The recent 100^th edition of my beloved Stylist magazine got me thinking about the changing face of content on the streets of London. Commuters now have an embarrassment of riches from which to choose when it comes to free reading matter: Stylist on a Wednesday is followed by Shortlist and Sport on Thursdays and Fridays respectively, with Metro and City AM free every weekday morning - and, of course, the Evening Standard for the journey home. The fact that none of these cost a penny is great, but more important than that is the high editorial quality – they contain things that people actually want to read.

The free paper phenomenon started with News International’s The London Paper and Associated Newspaper-produced London Lite in 2006. Both were criticised for lightweight content and ceased publication in late 2009 – a result both of slipping circulation numbers and the Evening Standard becoming free. Critically, the ES has since maintained its editorial quality, a fact recognised with its 2010 victory in the Media Week awards, at which it won two of the most prestigious accolades in publishing – Media Brand of the Year and the Grand Prix Gold.

Since then however, there have been some new faces at the party – Stylist and Shortlist, published by Shortlist Media, as well as a revitalised Sport magazine. These magazines are free yet premium, self-consciously branding themselves…’freemium’. The idea is simple: lure customers in with free, high-quality content, and make money from advertising, a concept surely validated by its inclusion as a task on this year’s Apprentice!

It’s certainly not just about being free, as the quality of the content is vital – in the words of Karl Marsden, Managing Director of Shortlist Media, “no-one does the ‘thousand-yard stare’ like a British commuter intent on reaching their destination.” The combination of a free, desirable, high-quality magazine with reliable distribution channels is built to lure customers in and ultimately generate revenue from advertising.

Some, however, doubt the sustainability of this revenue stream, suggesting that as competition increases as free content proliferates, the money raised from advertising will diminish, raising doubts in turn about the sustainability of the whole model. There is no doubt that the world of written content is in a huge state of flux. Indeed, Mike Soutar, founder of Shortlist Media, attributes the rise of the ‘freemium’ magazine to the evolution of online content and customers’ subsequent expectations that they can access high quality journalism for free. And yet the basis of this assumption is already changing, as certain publications erect paywalls around some of their online content.

I know that as an avid Stylist reader I’m not going to stop eagerly taking my copy outside Goodge Street station every Wednesday morning. For now, I hope that the virtuous circle of a free magazine with high-quality content and money raised solely from advertising continues. The only worry is that one of these things will slip and we will move from virtuous circle to vicious cycle.

As mentioned above, a key concern is the ongoing viability of revenue from advertising. This could mean one of many things. Perhaps certain magazines will disappear altogether as their business model becomes less valid, or less drastically, their editorial standards will slip as they are forced to lay off staff. Might certain ‘freemium’ magazines start charging, gambling on the loyalty of their readership? This seems unlikely in a cluttered market, though the establishment of paywalls around previously free online content suggests that it shouldn’t be totally ruled out.

However, I believe that the answer, at least for the near future, might lie in this week’s subtle change to the Metro newspaper: more advertising. But for levels of quality to stay the same as advertising becomes less valuable, the hope has to be that revenue from increased volume sales offsets the lower price at which it can be sold.

Whilst I don’t know the answer, my fear is that the ‘freemium’ market as it stands isn’t stable in the long-term and a higher proportion of free magazine space will soon be taken up by advertising. I certainly hope this isn’t the case, but at the moment I’d advise you to watch this space.

By Jessica Enoch on November 8th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Media, Paywall, PR

No comments

Last year not many national newspapers made big money – in fact some lost a lot of it set against declining circulations. One paper however, The Metro, made its seventh successive year of profit.

In fact, last year the paper, which has a circulation of 1.3 million distributed free across 16 cities, had more display advertising than any other UK generalist (114,647 single column centimetres compared to 94,875ccms at The Sun for the statisticians among you).  

So with much talk about the demise of newspapers  how is it that The Metro turns in a profit year after year without charging a cover price and are there any clues of the newspaper of the future (on and offline) in this?

Looking in from the outside, the success would seem to boil down to two simple reasons.

Firstly – content. The Metro knows its audience and it’s not trying to be anything more then what it is – a quick commute read.

No in-depth articles, no weighty columnists and little analysis – just a bite sized chunk of news meant to last as long as your tube/bus/train journey or if you like an offline version for an online audience – or what they refer to as ‘City Clickers’. This amalgamation of easy news comes with probable lower overhead costs from staf size to news gathering.  

Secondly – a closer relationship between commercial and editorial or a breakdown of the old ‘church and state’ mentality.

Few barriers exist – your brand wants to wrap the paper? Not a problem. Sponsor whole sections? Sure thing. An advertorial in the house style? Editorial will even write it for you. In addition, there is a clear link between the offline and online products with commercial links across both.

The Metro gets away with it partly because it’s free. As a consumer, I don’t mind commercial spill-over into editorial, I see it as a decent trade off for getting a free read on my tube journey in.  

But it’s this blurring of the line that gives clues to the future for the wider industry. It’s no surprise that there are increasingly numbers of ex-journalists in the commercial teams at papers helping brands to run ‘integrated’ campaigns but it’s a difficult balancing act to maintain – editorial independence and powerful journalism versus commercial reality.

While it continues to vex established national newspapers (The Times Online recent move behind a paywall is an attempt to address it), The Metro has proved it knows its audience and although it may be a dangerous sign for in-depth, quality journalism you have to admire its ability to buck the trend.

By Dominic Curran on June 28th, 2010

Tags: Brand marketing, Communications, Digital marketing, Media, Paywall

No comments

Last week’s announcement by News International, that Times titles will become the first nationals to put content behind a subscription paywall in June this year – sister papers The Sun and News of the World will follow at a later date – marks a hugely significant change for the newspaper model as we know it. The monetising of an online model is something that newspaper proprietors have been wrestling with since they first realised that the internet wasn’t going away.

The problem is this: a digital world makes it virtually impossible to ringfence and monetise content that costs papers money to create. In addition this dilution of free content costs them potential advertising money. To rub it in, search engines such as Google are making plenty via PPC and advertising on their sites when people search for the content.

Rupert Murdoch started going on record a few years ago talking about a limited paywall on selected content. One of his papers, The Wall Street Journal, does it already with some success and he’s in discussions with Microsoft’s Bing to become an exclusive content supplier, blocking Google.

Two things then to consider – will it work and what impact might it have on us in the sponsorship industry.

So first off – will it work?

Given the decline of ad revenues and traditional circulations publishers are looking for something that will.

The real issue is that news is free – for example the BBC, whose charter currently restricts their ability to charge for online content, will always be a free source and skews the market.

However, move beyond news to detailed analysis, unique content, marquee journalists and specialist sectors (fashion, sport, business, culture etc) and people are more likely to pay for it and if they have to pay for the news to get this package they will – as the announcement by News International says -’quality journalism never matters so much as it does today’.

In effect, a Sky TV model for newspapers online – you really want the football but first you have to buy the basics. It’s a clever and bold step by News International but no one knows if it will be the long term solution to the online challenge – even if their competitors follow them.

The power of online content is around the creation and interaction of the very communities it’s aimed at. The new sites will undoubtedly go further then before in giving consumers the chance to interact but does this miss the point that consumers now have the power and desire to create their own communities – they’ve moved from passive to active.

Rather then locking their doors to them, media owners could have a more fruitful future by becoming a platform for these communities and therefore becoming joint creators of content with the very consumers advertisers are willing to pay a lot of money to target.

But what impact might it have on the sponsorship industry?

I see a short term and a long term answer. In the short term, sponsors used to placing unique content their sponsorships afford will find themselves either having to restrict their PR outlets or likely pay to get it placed – never a happy prospect.

But in the long term this change could offer real potential with brands and media owners working together towards a mutual goal. Brands really know how to target consumers while media owners know how to create compelling content.

A savvy sponsor could play this bridging role between the existing consumer communities and a media platform with a paywall. For example, a football sponsor could buy out the paywall themselves around a major event like the opening weekend of the season. The existing audience on the media platform will be absolutely on-target; after all they’ve been paying for this content up to this time.

Give this community, both existing and new, a chance to co-create content with you on a prestigious media platform and as a sponsor you’ll build genuine affinity.

However it pans out over the next year, it’s going to be about playing the game by new rules which makes it both daunting and full of opportunity.

By Dominic Curran on April 1st, 2010

Tags: Default, Media, Paywall, Public relations, Sponsorship, Sport

2 comments