Could paywalls work for b-to-b?

One of the biggest publishing topics of the week was the surprising news that paywalls do work -- for newspapers at least. Gannett reported that digital revenues at its local domestic publishing operations increased 76 percent due to its content subscription model. The New York Times reported 12 percent increase in paying digital subscribers.

The idea behind the paywall is that with everyone now being a publisher (brands, bloggers, social media fanatics), newspapers and other publications bring something different to the table: we have trained journalists (with a J-school background), and our quality of work is better. We are established and credible, and according to a recent study by Knowledge Networks, more Americans turn to established media to get the in-depth story on breaking news. So why shouldn't readers pay?

With this thought, many other newspapers are following suit, including the Chicago Tribune and The Globe and Mail. So, could this apply to b-to-b? We have trained journalists. We value high-quality journalism. Our readers want our work. The short answer? Perhaps, but not the Gannett way. The long answer? Give away the news and charge for commentary and community.

While it is a noble point of view --  a view that believes good, quality journalism should be able to sustain a business; that content is not only king, but a dictator; that if readers want it, they will pay -- it's not the way publishing works these days. In fact, one of the first decisions Penske Media made after its Variety acquisition, was to drop the paywall (reports say employees cheered).

Grading b-to-b newsletter performance: Many fall short on enterprise, link usage, end-user input

by Howard Rauch
President
Editorial Solutions Inc.

Most b-to-b e-news articles easily earn passing grades when evaluated on the basis of addressing high-impact topics, but once past that high point, delivery slides downhill. The biggest snag is absence of enterprise.  And when it comes to basic execution, link usage and end-user input appear to be elusive qualities. 

These observations continue to be confirmed in e-news studies conducted by Editorial Solutions Inc. The initial project, launched two years ago, examined collective delivery of 446 articles by 50 b-to-b sites.  Phase II -- another 50- site review covering 580 articles -- was completed early last year. Phase III is just past the review mid-point with 26 sites having been examined.  Even at this stage, need for improvement is clearly reflected. 

Project methodology calls for examining at least 10 e-news articles posted on the review date -- usually tied to publication of a weekly or daily newsletter. Scoring considers execution of eight factors: (1) impact; (2) evidence of enterprise; (3) direct quote presence; (4) fast-paced intro; (5) Fog Index grade level; (6) average sentence length; (7) word count; and (8) embedded link usage.

So far in Phase III, of the 260 articles posted by 26 sites, 139, that is 51.2 percent, miss the boat on enterprise.  “Evidence” reflects the desire of article authors to go beyond routine announcements. In their articles, writers point out that information was obtained during a telephone interview or e-mail exchange. Of the 1,026 articles collectively assessed during Phase I and Phase II reviews, 66 percent reflected no enterprise.  Especially bothersome were those articles where editors took bylines on obvious press release rewrites.

Platforms are irrelevant. What do customers really want?

Today in media, it’s all about the audience. Audience data leads to audience understanding which leads to audience relationships, which ultimately leads to profits (ABM’s Spring Conference focused on “The Customer-Driven Future,” and in his five points on how b-to-b companies can discover their “why,” ABM CEO Clark Pettit said, “All roads lead to data—any interaction with customers should be about getting further information about what that customer wants and needs”).  

B-to-B (and most media, really) has historically been guilty of building a product, then trying to find an audience to sell that product to. Unlike many of the magic bullets that all media has embraced as the next quick-fix (digital advertising, user-generated content, marketing services, etc.), the “audience” phenomenon is important because it isn’t a product or a platform—it’s the path to real solutions. Just because your product is sold over iTunes rather than the corner newsstand doesn’t automatically make it more valuable. What does your app offer—the same old content in a new package or actionable solutions when customers need it? 

Selling audience over product: How Advanstar solved the database riddle to drive new revenue

by Ronda Hughes
Director of Audience Data
Advanstar Communications Inc.

Close to a year ago, our leadership team gathered to try to understand how to become more efficient and effective internal marketers and how to obtain more revenue from our audience databases.  It was with great excitement (and fear) that we realized we had two issues on our hands: 1) We needed to figure out how to consolidate our disparate databases into a single consensus file, and 2) Once we had a single consensus file, we had to actually use all the data to grow internal leads and at the same time grow revenue!

It didn’t take long before we discovered that our audience databases were all over the place. We had six separate databases housing our publication, conference, e-newsletter, webinar, website and whitepaper customers. From a data management perspective, we didn’t have the internal technical resources available to pull this all together. On the sales side, our message was very “product-centric” as opposed to being “audience- or brand-centric,” so there was a learning curve we needed to climb if we wanted to grow a new revenue stream once this system was up and running. After a review of third-party solutions, we chose to partner with Knowledge Marketing and leverage their Audience Management System to tackle our database problems head on.

Challenge #1: Consolidate our disparate databases into a single useful system

Our vision was that the consensus database would integrate all of our audience members’ demographic, contextual and behavioral information into a single record that would be updated in real time according to individual member interactions. The database would contain unlimited details of individual member dimensions, and incorporate the millions of touch points across all channels of engagement where data is available (such as print, website, digital, e-products, events, social media and email). Equally as important, the database needed to be structured in a way that would allow for real time, detailed segmentation, delivering “merge/purge on the fly,” in collaboration between sales and select clients. It needed to be very user friendly with a clean user interface, NOT an application built for programmers and analysts only. Additionally, I must add that time was of the essence as I was only given 90 days to have this database up and operational.

Result: Fully operational in two months!