribers, thanks in large part to its Today feed.

“The Today feed walks the reader through what’s happening but gives them deeper context behind the news – stitching together the larger patterns so people can derive meaning from the day’s events. There’s a narrative arc there, not just a list of bullet points or headlines. There’s definite value for people who want to come away with a complete and rich sense of what’s going on in the world and why it matters,” LaFrance explains. “You can choose how deeply you want to delve into the feed, whether you want to read every single story or browse through it. The app and entire feed are free. Where you encounter the need to subscribe is when you click through to a particular article.”

LaFrance notes that the app and website are two distinctly different products. The mobile experience is focused on making it simple to brush up on the news of the day and discover articles of interest to on-the-go users.

“We want to respect people’s time and intelligence, and we understand that there are so many different options for getting information and reading. We know people come to The Atlantic for extraordinary journalism. And we want to make it easy and delightful for them to experience our stories,” she adds.

While she couldn’t yet disclose numbers post-revamp, LaFrance says that, historically, The Atlantic’s mobile app audience was a fraction of its overall digital audience. Previously, “in any given week, about three-quarters of subscribers who used our existing app came three-plus times per week,” she notes.

New routes to revenue

Simplifying the subscription model was another priority. Now, readers can opt from three tiers:

  • Digital ($50 annually, which includes unlimited access to TheAtlantic.com, the iOS app, digital issues, and a subscriber-only newsletter);
  • Print and digital ($60 a year, which comes with the aforementioned plus delivery of 10 print issues); and
  • Premium ($100 annually, for all of the above goodies plus exclusive access to podcasts, ad-free web browsing, a complimentary digital gift subscription, Atlantic product discounts, and priority access to exclusive events).

Subscriptions and print advertising serve as complementary pieces of the monetization pie (comprising approximately 20% of revenue). However, the lion’s share comes from digital advertising (45%). The remainder is derived from various sources, including live events (like The Atlantic Festival, Future of Work seminar, and Aspen Ideas Festival 2020).

“It’s actually a wonderful time to be a publisher because the incentives for the highest-quality journalism and what journalists want to make are aligned with what readers are willing to pay for. So, we can be incredibly ambitious knowing that the highest quality product is what people will want to subscribe to,” LaFrance says. “I think one of the reasons The Atlantic has remained so urgent and relevant for 162 years is that we’ve been really aggressive about diversifying revenue and one of the first media companies to demonstrate extraordinary skill in the live event space.”

That’s not to say the waters won’t be choppy ahead.

“This is an intensely competitive environment. That’s not just among publications and magazines but in the way people spend their time nowadays – from Netflix to TikTok to Instagram to news organizations. There is no other publication out there like The Atlantic, and that’s why we’re having so much success with our subscriptions,” she continues. “But the key for us going forward is making people understand what makes us special.”

Eye on the horizon

LaFrance, who joined the company in 2014 and served as its website editor for years, lives by an important credo: Nothing is guaranteed, especially in the world of digital publishing.

“No publication has a right to survive. You have to really serve your readers. That means doing the best quality work and finding the places where your readers are so that they can connect with your journalism, fall in love with it, and keep coming back.”

While mum on the details, LaFrance hinted that other exciting changes are coming soon to The Atlantic’s digital offerings. Right now, her team is focused on further perfecting the digital user’s experience and gauging reaction to the redesigns.

“We’ve done a lot of audience research and looked closer at how people are finding our stories, what they like, and what they are excited about on our site. All of that has been factored into our editorial thinking process. So far, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, almost to the point where we’re waiting to learn what we can do better.”

Featured Post | Innovation | Video

How People and Entertainment Weekly grow audiences with video

It’s a brand people have known and loved for four and a half decades – as a magazine. Now People is focused on video, determined to grow the brand and bring its content to new, and larger, audiences.

“The most important thing is that the brand has to have a voice to begin with,” said Will Lee, SVP of Digital for the Entertainment Group of Meredith Corp., a role he’s held for two years, which coincides with Meredith’s acquisition of Time, Inc. “People has a very strong brand voice that it’s cultivated over 45 years. We know what the consumer expects from us. We have a very well-developed playbook for how the brand should sound and look.”

People’s emotional DNA

That means sticking to the brand’s core emotional DNA when showing work on Snapchat, for example. “We don’t say snarky, mean things about celebrities. It’s not what we do.” So, even if Snap viewers prefer things a little salty, People stays true to its own style, regardless of medium. “We get a lot of data from Snapchat,” Lee said, “and that audience has evolved. It’s very different from what it was three years ago.”

People’s video content focuses on what Lee called “the three R’s, the content their readers just can’t get enough of: reality TV, the British Royal family, and the red carpet. “Streaming is a different level of engagement. The really passionate audience comes from reality TV.” So, Lee’s team of 60 to 80 staffers produce a reality-based video show four nights a week and a Royals show once a week. “Reality TV is a conversation starter,” said Lee, of the genre’s powerful appeal.

Reality check

The numbers back him up. “We’ve done 100 episodes of ‘Reality Check.’ And after four episodes, we already had the second most viewed show on people.com, with 2 to 3 million views of show clips in a week. That is a pretty good debut for us.”

Pivoting constantly is key and Lee knows how hard his team works to keep up. “All the parts of video work closely together because we’re constantly iterating product on a daily basis. It’s a very special kind of producer who can do three or four formats and keep it all together.”

“What’s interesting about our model is that we’re not tied to 26-week orders so we can adjust. We have a lot of flexibility which differentiates us from cable. We can iterate and improve the product.”

Brand building

But, when deciding which next steps to take, “we have to be very thoughtful, as a media brand with a history and the brand equity we’ve built,” Lee added. “Where is the growth? How do we amplify the brand and move into new markets?” Newer platforms like TikTok , he said, are “the solar power. That’s where the future lies. We have a great brand, but that is no guarantee of future growth.”

However, Lee feels confident that streaming is essential to their success. “That’s why we’ve made such a big bet on it. If we’re not in that space, we’re going to be left behind.”

Lee’s team also partners with Meredith Local Media Group , which has 17 TV stations across the country, which Meredith will leverage when it launches a new daily syndicated television show in September 2020. “That will be the centerpiece of our overall video product.” Lee acknowledged how ambitious this new product is: “Thirty minutes of daily broadcast level TV is a huge amount of work.” The magazine-style show, with “all new and original material really represents a pretty important next step for this iconic brand. It brings us more markets, and more audience. There aren’t a lot of media brands that will have this as part of their media ecosystem. In a company already producing print, digital and video, “this is going to be another evolution of how we all work together,” he said.

Entertaining audiences

When it comes to his other responsibility, Entertainment Weekly, Lee says a new launch is imminent as well. “We’re really trying to amplify the brand. We want to go to where the audience is, in local markets. It’s important for us to reach those audiences.”

EW has announced that it will be working with Jeffrey Katzenberg’s short form mobile video platform Quibi, slated to launch in April 2020. The morning show, which will recap late-night TV, will take a similar strategic approach to the Lee he employs with People. However, he emphasizes that the brands are quite distinct, and that EW is “known as a cultural curator.” That should play well on Quibi, which offers a new audience that Lee is excited to reach.    

Innovation | Perspectives

How Disney+ and AppleTV+ are changing the OTT landscape

It’s a big month for streaming. The launch of Apple TV+ and Disney+ are finally upon us. So it’s a good time for an update on the state of the streaming wars. 

In this strange new world, tech companies like Apple are investing in content, and media companies like Disney are investing in technology. So how does? all this effort stack up? A closer look at the content and ad spend of these new OTT major players provides some insight into the future of streaming.

Content spending among new OTT services

At launch, Disney+ unsurprisingly boasts a sizable catalog of Disney-owned content. The company has also announced that $2.5 billion will be allocated to producing more original content for the platform over the next 5 years. 

Conversely, Apple has opted for a small but mighty catalog. At launch AppleTV+ was armed with considerable “star power” to entice subscribers. The platform will host entirely original content exclusively available to AppleTV+ subscribers. And pre-launch advertisements reveal some of the biggest names in acting and directing.

Although these two major players bring promising new content to the OTT lineup, they will have to continuously find ways to retain value in the eyes of consumers.  

Monthly subscriptions to the top seven streaming platforms will collectively cost $61. Consumers will more realistically pick and choose the platforms they actually want to pay for.  These leaves companies pitching both price point and content.  

Clearly, these numbers indicate that Disney and Apple are attempting to join the royalty of OTT, made up of existing streamers like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, which all have their own originally produced hits. With the launch of HBO Max in 2020, AT&T’s WarnerMedia may join the club soon. 

With content creation underway and platforms officially launched, OTT services can now shift focus to conveying value to win the favor of consumers, who have more options than ever before. And that is where marketing and advertising come in. What does advertising an OTT option in an already crowded space look like? 

Apple and Disney spend big ahead of streaming launch

For now, let’s look at the two headline makers: AppleTV+ and Disney+. 

Here at MediaRadar, we found that both platforms only started running ads in late August. AppleTV+ quickly overtook not only Disney+’s ad spend, but the entire streaming space. In the month of September, AppleTV+ was the top ad spender out of all streaming platforms. This includes established players like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video.

To date, Apple TV+ has outspent Disney+ five times over on paid media. What’s more, AppleTV+ has not slowed their efforts now that the platform has launched. Ten days into November, AppleTV+ is on pace to once again be the top ad buyer out of all the streaming platforms this month.

The two companies differ in strategy, as well. Disney has promoted its new streaming platform as a whole, using clips from owned content to pitch the breadth of the platform. While Apple has been promoting its original content in stand-alone spots. So far, it has focused ad spend around eight shows in particular.

AppleTV+ may be outspending Disney+ on paid media. However, that does not mean Disney’s marketing push has been insignificant in any way. In fact, Disney has been orchestrating a massive marketing push using all of their various channels. 

This push includes everything from on-air endorsements from Tom Bergeron (host of “Dancing With the Stars” on the Disney owned ABC network), to billboard and bus ads around Disney’s theme parks, to QR codes on lanyards worn by Disney’s 7,000+ retail workers at various Disney store locations. In one of the more interesting moves, Disney posted a video on YouTube titled “Basically Everything Coming to Disney+”, using snippets of movies available on the platform. The video was over 3 hours long.

On top of this, Disney has rolled out packaged deal after packaged deal thanks to its extensive holdings and powerful partnerships. For example: Verizon announced a year of free Disney+ for both new and existing customers, and more impressively Disney announced a $12.99 bundle with Disney+, ESPN and Hulu (both of which are majority-owned and controlled by house mouse). Visa card holders who have a Disney branded credit card can even lock in a discounted price for 2 or 3 years. Apple, for its part, is including a year subscription to Apple TV+ with the purchase of any Apple product. 

Apple is almost on the defensive in this new world, playing as a tech company against media giants like Disney. No one says the best movies come from Apple today. They have a real deficiency in terms of changing perception that they are a place where you should go to watch your content.

In a bid to make that case, Apple has spent $20 million advertising its two biggest shows ahead of the launch. 

In contrast, Disney’s robust offerings, combined with constant messaging across Disney properties, may immediately drive Disney+ to the top. “Think of Disney like a giant pinball machine, with content and initiatives pinging between divisions in an effort to drive up the ultimate score,” Gene Del Vecchio, a marketing professor at USC, told The New York Times. 

With all this activity from the new platforms, and platforms like HBO Max and Peacock yet to join the fray, the streaming wars are heating up. It will certainly be interesting to watch how these companies market themselves as they fight for subscribers who will have many providers to choose from.

Featured Post | Innovation

Watch out, streamers: Disney+ just can’t wait to be king

In the amount of time it takes the average TV viewer to contemplate subscribing to a new streaming service, five new streaming services have appeared.  

That last part’s not actually true. But given the way streaming services keep popping up, it’s likely closer to accurate than either we or our wallets would like to believe. That said, there’s only one such service looming on the immediate horizon that’s capturing the attention of viewers in virtually every age demographic. Slated to make its grand debut on November 12, everyone is watching out for Disney+.

The origins of Disney+ date back to August 2016, when The Walt Disney Company acquired a minority stake in BAMTech, a spin-off of MLB Advanced Media, the digital media arm of Major League Baseball. A year later, they upgraded to a controlling stake in BAMTech and on April 18, 2018, Disney subsidiary ESPN kicked off their streaming service (ESPN+).

Picture this

By that point, however, Disney had long since seen the potential in constructing their streaming offering. They began setting things in motion, having already swiped back the rights to the Marvel and Star Wars movies from Netflix and set a deal to acquire 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets.

If you’re wondering what this means in terms of content available on the Disney+ service, just sit back and spend the next three hours and eighteen minutes (give or take a few seconds) watching this trailer. As its title helpfully explains, it offers a glimpse of “Basically Everything Coming to Disney+ on November 12.”

And we’re back!

No, we don’t think that you actually watched all three plus hours. However, we suspect you couldn’t resist skipping around enough to see how much Disney, Marvel, National Geographic, Pixar, Star Wars, and other programming Disney+ is bringing to the table – and to your screen – when it bows next week.

Subscribe now

Unsurprisingly, The Walt Disney Company is making it very easy to secure subscriptions to Disney+ as they prepare for rollout. They’re also providing ample incentives to give it a try, whether it’s the 7-day free trial membership, the streaming bundle of Disney+, ESPN+ and the ad-supported version of Hulu for $12.99 a month. There’s also the deal where Verizon is offering 12 free months of Disney+ to all new and existing 4G LTE and 5G unlimited wireless customers as well as to existing Fios Home Internet and 5G Home customers.

Yet the question remains: Given all the other streaming services out there, will viewers really be champing at the bit to add Disney+ to their “collection” come November 12?

Watch it

Here are five reasons why Disney+ looks like a must-watch:

1. Disney+ is the new “Disney Vault.”

In the past, whenever Disney has decided to reissue various films, they’ve done so in an ostensibly limited-edition fashion. They assure consumers that, at a certain point, they’ll stop production and the film will  go “back into the Disney Vault” until such time as they decide to reissue it again. Disney+ is already being viewed as a virtual vault. However, viewers can access their favs whenever they want…for a nominal monthly fee, of course.

2. If you like Star Wars and Marvel movies, it’s now the only place you can stream them.

As we mentioned above, it wasn’t a good day for Netflix when they found out that they were going to be losing not only the Disney movies they’d had in their catalog but, indeed, the Star Wars and Marvel stuff, too. One need only look at the top box office blockbusters of the past decade to see how valuable those franchises are. And that’s not even contemplating the drawing power of the new original Star Wars and Marvel series that Disney+ is adding to their programming roster.

3. Those 21st Century Fox entertainment properties? Yeah, that includes The Simpsons.

Yes, yes, Avatar is in the mix, too. And that’ll be a big deal as we get closer to the release of Avatar 2. But Simpsons fans are a devoted bunch. Remember that FXX’s earlier deal with the series resulted in some record-setting programming and a great deal of viewership. However, giving those fans the opportunity to secure access to more than 650 episodes of the series – and the movie, too! – in an ad-free environment is enough to make them shout, “Gimme, gimme, gimme!” and subscribe post-haste.

4. The “come for the classics, stick around to see what’s next” rollout plan.

Disney+ certainly isn’t shirking on offering interesting and high-profile new programming straight out of the gate. This includes a Toy Story spin-off series (Forky Asks a Question), a new Star Wars series (The Mandalorian), and an extension of the High School Musical franchise with a tongue-twisting title (High School Musical: The Musical: The Series). However, Disney+ also has some deals on the horizon that strengthen the appeal of its debut. They’re understandably confident that no one will walk away from the service when they know they’re going to be getting a Monsters Inc. sequel series (Monsters at Work), a second Star Wars series that has Ewan Macgregor reprising his role as Obi-Wan Kenobi, and no less than eight new Marvel series.

5. Even setting aside the aforementioned sign-up deals, the standard monthly price is still a steal.

Of course, the definition of “a steal” is relative. That said, consider this: Disney+ is $6.99 a month, whereas Amazon Prime is $8.99 a month, Netflix is anywhere from $8.99-$15.99 depending on which plan you have, Hulu is $11.99 a month, and HBO Now is $14.99. No matter how you slice it, Disney+ is a bargain.

We can’t say that November 12, 2019 will be remembered as the day the sun set on Netflix and rose with Disney+ as the new king of streaming. But it’s evident that there’s a tussle on the horizon that’s going to put the battle between Simba and Scar to shame. And, hey, the good news is that ringside seats only cost $6.99 a month!

About the author

Will Harris has a longstanding history of doing long-form interviews with random pop culture figures for the A.V. Club, Vulture, and a variety of other outlets, including Variety. He’s currently working on a book with David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker. (And don’t call him Shirley.)

Innovation | Perspectives

Why winning means the race is never done

Remember the success of the Gameboy? It’s been 30 years since the first version came out in 1989, and Nintendo waited five years before releasing the next iteration of the product, The Super Game Boy, in 1994. This is a far cry from the pace of output of today’s Fortnite, which creates new missions on a weekly basis. Earlier this month, the release of its latest season was followed in real time around the world. 

It’s the new speed of change. Facebook went from a Harvard-only site founded in Mark Zuckerberg’s dorm room to a million-member social network available on mobile phones within two years. The first Uber ride was given in San Francisco in 2010; by 2011, the company had launched its international presence in Paris. Instagram grew so quickly that it was bought by Facebook within two years of its release. 

The pace of innovation has exploded over the past few years and shows no signs of slowing down. And this is not just change for change’s sake. This acceleration is a response to customer, market, and technology changes, and it’s an exciting time for both consumers and product developers. 

Keeping up with customers

However, it also means that companies can no longer take half a decade to develop their next product. In a world of such rapid-fire change, customers have come to expect products that evolve and change along with them. This means that companies that want to stay ahead of the market not only have to move fast, but they also have to realize that the race is never over. For companies to stay relevant to their customers, they have to excel at, and embrace, rapid fire change. 

Amazon is the classic example of this. Over the course of 25 years, Jeff Bezos’s trillion-dollar company evolved from being a bookstore for Seattle residents housed in a garage to our go-to online retailer and the producer of some of our most popular entertainment content. Bezos’s success lies in a certain kind of humility. He has a constant willingness to tweak his business model. He has not allowed any one path, design, product or program to be sacred. Instead, he listens to his customers and excels at creating the changes they crave, which in turn creates better business outcomes for Amazon.

Gaming the system

Back to Fortnite. Part of the reason players find Fortnite so addictive is because it renews itself a few times a year. Each new update is called a “season” and introduces a new map and new items for players to use. We couldn’t have imagined these game-changing forms of advertising a few years ago. And they only exist because the developers behind Fortnite are constantly looking for new ways to enhance the user experience. They find ways to push the boundaries of what players expect and redefine what “gaming” means. 

Other tech innovators have embraced similar tactics. Netflix and Spotify, for instance, not only keep users hooked by updating their content libraries regularly, but also by generating their own content, like original shows and playlists. Delivery apps like Grubhub and Postmates keep their eye out for new restaurants to ensure that customers have access to the food they want when they want it. Apple’s ongoing revisions ensure that we buy a new iPhone every few years to keep up. Harris Teeter allows customers to shop for groceries, place catering orders and reorder prescriptions on their mobile app. 

Change your mindset

So what does this mean for your company? It means you have to adopt The Product Mindset, with change becoming an integral part of the way your company operates. The most successful companies don’t fund research and development on a case-by-case basis. They incorporate it into their annual and monthly budgets, the same way they budget for sales or HR. That way, when a competitor releases a new model, or when research reveals unexpected consumer needs, a company is ready to respond. Its teams don’t need to wait for endless approvals or push forward on obsolete or ineffective initiatives. 

At first, this might sound overwhelming, even exhausting. We’re wired to appreciate certainty and clarity. If the product is never done, instability and change become the new normal. But with that instability and change comes opportunity – the opportunity to deliver on consumer desires more rapidly and effectively than ever before. And the good news is that any company, no matter its size or industry, can embrace this approach. All it takes is the humility to accept that there’s always room for improvement and the courage to chase that improvement, wherever it might lead.

About the author

David DeWolf is founder and CEO of 3Pillar Global and the author of the new book The Product Mindset: Succeed in the Digital Economy by Changing the Way Your Organization Thinks. 

Advertising | Innovation | Perspectives

Ad effectiveness measurement doesn’t scale, and it’s failing advertisers

Market research is big business: The top 50 research firms generated an estimated $11 billion dollars in 2018, with Nielsen and Kantar/MillwardBrown at the very top of the list. But it’s even bigger than that. Adding in expenditures to the other third-party providers that measure fraud, safety, viewability, and outcomes, and any national “ad measurement expenditure” figure increases by hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more.

Given the US spend on measurement, not to mention how many digital innovations have taken root over the past two decades, it is disappointing to know that most branding campaigns are still not directly measured for ad effectiveness and impact in real time. This is not to say that monitoring for fraud and brand safety, evaluating viewability, tracking impressions, and counting clicks aren’t valuable efforts. They are. The issue is that while all brand advertising campaigns are measured for their quantitative impression delivery, only a fraction are measured for their effectiveness at changing consumers’ hearts and minds. The result? Measurement that doesn’t scale.

Rethink the panel

Here’s a modest proposal: We need to critically reconsider our industry-wide reliance on panel-based sampling as a means of measuring brand lift. Conventional lift studies that use panels are expensive, typically do not collect enough data. Thus, they aren’t informative enough early on in the campaign flight to be highly actionable. With access to real-time technologies, we can leverage considerably better alternatives.

Let’s look at the cost and examine whether we’re really getting our money’s worth. It is unheard of to purchase a completed survey from a sample vendor for less than $2 per interview. And we’d need to collect 500 control and 1000 exposed survey observations, which enables researchers to address different types of error while still empowering them to slice and dice the data. So, this would cost ~$3,000 per study. The reality, however, is that most brand lift studies cost magnitudes more. And yet responses are still very slow to field, and collection levels typically hover at 100 control and 100 exposed.

Some issues

Collection cost, yield, and timeliness aren’t the only barriers to progressing sample-based effectiveness measurement. Actually, representative sampling and quality can be even thornier issues. Surveys have a big problem with straightliners (people who select the same response option at each question), speeders (who take the survey too fast to be credible), and cheaters (who do not respond truthfully). You’ve probably done this yourself, but you can’t be faulted, as “good” panel-based surveys take ~8 minutes to complete. However, most sample providers don’t even blink when asked to fulfill 20-minute studies or longer. Considering the challenges of holding consumer attention these days, if you were in the 7th minute of a survey about the Gap, what type of quality response would you likely to provide?   

Quality control concerns are bigger still when you ask the question: Who are these “panelists”? Do you personally belong to a panel? Did you click a banner ad to “get paid mad cash to take online surveys”?

The reality is that even though the “best” panels market their pools as containing millions of Americans, there is very little transparency around these and who actually participates in them. Given the cash approach to attracting panelists, it feels fair to question their practices and how representative these panels are of the populations they aim to mirror. How panels engage, recruit and incentivize respondents matters, as it is highly likely to affect data quality and the resulting inferences.

Measurement matters

When academics contribute to the scholarly literature around ad effectiveness measurement, convenience sampling from panels is rarely, if ever, portrayed as a best practice. A 2006 comScore study in the US concluded that fewer than 1% of panelists in the 10 largest panels were responsible for 34% of completed questionnaires.

Things haven’t necessarily gotten better since. Most sample providers today cannot use a single panel to field a study. That’s because the findings aren’t sufficient. Instead, they stitch together a network of suppliers to source respondents. This introduces serious sampling challenges.

Moreover, in the last few years sample suppliers have energetically embraced programmatic technology. This means that while sourcing sample is more efficiently connected to demand than ever, the promise of randomness is critically upended by the economic benefit of finding the cheapest possible respondent to answer your brand study.

Explore the alternatives

In short, there are many issues with panel-based ad effectiveness measurement that should compel us to explore better alternatives. Thanks to digital technology, these alternatives exist. While it might sound surprising, the next generation of brand lift measurement should consider returning to the tradition of random sampling. It is time to reinvest in sampling technology that enables respondents to be drawn from audiences that are truly representative of the populations exposed to brand advertising campaigns and of those who could have been exposed (control holdouts).

Imagine if large random samples could be drawn quickly from the very same sites, channels, devices, and platforms where advertising occurs. So, if a Toyota campaign runs while streaming an episode of the Bachelor, the surveys used to measure and optimize this campaign also run during episodes of the Bachelor.

Here are some ideas to make measurement better:

  • Make survey placements match the placements where the ad campaign is flighted.
  • Surveys should be served according to the same logic and targeting that steers towards a specific addressable campaign audience.
  • Surveying should be completed with one or two questions by dual-purposing the very same ad and targeting tech that underlies how we serve ad campaigns today.

Just imagine how much better measurement would be if survey serving spoke to ad serving in real time.

Yes, we can advertise better. We can also measure better.

Innovation | Video

OTT distribution channels are changing. Be ready

OTT players and channels are changing faster than the seasons. The spring will bring a crop of new streaming entrants, joining an already crowded market. Still dominated by Netflix, a growing number of major players are drawing video viewers.

In the publishing industry, a remarkable level of transformation is happening by way of mergers that are driven, in part, by capacity to produce video. Recently, Vox Media and New York Media joined forces. This followed close on the heels of the recent tie ups of Group Nine Media and PopSugar along with Vice Media and Refinery29. An underlying theme is upping the production of quality video programming for seeking OTT platforms and rising streaming channels battling for subscribers. So, the question is: How will consumers be watching?

Get SmartTV

The answer is on a Smart TV—whether a Vizio with WatchFree powered by Pluto TV or an LG with LG Channels powered by Xumo—the CTV universe is made up of a growing number of streaming channels (or so-called FAST services). Now, major OTT platforms are following suit with Fire TV’s IMDb TV and Roku’s The Roku Channel.

In this dynamic, programming from media companies is produced in a seller’s market as FAST services look to differentiate with new and, if possible, exclusive content. The goal is to set themselves apart from aggregated CTV ad budgets. The result is that programming is starting to be distributed on 24/7 streaming channels (like the advent of cable news). The end game is to develop an audience that can be channeled to an owned and operated network/app.

Streaming channels that take form of the lean back TV world are also coming over-the-top via leading cable/MVPD companies. For example, Spectrum recently released a skinny bundle that allows viewers to choose what they actually want to watch. And that’s for approximately the same price as an SVOD service like Netflix. The skinny bundle is trending.

Netflix vs. niche

So, here we are. We find ourselves at an interesting intersection of an on-demand world (with active content discovery and viewing) and a programmed channel world with passive watching of round-the-clock streaming content. The king of OTT and SVOD, Netflix, is ad-free. It also set a high bar with premium content licensing and quality original shows as it outspends the competition.

However, we see an emerging universe fueled by advertising/AVOD and channels that run 24/7 content of essentially any genre of choice as an expanding orbit of media publishers become producers of OTT programming. On the sidelines, streaming sports and leagues are expanding their own OTT plus channels. This delivers their content straight to fans or through digital upstarts that make sports the core of their offerings, like Fubo and DAZN.

The best of the bunch

The pendulum is going to swing in a direction that improves the TV experience the most. At the heart of it all is content discovery and recommendation. The next show you’re going to watch is still the biggest unknown. According to the State of Viewing and Streaming study released by Horowitz Research last year, just over one-third (36%) of viewers consider personalized recommendation algorithms helpful in discovering shows. Whereas TV ads, word-of-mouth, and social media are attributed with 35%, 34% and 26%, respectively in frequency of new discovery. The better the content recommendation, the more that will be watched on-demand.

From there, the more “connected” your TV experience, the more it will look like a digital network versus a TV network. It will become a more social and shareable experience. The advertising that puts the A in AVOD will increase in value as it becomes more data driven complying with user privacy and better in targeting viewers. The better the social integration, the more that will be watched on constant programmed channels.

The lessons have been learned by media companies is that they must maintain their own brand and operated environments in the world of platforms. However, they must continue to experiment with publishing channels to direct audiences and own distribution (and monetization). In the grand experiment of OTT programming, content is being produced and distributed in 24/7 streams to start up on platforms that garner the greatest audience for the brand. The future of OTT is here, flipping your favorite channel.

Innovation | Perspectives

Why you should consider bypassing app stores to reach new audiences

Frustrated by fierce competition in a marketplace that counts over 6K new Android apps added daily to the Google Play app store alone and infuriated by reports that suggest Apple routinely favors its own apps in App Store searches, app companies and developers are adopting bold approaches to get their apps in front of potential audiences. The outcome is a flurry of activity and experimentation that could make 2019—destined to be the biggest year in mobile and apps yet—the best year for mobile app distribution models that pay real dividends.

A company writing the playbook is Epic Games, the company behind Fortnite. The shooter game on PC, consoles, and now mobile and apps has become a cultural phenomenon; as of March 2019, it had amassed an audience of almost 250 million worldwide. Addictive gameplay is certainly a big factor that has contributed to the blockbuster success of Fortnite since its launch in 2017.

However, if we dig deeper, a critical driver is a brilliant direct distribution strategy shaped by the company’s determination to bypass the app store. “Avoiding the 30% ‘store tax’ is a part of Epic’s motivation,” the company’s CEO Tim Sweeny told Forbes. “It’s a high cost in a world where game developers’ 70% must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games.”

It’s also high time to ask some basic questions about the app store distribution model that hasn’t changed since the app stores opened for business in 2008. Leave it to the edgy El Reg to call out the elephant in the room. “More pertinently, after a decade, is the question why Apple and Google still take a 30% cut. In a competitive marketplace, wouldn’t that rate have been whittled down over the years?”

In a world where prices are falling everywhere, the article concludes, “that 30% over a decade is starting to look plain embarrassing.”

Clever moves to cut out app stores

The Apple-Google app store duopoly is increasingly the focus of broad government antitrust investigations. That’s because these two companies serve as gatekeeper for a massive marketplace where consumers are expected to spend an incredible $120 billion this year, according to app market intelligence provider App Annie. Think of it: That’s 5 times the growth rate of the global economy. So, its little wonder companies are lining up for their share of the action (and revenues).

A pioneer in the alternative app-marketplace was Facebook’s Instant Games. The platform where consumers can launch games from within Facebook’s chat apps has gained significant traction this year. The content library—6,000 Instant Games compared to over a million Android games and over 800,000 games on iOS—may seem tiny, but the goal here isn’t size. Facebook leverages its social connections to power an app-like ecosystem that doesn’t require an app store.

In China, the mobile messaging app WeChat has done one better. It has evolved into a one-stop-shop platform for a wide array of content and services. Consumers rely on it every step if their daily journey. With the help of “mini-programs” they download directly into WeChat, users can access content, order meals, make payments, and call a cab—and that’s just the start.

The alternative app marketplace

The ranks of companies building the capabilities to take aim at Apple and Google’s dominance of the app economy are growing. Realistically, though, it’s a strategy only a handful of companies can afford to pursue. So, what are the options for the masses of companies and developers that want to reach new audiences with their apps but lack the resources to construct and command their own alternative app marketplace?

One approach gaining traction is the Direct 2 Device (D2D) model. I learned about this one  through my own informal survey at Mobile Growth Summit. D2D is the choice for an increasing number of app companies—particularly media and entertainment apps eager to engage more users across more regions. In this scenario, app companies work with Digital Turbine, a mobile delivery platform that leverages more than 40 partnerships with handset makers and mobile operators worldwide to pre-load apps on devices. Apps are delivered directly to the device because Digital Turbine’s technology sits at the operating system level of new Android phones, enabling companies to reach consumers as they set up new devices.

Delivering a frictionless user experience

In practice, the approach gets apps directly in the hands of consumers. It also puts consumers in control of their apps, giving them the option to keep what they like and delete the apps they don’t. The result is a frictionless experience that streamlines app discovery, which saves users the hassle of sifting through digital shelves packed with millions of apps.

This is a big deal in a global app economy where app store search, though not broken, is clearly not optimal. Many apps show up high in search results because the companies that made them have mastered app store optimization or bid on the right keywords, not because the apps are the best fit with what consumers are looking for in the first place.

Digital Turbine’s EVP of global revenues and growth Matt Tubergen tells me his company has preloaded over 2 billion apps via its software platform, which is installed on more than 270 million devices. Shopping and gaming—hypercompetitive verticals where too many apps are chasing too few users—were the first to embrace Digital Turbine to capture and convert new audiences. More recently, media and entertainment apps have joined the party.

From CNN to the BBC, and from Smart News to News Republic, companies are making D2D the cornerstone of their customer activation strategy. News portals and social platforms, including Yahoo!, Opera News, and Reddit, are also harnessing the platform to fuel growth.

Significantly, Digital Turbine’s Tubergen says many media companies don’t just see D2D as a play to bypass the app stores. “It’s about augmenting their channels—increasing reach in a way that allows them to take back control of the download experience and determine their distribution in addition to the app stores.”

You have options

Whether companies have the wherewithal to build their own app store marketplaces (without a store), or join the ranks of companies making their apps available to consumers directly on the smartphone at the time of device activation, it pays to explore other ways to distribute your app and grow your audience.

Media consumption on mobile is headed for the stratosphere this year. In fact, roughly 10 minutes out of every hour spent consuming media will be on a mobile. So, it’s no surprise that the dominant distribution channels are noisy and crowded. Harnessing alternative distribution channels allows media companies to drive customer connection—without the friction. It also lets them focus on an even bigger challenge: ensuring that consumers engage frequently and deeply with their apps.

Featured Post | Innovation

How quality content and tech are critical for safe online experiences for kids

Increasingly, parents and policy-makers acknowledge that some of the most popular online content channels for children leave much to be desired. That has prompted a push to ensure that content targeted at children remains compliant in a shifting regulatory landscape. It also presents an opportunity to provide places where parents, kids, and advertisers feel secure. 

Finding the right spaces for kid friendly content has been challenging on many levels. Issues range from inappropriate content mixed in with kid-friendly viewing, the use of young people’s personal data, and creating content that truly appeals to — and serves — young audiences. 

Recently, Group Nine Media ventured into the kids content space with its Dodo Kids YouTube channel. Launched in July, Dodo Kids joins a number of efforts from media organizations that are trying to navigate the challenging kids-specific content channels. 

For the creators of some of the most-viewed content on the internet, the existence of the kids content vertical made sense, says Group Nine Media’s chief marketing officer, Rachel Baumgarten. Dodo Kids is “an evolution based on the content that we create, and the audiences that we already serve. The Dodo, as a brand, is already brand safe. [It’s] already a brand that parents watch with their kids, as there’s a lot of co-viewing that happens.”

The strategy starts with content

Group Nine’s move into kids content is paying off. Two months into its run, the numbers have started to come in: views have increased 30% month over month and the YouTube channel has seen more than 1 million unique monthly viewers. 

With cute hops and nose boops, best pals Bubbles the pig and Seamus the lamb are two of the many adorable characters found on the Dodo Kids YouTube channel. Beyond featuring appealing animals, Dodo Kids tailors its on screen content to be better aligned with younger viewers. That means less text and more images and voice overs to communicate the messaging.

“It’s playful. It’s fun,” says Baumgarten about the content made for kids aged three to seven. “And it speaks to bonds and relationships, whether in this case, it’s between children and animals, or the relationship that kids have with feeling good and dancing and singing—which is why we went into Dodo Sing Dodo Dance as a franchise.”

Advertisers want in

Having a channel specifically made for kids has also allowed the company to grow deep partnerships with advertisers. An early example is their work with Paramount Film’s Dora the Explorer live action movie Dora and the Lost City of Gold. Content used in pre-roll and a standalone mini-series was created specifically for the main Dodo channel, the Dodo Kids channel, as well as the El Dodo Spanish-language vertical. Baumgarten sees that as a critical way moving forward to maintain brand safety. 

“We are looking to create these larger partnerships with brands that are looking to be in a brand safe environment and a trusted environment,” she says.

In producing this material, Group Nine Media has also maintained compliance with a slew of policies that protect younger viewers. Any sort of product integration needs a distinction or call as advertisement. There aren’t any third party websites or social platforms linked to in the content. The Dodo’s legal team reviews product integrations before launch. And any on-screen personalities linked to the editorial content aren’t used to sell products or services.

“[Parents] want them to be able to see content that they know is regulated and safe and is trusted,” says Baumgarten. “So it felt like the right time to lean into kid specific programming.”

Evolving regulations require nimble strategies

The efforts at The Dodo are occurring at the same time as the overall regulatory environment continues to change. YouTube has settled its case of non-compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (Or COPPA). Beyond a Federal Trade Commission fine of $170 million, there are changes for publishers on the giant video platform. While the changes have yet to be deployed, it appears that content flagged for children will not include personalized ads and comments fields will be disabled as well.

According to a blog post by lawyers at Fenwick & West LLP, this interpretation of COPPA could have implications for the wider publishing business. The FTC made clear that companies can be found liable for non-compliant content even if they have “actual knowledge” of the subject matter and target audience. That means, even if the kids content is found on a website targeting the general population, the platform should be prepared to make special arrangements to make sure the content and technologies comply with the COPPA rules.

Regulatory clarity opens new avenues for solutions

However, newly clarified standards could prove to be an opportunity for emerging players in the online kids video market. Dylan Collins, CEO of U.K.-based SuperAwesome, says that the current methods of age-verification will no longer be enough to protect against liability in this space. 

“Today, for example, when a child goes to a general audience platform, they get an age gate which says tell us you’re over 13.  Chances are that that child ticks the boxes and says ‘yes, sir, I’m over 13,’” says Collins. The FTC has made it clear that standard is not good enough, he adds.

In a bid to address the lack of technology efforts to solve some of these problems, SuperAwesome announced the details of its Rukkaz (pronounced raucous) free, ad-supported streaming platform earlier this summer. Made for publishers trying to get the attention of kids aged seven to 12, it will also contain technologies that protect children’s privacy and offer more guarantees to brands and advertisers.

“We want to make sure that kids have got access to all of the creators and influencers that they want, but that they’re able to engage with them and to completely safe environments.” Collins believes that human review of ad media alongside just using context-based targeting, rather than personal info will define the growth of “kidtech” in the next few years. 

Since YouTube’s settlement with the FTC, Collins says the interest in Rukkaz’ protected, kid content platform has grown tenfold. The platform is still in development and has not had an official launch. However, content creators are already in the midst of getting onboard, according to Collins.

Going forward, he sees potential in technologies similar to today’s CAPTCHA systems to detect when it’s a younger viewer, automatically directing them to age-friendly content. He also says that the wider internet, used by adults and children alike, will benefit from this new focus on standards and privacy.

“The kids digital media environment is really setting the standard for what I think the adult digital media space is going to look like in five or 10 years time, or certainly where a lot of people want it to go,” says Collins. 

Featured Post | Innovation

Voice search offers publishers a big opportunity. Here’s how to make the most of it

Content providers have always known that word of mouth can work wonders. Now, they have to apply that principle by speaking up—literally—in order to reach more consumers via voice search.

Voice searches already account for about 20% of mobile queries. By next year half of all online searches will be performed via voice. Yet only 4% of businesses surveyed regard themselves as voice-search ready. Publishers who are behind this important tech curve risk being silenced by rivals intent on commanding the conversation.

The talk on the street

“It’s no surprise that voice as an interface for technology and information is taking off so quickly,” says Rachel Reed, senior innovation manager for food, lifestyle and entertainment company Meredith Corporation. “As consumers, we are drawn to technology that understands us, empathizes with us, and can ultimately predict our needs and wants. As publishers, voice paves the way for us to create more personalized and meaningful connections with our audiences.”

Bryan Osima, software engineer and CEO of Uvietech Software Solutions, says people are relying more on voice search for three primary reasons: convenience, speed, and accuracy. “We are bombarded with tons of information every day and we have shorter attention spans. So, the speed of getting the information we need is paramount,” he says. “The primary devices for that today are smartphones, smart speakers, and wearables with built-in smart home assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant.”

Publishers who choose not to optimize for voice search are leaving a lot of traffic on the table, Greg Secrist, cofounder of BKA Content, believes. “This area is especially beneficial for news organizations and other content providers who want to increase their chances of their content being found and consumed by readers,” says Secrist.

Real world success stories

Reed can attest to how crucial voice search is becoming for content companies. For years, Meredith has employed a predictive framework that enables its brands to dynamically serve content to targeted users. Now, they’re extending this personalization and predictive framework to voice to make informed predictions about and deliver useful voice content to individual users.

“We employ a two-pronged approach. First, we’ve implemented voice search optimization to ensure our content surfaces in response to general user queries. We are seeking to own the phrase, not just the keyword, by providing shorter responses to longer queries and implementing concise headlines and summaries,” notes Reed. “Second, we are building data-informed voice-first experiences designed for different platforms. This involves identifying the most meaningful use cases for voice and launching interactive experiences to address what we see as unmet needs in each space.”

Currently, Meredith is focused on voice search categories related to health and wellness, entertainment, and food. It recently launched two skills: Balance by Health, which offers daily wellness inspiration and motivation tips; and Entertainment Weekly’s The Must List, which provides an exclusive look at the top movies, TV shows, and movies that its editors recommend.

Secrist, whose business writes and packages customized content for clients, has also been working hard to ensure his team’s compositions are properly optimized for voice. “We use conversational language and semantics to make sure our content is compatible with voice search. Thinking about the way a customer would use their voice to access certain information is important when creating voice search-friendly content,” says Secrist.

Best practices for voice search

To improve voice search optimization (VSO) results, Osima recommends the following best practices:

  • Analyze all content carefully and think about as many contexts and questions users could have about that piece of content.
  • Provide concise yet comprehensive answers to those contextualized questions that could be returned in a voice search result.
  • Structure the content as clearly as possible with logical headings and sections that explicitly detail what each section is focused on. Content found in a frequently asked questions page often get the best returns on voice search. While you can’t make every page on your site FAQ, you can provide a similar structure: Employ a heading that’s descriptive and which could be a contextualized question or query a user would have, and then provide the answer immediately after.
  • Use structured metadata, rich snippets, and other tags made primarily for search engines to ensure that they precisely understand what your content is about.
  • Make sure your site and pages load very quickly.
  • Increase backlinks to your site to improve your domain authority. Search engines want to be sure that, as much as possible, they are returning results from very credible sources. Your overall domain authority is the biggest indicator of that.
  • Pay attention to semantics by targeting long-tail keywords related to the subject matter. For example, a consumer may be searching for “pants,” while others might refer to them as “trousers”; be sure your content addresses both terms.

Keep it simple for success

However, “skip buzzwords, as they don’t work in voice search. Drill down into the most generic keywords your business uses to attract an audience,” suggests Andrew Schrage, CEO of the popular personal finance blog Money Crashers. “Remember that voice search inherently involves brevity. So, you want to strip things down and find out what customers really want to know about your business in as few words as possible.”

Also, aim for content that reads in a conversational manner. That means ensuring a high Flesh-Kincaid readability score – 70 or higher is ideal.

“Having simple answers to questions is important, as voice search is looking for the simplest way to answer the users question. If your content has lengthy paragraphs answering something, it is not voice search friendly,” says Secrist.

Lastly, keep your eyes on the prize: Make a strong effort to identify the value and utility your brand provides and choose a unique way to deliver that utility via voice.

“Give users a reason to come back,” Reed advises. “Test, learn, listen to feedback, and continue to optimize.”

Innovation | Perspectives

Product management is not project management

In today’s digital economy, all businesses are software businesses – especially content-focused businesses like digital publishing. With a wide range of apps and platforms all competing for consumer loyalty,  companies that would have never called themselves tech companies are now engaging with developers and innovators to maintain customer engagement. Understanding what drives successful product development is critical to achieving growth. 

One of these key realities is that product management is not the same thing as project management. 

Whenever 3Pillar advertises for a product manager, the majority of the resumes we receive will inevitably be from project managers. However, these are vastly different jobs. And hiring for them as if they are the same is one of the biggest mistakes a company can make. 

In product development, the product manager should be responsible for the “what,” the “why” and the high-level “when.” However, the project manager should be responsible for the “who,” the “how,” and a more detailed “when.” 

Building a railroad

Let’s use the analogy of a railroad: The product manager is the person responsible for deciding that a railroad is the right solution for the problem of getting people from point A to point B. The product manager also charts the course to navigate the terrain. He or she determines where the train will go and what stops it should make and the route taken including questions like whether it should go over or through the mountains. 

A product manager also prioritizes the sequencing of railways between stations. Perhaps he or she determines that New York to Boston is the most critical route. Only after that’s finished and operational should the railroad build a track to San Francisco.

Project managers, on the other hand, are responsible for laying the tracks and making the trains run on time. In product development, a project manager plays this role. They are responsible for the internal operations of the train: how fast the train goes down the track, what fuel it uses and what parts need to be replaced. 

Finding the best 

In the big picture, product managers are responsible for maintaining the long-term product roadmap and defining the product vision, while the project manager is responsible for managing the team’s day-to-day activities. 

The best product managers inherently have these four key areas of responsibility: 

  • Product strategy: Setting the vision and determining how to get there.
  • Product roadmap: Managing and prioritizing the backlog of features, defining them and making associated trade-off decisions. 
  • Product releases: Setting what features will be delivered to the customer and coordinating all aspects and interdepartmental dependencies.
  • Product ideation: Running the ideation process, collecting feedback and data, analyzing that data, thinking creatively, curating new ideas and promoting the most relevant ones into the backlog as features.

Product managers do each of these things (and many more) because they understand that they can’t build a product, pass it off to a project manager, and call it a day. That’s because product management – like product development – is never done.  

To give a real-world example of the difference between the two, imagine we’re talking about the team behind a fitness app like Fitbit. The product manager would be responsible for deciding that users would benefit from a series of video tutorials based on the type of workout a user wanted (Fitbit users might recognize this as Fitbit Coach). Once a decision had been made to go in that direction, the project manager would be responsible for working with the team to design, implement, and test those changes in the expected timeframe.

Common goals

Of course, in mature organizations with a product mentality, you won’t find a project manager on most teams. Instead, engineering managers typically take on the project management tasks that are actually applicable to the environment.

Product management and project management, working in concert, are essential. 

This starts with adopting a company-wide foundational mindset that doesn’t focus on antiquated IT thinking, which separates teams by function. Instead, this modern mindset focuses on common goals and making sure all members of the company understand the “big picture.” 

In today’s increasingly digital world, this means engineers, designers, marketers and finance working alongside product managers to build software that directly addresses the customer’s wants, stays ahead of the changing market, and ultimately drives revenue and profit back to the company. At 3Pillar, we call this the Product Mindset, and it drives how we approach every digital product we work on.

Great project managers are an indispensable part of a successful company. But you have to start with great product management. This is how you will be able to innovate and ultimately disrupt digital publishing markets and grow market share. Content is important — but product is king.

About the author

David DeWolf is CEO of 3Pillar Global and co-author of “The Product Mindset: Succeed in the Digital Economy by Changing the Way Your Organization Thinks.”

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.