I’m a newspaper guy with 30 years of diversified experience, but I also fully comprehend and embrace the use of technology as our industry continues to evolve. And, yes, I do believe we are evolving, not dying. My belief is that a partnership must exist between the various platforms of both the digital and the print worlds. That partnership should encourage traffic (readership) on all platforms because that readership not only provides results to advertisers, but adds revenue to the bottom line.
As a paper that has had a paywall since 2005, The (Bend) Bulletin is in no way experiencing “a slow death” or contemplating suicide. DeRienzo’s comments provide the perception that paywalls destroy the print franchise, but this is not actually the case. Companies that make short-term decisions based solely on profit margins are a huge contributor to the demise of the print franchise. Organizations that reduce their editorial department to such a degree that it adversely impacts their ability to provide content that serves their communities are a contributing factor to the demise of the print franchise.
Content is the engine that drives readership and is the foundation for retaining those readers. While pricing and customer service certainly play a role, ultimately, it’s content and our ability to inform as well as entertain that is the vital ingredient to our success, or lack thereof, in attracting and keeping our audience.
Instead of focusing on the supposed gloom-and-doom of the print product, we need to be consistently promoting the value, benefits, and convenience each and every day, in every format available to us, using all available resources. In my opinion, that approach is not self-serving; it’s marketing and self-preservation. Failure to do so is undoubtedly a contributor to lost audience potential.
One of the few comments DeRienzo made that I do agree with is that we need to ask how we may better engage our audience and change our relationship with the audience so that it is based upon engagement and partnership. Again, full utilization of all resources in all formats is a necessity to achieve a balanced poll of opinions on the likes/dislikes of any particular product or format. Interaction on all levels is a good thing. But this isn’t a one-size-fits-all business model. What works well for a publication of one size on the East Coast may not be a viable fit for a paper of a different size in the Midwest or on the West Coast. Every market is different. In some, a metered approach may very well make sense. In others, a monthly bundled subscription program may be a better path.
I am a firm believer in further development and utilization of the digital platform — with a bridge to the print format. Content that we spend thousands, if not millions, of dollars on to secure should equate to value, benefits, and convenience for our readers. Those three components also should equate to revenue.
To expect all of the content, in which we have so heavily invested, to be provided free of charge is simply not a sustainable business model currently or in the foreseeable future. Providing some content, for a fair rate, in whatever format readers prefer — print, e-edition, reader, mobile app, or any combination thereof — is a strategy that does work. Do we need to market it so our readers grasp the value, benefit, and convenience of having content that isn’t readily available elsewhere for a nominal charge? You bet! And we need to devote adequate resources to these ongoing marketing campaigns.
The Bulletin began charging back in 2005 for our e-edition. In 2008, we launched our bundling program, which resulted in 25,000 of our 26,000 home-delivery subscribers paying us an additional 50 cents per month to have access to our e-edition. We also provide one-day access, with a rate equal to that of our single-copy editions, as well as a group-rate structure. Part of our success may be attributed to the fact that we are consistently striving to improve our existing website.
Simply providing content for free isn’t the answer, at least not in a lot of markets and particularly not in smaller markets. What has proven to work in our market is simply this basic strategy: “We don’t care how you read us, just read us.”
Of course, we have been fortunate to have an editor-in-chief, a publisher, and owners who all understand that value, benefits, and convenience equate to revenue. In our specific case, the bundling approach has worked exceptionally well, and it may be a strategy for others to consider. My suggestion for others is neither digital first nor print first. It’s partnering all available platforms to drive readership and revenue. I’m not advocating for all content to be behind a paywall. However, I am stating that marketing programs that consistently show the value of our products and platforms, while reinforcing that readers have made a wise buying decision, do indeed translate into greater audience share and revenue. That, in turn, obviously should translate into greater value for advertisers, which I learned a long time ago don’t necessarily prefer the most economical ads, but do prefer ones that work.
Keith L. Foutz is corporate circulation and operations director at Western Communications, Inc., which publishes The (Bend) Bulletin and other papers in Oregon and California.