[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3bqmSKW28] Part of me appreciates the wry humor, and part of me is totally offended by the young black mailroom guy playing the lottery. I thinks it's really advertising the lottery itself that's bothering me, as it's basically a sucker tax on the poor, "acceptable" because some of the revenue supposedly goes to schools. Of course, not in direct proportion to the neighborhoods where the most tickets are bought. In these tough times, it's like advertising liquor at an AA meeting.
Check out @themediaisdying on Twitter for a glimpse at the convulsions of an industry that’s either at death’s door or, for the more optimistically inclined, in the midst of a violent but necessary transformation.
I’ve worked in magazine publishing for 15 years now — consumer, B2B and non-profit — and as has been noted pretty much everywhere recently, 2008 was an ugly year. Mass consumer and B2B brands are getting hit the hardest, but even local and niche brands with strong subscriber bases are getting hammered by this perfect storm, and surprisingly to almost no one with any sense some people, the Internet has turned out to not be the magic bullet it was proclaimed to be.
Flip through the most recent issues of your favorite magazines and you’ll probably notice they’re a little bit lighter than they used to be. Less editorial content; thinner paper; deeply discounted, sometimes desperately worded subscription offers.
Almost all of them likely have less ads (and in many cases less relevant ads) than they used to, too.
I was cautiously optimistic that the major damage might be limited to 2008, and 2009 could be a rebuilding year for most brands on flat revenues, with some going under and a few even pulling off a Miami Dolphins-style turnaround, but 13 days into the new year, it looks like things still haven’t quite hit bottom.
A couple of jobs back, when I still worked only in marketing, I used to joke around with an ebiz friend about which of us had the bigger “smoke and mirrors” job. I developed media kits, sell sheets and emails to promote our wares, and fought with our emedia department tooth and nail on developing the right tools for us to sell to our specific market; meanwhile, he was focused on finding new emedia products that worked on a corporate level and which the emedia department would have to implement and support across multiple markets. Neither of us had any solid metrics for what we did to really determine our effectiveness, while the sales reps depended on both of us to do our jobs well in order to effectively navigate the magical revenue stream that runs through cyberspace.
Except, of course, there is no such magical stream, as many publishers are now finding out.
Seth Godin, of whom I’m quickly becoming a disciple, isn’t a big fan of the emedia=revenue mindset that’s driving a lot of initiatives in the publishing world these days, but he’s not simply a naysayer with a soapbox, instead positing a different approach to emedia that, in his opinion, leads organically to revenue…when it’s deserved:
First, the market and the internet don’t care if you make money. That’s important to say. You have no right to make money from every development in media, and the humility that comes from approaching the market that way matters. It’s not “how can the market make me money” it’s “how can I do things for this market.” Because generally, when you do something for an audience, they repay you. The Grateful Dead made plenty of money. Tom Peters makes many millions of dollars a year giving speeches, while books are a tiny fraction of that. Barack Obama used ideas to get elected, book royalties are just a nice side effect. There are doctors and consultants who profit from spreading ideas. Novelists and musicians can make money with bespoke work and appearances and interactions. And you know what? It’s entirely likely that many people in the chain WON’T make any money. That’s okay. That’s the way change works.
Buried in a glowing American Journalism Review article about the success of The Politico -- a politics-only news website that launched a couple of years ago and is getting 25 million page views/month -- is the fact that 60% of its revenue comes from its laser-targeted, thrice-weekly 27,000 circ print edition, without which, the site would "be losing catastrophic amounts of money." THE PLIGHT OF POLITICO -- AND EVERYONE ELSE. The success of Politico actually seems like an incredibly discouraging sign for the media. Here you have this forward-thinking, primarily virtual venture to create a political news organization that marries…
This past Winter has sucked on a number of levels, not the least of which is the apparent Gonzalez Plague that’s been bouncing between the four of us for what seems like three months now. It was India’s turn this weekend — she stayed home sick today after not being able to sleep well with congestion, a sore throat and possible ear infection — while I’m still recovering from my go-round last week.
But March is slowly shaping up to be a banner month for the Gonzalez Clan as the house search — of which I’m not allowed to talk about any more until we have an accepted offer and signed contract — took an interesting turn this weekend. The upshot is we’re well positioned to find something a lot better than we could have hoped for three years ago, and have an outside shot at something particularly amazing if we can pull it off. Fingers crossed, please!
Of good news I can talk about, though, I put in my two weeks notice at the 9-to-5 this morning and as of March 24th will become the Advertising Sales Director for a trio of consumer enthusiast magazines, including the one I’ve been selling for the past year. (Yes, I was poached!) My first day at the new job will be almost 18 months to the day I made the move from marketing to sales at my previous job, a place which has seemingly slipped further into the toilet over the past year, and will put me three years ahead of the “5 Year Plan” I put forth while still there back in 2006, when the latest Marketing Director came onboard.
At that time, I said I wanted to move into sales within 2 years and then into an Ad Director position by the 5th year. Instead, I managed to pull off the former 6 months later and the latter in only 2 years! I’m still waiting for the high to wear off and the pressure to set in, but until it does, it’s celebration time!
I’m fully prepared for the highly likely possibility that Clinton wins both OH and TX tonight, albeit narrowly, and if so, will rightfully declare that her campaign will continue through Pennsylvania’s 4/22 primary. The “comeback kid” spin will be dizzying, again, for the next 24 hours, despite the reality being that she won’t actually have managed to put much of a dent in the overall delegate gap, the previous benchmark her campaign had set to measure her viability when they thought this would be finished back on February 5th.
Delegate counts aren’t a sexy story, though, and the media is still engaging in a silly moment of self-loathing thanks to Tina Fey, so the Obama campaign will have their work cut out for them over the next seven weeks.
Assuming tonight doesn’t result in an unexpected blowout by either side — and all spin aside, that’s really what Clinton needs to legitimately justify her staying in the race — here’s what I think Obama’s plan of attack will [should] be to deliver the final knockout blow in Pennsylvania, if not before:
UPDATE: Holy shit! Obama has raised over $4m $5m SINCE LAST NIGHT!!!! BarackObama.com is currently down as their servers are overwhelmed so chances are he’s going to blow past $5m $6m by the morning. That’s a movement!
I said recently that Politico’s Ben Smith had become my favorite political blogger, and while still technically true from an informational perspective (check out this post on the question of whether the Clintons are self-financing their campaign), The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan has consistently impressed with me his level-headed insight on various aspects of this roller coaster campaign. Today he offers a compelling assessment of Obama and the “executive experience” question:
He asked me to judge his executive skills by observing how he was managing a campaign.
By that standard, who isn’t impressed? A first term senator – a black urban liberal – raised more money, and continues to raise much more money, than Senator Clinton. More to the point, the money he has raised has not come from the well-connected fat-cats who do things like donate to the Clinton library. His base is much wider, broader and internet-based than hers. It has many more small donors.
Now look at the strategy he laid out last year, as he explained it to me and others. Iowa was the key. If he didn’t win Iowa, it was over. But if he could win Iowa, he would prove the principle that a black man could transcend the racial issue, helping in New Hampshire, and then also helping him peel off what was then majority black support for the Clintons in South Carolina. Then his strategy was meticulous organization – and you saw that in Iowa, as well as yesterday’s caucus states. Everything he told me has been followed through. And the attention to detail – from the Alaska caucus to the Nevada cooks – has been striking.
He goes on to look at how Obama’s handled “the psychological and emotional challenges of this campaign” and declares: “In the middle of this very hot zone, he exhibit a coolness and steeliness that is a mark of presidential timber.”
The entire post is good reading and one to bookmark for knee-jerk Clinton supporters who like to offer the maddeningly vague and misleading “35 years of experience” talking point by way of explaining their choice.
