Marketers are willing to look to their media partners for marketing services.  Is that something that media partners want?

In an effort to do a real-world reality test  of corporate buzzwords, Crain’s Media Business Magazine went out and asked a bunch of marketing heads whether they wanted the marketing services solutions that their media partners are going out aggressively to acquire or build.

The logic from the media company side is sensible.  Advertising spend has been down, the business is changing and their are broader opportunities to partner with their clients.

The challenge is in finding the right way to define this activity.

When a media company says that it provides marketing services, the danger is getting sucked in to low-margin, labor intensive activities.  The unique capability of a media company is to leverage content and marketing know-how to solve marketing problems, not building ads or writing SEO copy or managing e-mail programs.

What’s different today from the past is that digital technologies and changing consumer behavior has changed the core process of content creation, content delivery and distribution.  The lines between marketing and publishing have blurred.

What a media company can do that a traditional marketing agency can’t even begin to dream of is use their traditional skills, transported into the digital environment, to create seamless bridges between the digital footprint of their brand to their clients’.

That’s not providing a marketing service.  That’s extending the media platform to solve the problems of visibility, engagement and conversion for marketing partners.

That’s far from being a commodity solution.

The challenge is finding a simple and direct term to describe this service and to develop fairly standard and efficient ways of delivering the solutions.

When news breaks that a traditional magazine company is looking to eliminate print and go all digital, the reflex assumption is that it’s a last ditch effort to keep a flagging franchise alive.

Take the report in yesterday’s Telegraph that Emap is looking at making some of its trade mags online only.

Editors from across the trade media and events business, which is jointly owned by Guardian Media Group and private equity group Apax, have been asked to examine “the best way of delivering content to users” between now and 2015, and to consider how they could reduce the frequency of print publications or phase them out altogether.

Is this a death sentence for the magazines that are told to cut back their print copies, or suspend them all together?

Not necessarily.  The article notes one Emap title that’s already made the change:

In 2010, Emap changed film industry magazine Screen International from a weekly to a monthly title, prompting a jump in profits and reader satisfaction.

Before you shake your head at the battering that traditional print takes, let’s spend a second celebrating the vibrancy of good brands.

I read this story on the web from a U.K. newspaper.  It’s primary journalism, sourced and cited, reporting on a development at an important company in its market.  When I saw that the story was from the Telegraph I assigned it more authenticity and credibility than I would have from another source.

Those are all attributes of the brand that were established over time, in the traditional world, and transferred into a digital world.

That’s a basic reason why we shouldn’t discount the efficacy of a brand shifting from print to digital.  As the article cites, readers experience a lot of satisfaction when they encounter a good digital content experience.

So what’s the problem, beyond the nervousness that those mired in traditional media experience when they contemplate a world without the processes they are familiar with?

The business model, or  lack thereof.

A decade or so of dis-intermediation, of booms and busts, of market re-invention, of unthinkable valuations, of technology usurping tradition, of automation, self-serve and free has cast a pall over the traditional ways of serving markets.  But what publishers are realizing, as they re-engage in conversations with marketers and look for ways to intersect with, educate and entertain readers, is that the combination of new technologies, consumer behavior and marketer demands has created a new foundation for building profitable targeted media businesses on digital platforms.

That those are common buzzwords I just rattled off doesn’t make the observation any less true.

When you combine a flexible content platform with a targeted and interactive digital distribution program, you are able to give marketers solutions that deliver high-quality connections and drive business results.  You can package solutions that enhance multiple elements of their marketing program, from brand advertising to lead generation to education to content marketing to web traffic.

A traditional print platform can’t offer the flexibility or breadth of the digital platform.

So, the examination that Emap has mandated isn’t a death knell, it’s an opportunity for a group of long-tenured brands to focus their resources on meeting their market where they can have the most impact: online.

Does that mean print is dead?

Not at all.  The printed product continues to offer high impact, engagement and value.  It just is the highest fixed-cost aspect of the integrated media model, and because of that needs to be able to justify its place in the media mix not just for the advertiser but for the publisher as well.

I got this question in my in-box from a market rep the other day.

Hey Dan,
I am just trying to figure out here who is the enemy here.The recession or to much free media for the realtors ?
While other busineses are fighting the recession only, and will come back. We are fighting free platforms all over the place. What say you ??

Here’s my answer.

Charles,

I’m sorry for being so slow in getting back to you on this. I’ve been swamped and then lost track of the e-mail.  I apologize.

We’re fighting heavy headwinds and they are coming from multiple directions.  It’s frustrating.

The proliferation of free web listings makes it easier for agents/brokers to say that they don’t have to do any paid advertising.  That works for them when they aren’t making any real money from commissions.

But it doesn’t help them stand out.  It just gets the listings out there, into a bunch of different searchable database, just like every other listing in the market.

When I search the homes for sale in my home town, more than 100 are returned in just one price bracket.

How do I pick the agent?  What makes them stand out?  Do I want to spend all that time researching 100 homes?

There’s still a place for marketing solutions that help agents stand out so that they get more than their fair share of the business.  That’s what The Real Estate Book offers.

Our challenge today is that agents aren’t seeing their incomes rise.  So they don’t want to spend for high-visibility, quality advertising.  As a result, a lot of people are saying there’s no need for that kind of advertising.  Those people are being self-serving.

There’s a need.  There just isn’t enough business to justify it.

When the market turns, we’ll see our fortunes turn.  That will be a good thing.

Dan

The challenge is being able to wait through the downturn.

I’ve been intrigued by the dynamic of building lead volume in our Apartment Finder business over the past year.

As I’ve discussed before, the multi-family marketing business is a competitive, lead-generating business that is driven by consumer’s accessing print and online directories and inquiring about apartments for rent.

There are three ways that marketing companies like Apartment Finder hand customer leads over to its clients:  a phone call directly to the apartment community; an e-mail to an apartment community, either directly or through a leasing intermediary; a click-thru to the apartment community web site; and, a prospect who walks directly into the community leasing office without making prior contact.

This week, one of our biggest competitors in the space shared a few public metric related to their lead production.  According to their recent earnings release, the company increased leads 35% year-over-year, and currently produces more than 75% of their leads from their Internet and mobile platforms.

That made me curious.  How did our metrics at Apartment Finder measure up?

The chart to the right shows the increase in lead production at Apartment Finder over the past year.  Overall, leads gained 43%.  Phone leads were up 25%, e-mail leads were up 169% and click-thru’s to property web sites were up 71%.

This data is derived from two third-party sources:  CallSource, which manages our tracking number program, and Omniture, which provides us with web analytics.

Most interesting to me was the distribution between leads from print distribution and from internet and mobile distribution.

At Apartment Finder, 53% of our leads, including click-thru’s, are driven by our Internet distribution and 47% by print.  Subtract click-thru’s, which can’t be tracked back to a specific individual, and the ratio drops closer to 50-50.

But the key issue isn’t what source the lead comes from.  The issue is how useful the lead is.

I had an engaging conversation around the relative quality of leads with a leading apartment marketer at the National Apartment Association Conference this past June.  E-mails that are generated as a by-product of creating an appointment to see an apartment had a high conversion, he said.  Phone calls to the community were the second best kind of lead.  And e-mail inquiries were the lowest-converting type of lead.

That means there are other metrics that can point to how good the lead generation of a marketing partner will be.  A big one is the percentage of phone calls to e-mail leads.

At Apartment Finder, 80% of our leads from print and internet are phone calls.  20% are e-mails.   That’s an exceptionally good ratio, I think.

I found myself wondering the other day about the economic impact of the decline in the real estate market on agents.

The reason for my curiosity is pretty clear: The Real Estate Book business depends on the income of real estate agents. The agents who are going to invest in high-visibility, high-impact marketing tools like The Real Estate Book are going to be among the high-earners. Over the past three years, the scale of our business has dropped dramatically and rapidly. How much is a decline in income driving that decline, I wanted to know.
A lot.

Fortunately, the National Association of Realtors is exceptional at gathering a lot of information consistently. The association does several different annual surveys and is smart to keep their questions consistent, so that you can compare trends over time. While their Survey of Home Buyers gets a lot of attention, they also do an annual survey of realtors that has a lot of rich detail on how realtors are managing their business.

So I dug into the NAR data to try to scale the market. There were three clear conclusions: Commission income has dropped dramatically; the number of high-earning agents has dropped just as dramatically; and marketing spending has dropped dramatically.

First, commission income. To extrapolate trends in commission income, I took the average home price and total number of transactions from 1996 to 2009. I then applied a uniform commission rate over the series. (One could argue that average commissions are down the past two years because of the influx of bank-owned properties in the market.)

Using this formula, commission income peaked in 2005 and dropped like a stone to 2009. About 10 years of commission growth was lost in the 24-month period.

Commission income should be roughly flat in 2010, based on NAR home sales projections and a 15% drop in average price. The good news for top earners is that there should be fewer agents competing for the commission dollars, and that consumers are likely to gravitate to agents who have reliable track records and are clearly in the business full-time.

How many agents is that, I wondered? That led me to create another extrapolation to estimate the number of high-earning realtors. To calculate this number, I used the percentage breakouts from NAR’s realtor survey and applied them to the total number of realtors in each year, according to NAR.

According to this approach, the number of high-earning realtors has declined by more than 40% from the peak of the real estate market. All told, there are about 178,000 agents that make over $100,000 per years, compared to 312,000 in 2006.

This is an incredible loss of earning power. The drop in commission revenue has been accompanied by a drop in marketing spend. All told, the number of realtors that spend more than $2500 a year on marketing and advertising has declined 45% to about 200,000.

A couple of interesting trends surfaced when I dug into the distribution of annual marketing spend over the past few years, according to the NAR survey.

First, the median marketing spend was down 31%, less than the drop in commission income over the same period. This is a byproduct of realtors trying to keep up a subsinence level of marketing. The larger marketers cut their spending by 50%.

Second, realtors have not expanded their investment in online media, keeping it at about 10% of overall advertising and marketing spend.

I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy, so when I look at these figures, I’m struck by the opportunity for higher-earning realtors to increase their investment in marketing in order to increase their share of the market. But, by any account, the contraction in marketing spending by real estate agents over the past two years is difficult to process, it is so large, pervasive and complete.

An Emarketer analysis this week of two research studies concluded that social media was going to be a big focus on web marketing expansion by small businesses.

Our experience on the ground selling our DigitalSherpa service confirms the direction of the surveys.  Once we get into a discussion about how content marketing and digital networking can help their firm, local business people quickly move past questions about “why” to questions about “how?”

There’s a fundamental problem, though, that the research doesn’t get at.  Local businesses don’t have an interactive strategy that is geared to acquiring and converting qualified leads.

In most aspects of local business marketing, the lack of sophistication around leads acquisition and conversion isn’t that important.  But in internet marketing, it’s critical.

Take a look at the research first.  According to the “Third Annual FedEx Office Signs of the Times Small Business Survey” (that’s a mouthful), use of social media is the fastest growing tactic small business owners cite in their marketing planning.  The primary area of focus continues to be improving online presence, signaling that SMB owners consider this an area where improvement can is needed.

eMarketer then cites a Constant Contact study that shows that websites and e-mail marketing are the two most prevalent tactics or tools that SMB owners rely on to market their business.

The high penetration of Facebook makes for an attention-getting headline, but the nuts and bolts of the marketing program are in the website and continuing contact to the prospect and customer database.

The challenge is how these SMB owners are making decisions about the effectiveness of these tactics.

It doesn’t sound hard:  track web traffic, measure leads and conversions and then select the most efficient sources.

But making these kind of analytical decisions are challenges to the largest businesses in America.  Another recent survey concluded that the biggest obstacle to effective web tracking at larger companies was finding the talent to do the analytics.  If large companies can’t get to the answer, how can small companies expect to?

In traditional marketing campaigns, these kind of analytics were not as important.   A local marketing initiative drove the consumers to one of two places:  a phone number or a physical location.  At the other end of the interaction was a real person, who would ask questions, engage and impart information.  The interaction was more discursive and exploratory, and the experience of the person representing the business in adapting answers to the knowledge and personality of the person asking was critical to driving sales.

With web marketing a primary goal of the program is to drive a person to a web site where they can get information that will inspire them to either act directly or reach out for more information.

If that web site isn’t designed the right way, then you’re not going to get the return on your investment that you should expect.

One of the things that we’ve learned in our business is that creating a web site that can drive conversions is a science, not an art.  Like any science, it requires constant experimentation and adaptation.

The challenge facing SMB’s is not just putting focus on internet marketing; it’s figuring out how to find partners who have the knowledge, expertise and interest to help them participate in a science that challenges even the largest firms.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ReachLocal’s IPO Indicative of SMB Internet Market (marketingpilgrim.com)
• Pump Up Your Digital Footprint: NCI Launches HealthFIT Sherpa, A Social Media Marketing Solution (eon.businesswire.com)
• Be a Relationship Manager (marketingpr.suite101.com)

Every marketer knows that the negative option is your friend: it increases response, renewals and profits.

As a result, the negative option can turn into a hiding place for the unscrupulous marketer. The technique can be deployed in a technically correct way, but can be so cynical about the energy and intelligence of the average consumer that it violates a basic trust of the pact between a consumer and a brand.

It’s discouraging to see Facebook slipping into the shadows of unscrupulous direct marketers, and its heartening to see Google, despite it’s position as the grand behemoth of the web, work to stay true to its core values of respect and goodness, as subjective and ultimately impossible to deliver on those values are.

First, a little detail on the negative option. A negative option require the consumer of a product to take an action to discontinue some feature or attribute of the product or service. One popular use of the negative option is when a service gets your agreement to charge your credit card automatically for the renewal of a service. I was reminded of the power of this option over the weekend when I saw two renewal charges hit my credit card for cloud software applications that I no longer use. Here’s a good definition of the practice.

Another example is when a function is installed in a software platform and you have the ability to shift to another option. The most commonly recognized example of this negative option is the installation of Microsoft Explorer with each install of Windows. Millions of dollars of lawyers fees and the injection of the Federal legal system created a higher degree of visibility for other browser options. The fact that Firefox can have such substantial market share is a testament to the power creating clarity around consumer choice can have in opening up markets.

As I shared last week, Facebook has dramatically evolved its definition of privacy over the past several years. Over the weekend, Dan Kaplan pointed me to a striking graphic that compares the approach to privacy at Facebook today to different points over the past several years ago.

The menus were lengthy, the options various, the language specific to the vernacular of Facebook and the process was confusing.

The entire system creates a disincentive to changing your privacy settings at the outset. The more likely outcome for a user is that they will go tackle the privacy settings once the horse is out of the barn and something has happened on their account that makes them angry, frightened, ashamed or embarrassed.

The approach is a far cry from where Facebook started, with an industrial design that was meant to replicate the insularity of social groups by keeping access to information directly within your privileged community.

Of course, Facebook can point to the high degree of control a consumer has over the service and say, That’s what we do. But that isn’t the starting point. The starting point is a much more open and sharing identity.

I was struck by a bit of research recently that canvassed 450 new Facebook users about how they used the system. They identified its benefits more along the line of a search engine than a social networking tool. That is a striking shift in product definition.

Of course, the value to Facebook of more openness, more search and more
databased information is that it creates the opportunity for more advertising activity. Therein lies a revenue strategy that can take advantage of the vast user base the service has created.

Google over the past year has attempted several similar expansions of it’s relationship with its users. The best example was the rollout of Google Buzz, which, we quickly discovered, was sharing activity with other people in our network without our explicit intent.

To Google’s credit, it quickly reworked the system so that we had to choose to share, rather than having a negative option that assumed we wanted to share.

The utility of buzz was diminished, but Google’s integrity reclaimed.

If you wonder why Google and Facebook have such different approaches to privacy, consumer-driven options and product design, the relative revenues of the two companies is a good starting point to unraveling the mystery.

Google has a vast pool of highly profitable revenue to protect. Anything that besmirches its brand and diminishes search traffic will have an immediate impact on their bottom line. Changing their approach to a service like Google Buzz is not just the right thing to do, it is the fiscally prudent thing to do.

Facebook doesn’t have that revenue model unlocked yet. As a result, trying things that will drive a higher revenue per user outcome is of the primary importance; in that matrix, it is unfortunately possible to loose the kind of laser focus on the consumer that ultimately drives the best experience.

Here’s what that focus looks like. In 2001, I sat in the Google offices and tried to sell Page and Brin a self-publishing tool that was a very early form of blogging software. A talented team of former Netscape engineers had developed the tool as part of a special-interest portal called Themestream. We weren’t able to get further funding for the service and were trying to unwind the assets and recover some of the investment for our backers, Kleiner Perkins, Redpoint Venture and some individual Investors led by the late Mike Homer.

My pitch to Page and Brin was that the more content there was in the web, the more inventory they would have created. While they didn’t want to compete with the big media brands, our self-publishing tool would give them a platform for consumers to generate more content on the web.

This was early in their commercial evolution. Eventually, they would move into the development of tools and bring the Blogger platform into their fold. But Page articulated their basic premise with clarity and consistency. “We want to organize information for people to find. That’s our one purpose. We’ll work the revenue out around that purpose.”

He was a young guy. I was a seasoned executive. His approach could have seemed immature and inflexible. At the time though it seemed sensible, focused and inspired.

What is Facebook’s singular focus?

The team over at Electronic Frontier Foundation brings two things to its view of the web: a sense of perspective and a sense of history.

That makes this blog post by Kurt Opsahl, which provides excerpts from Facebook‘s privacy policy back to 2005, particularly powerful.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2005:

No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2006:

We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. Our default privacy settings limit the information displayed in your profile to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2007:

Profile information you submit to Facebook will be available to users of Facebook who belong to at least one of the networks you allow to access the information through your privacy settings (e.g., school, geography, friends of friends). Your name, school name, and profile picture thumbnail will be available in search results across the Facebook network unless you alter your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa November 2009:

Facebook is designed to make it easy for you to share your information with anyone you want. You decide how much information you feel comfortable sharing on Facebook and you control how it is distributed through your privacy settings. You should review the default privacy settings and change them if necessary to reflect your preferences. You should also consider your settings whenever you share information. …

Information set to “everyone” is publicly available information, may be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), is subject to indexing by third party search engines, may be associated with you outside of Facebook (such as when you visit other sites on the internet), and may be imported and exported by us and others without privacy limitations. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” You can review and change the default settings in your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa December 2009:

Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, geographic region, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available to everyone, including Facebook-enhanced applications, and therefore do not have privacy settings. You can, however, limit the ability of others to find this information through search using your search privacy settings.

Current Facebook Privacy Policy, as of April 2010:

When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. … The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” … Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.

Note the accelerating pace of the changes. It’s not a coincidence that the commercial imperatives of the site — valuation, funding and getting money off the table — have become more widely reported in the press.

The economics of investment and return force products and services, regardless how innovative, into fairly predictable patterns of behavior. Note: Craig Newmark of Craig’s List, by retaining entrepreneurial control and keeping what many feel is an idiosyncratic focus around the principles of his site, is an exception to this rule, thus far.

Go to the EFF post to find links to the specific Privacy policies.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline (eff.org)
• How To Block People On Facebook (ghacks.net)
• Facebook privacy policy (startups.com)

Interesting data point: TV’s per household grew at the fastest in a decade last year, according to Nielsen.

The TV is at the core of the multi-media experience. And, as The Economist points out in a recent special report, TV programming is being consumed across more platforms than ever before.

Compelling argument for the power of TV.

I do wonder, though, how many of those TV sets per household increased because of people combining households and brining their favorite TV with them….

Related articles by Zemanta

• Question for Nielsen: What the Heck’s a Television Set? (adage.com)
• More TV Sets (2.93) Than People Per US Household (2.54); Average TV Sets Per Home Sets New Record (benzinga.com)
• Nielsen fluffs up the TV ratings (thoughtgadgets.com)

Yahoo! chief Carol Bartz made an interesting point about Google in an interview with the BBC today:

“Google is going to have a problem because Google is only known for search,” said Ms Bartz. “It is only half our business; it’s 99.9% of their business. They’ve got to find other things to do.  Google has to grow a company the size of Yahoo every year to be interesting.”

People are going to focus on the bravado and positioning — after all Bartz needs to clearly define Yahoo’s value proposition in a market where the company is unfavorably compared with Google on an ongoing basis.

Search isn’t an infinitely expanding business opportunity. In fact, several dynamics at work suggest that the growth of search revenue will slow, limiting Google’s overall opportunity for growth. First, penetration of potential advertisers is higher today than it was two years ago for Google. And second, the shift of internet usage into social networks has incrementally changed the search behavior of web users.

Google’s media proposition is built on the back of search. That means that the audience that Google aggregates to the benefit of marketers — a basic definition of ad-supported media — relies to an outsized degree on search traffic.

Yahoo! has a more diverse media proposition. That’s the “half of our business” that Bart is referring to.

In this regard, Yahoo! is more like AOL than Google. Not surprisingly, AOL is facing its own challenges in terms of definition, value and opportunity.

The big issue here is that the largest diversified web media brands aren’t demonstrating the ability to grow revenues and hold on to consumers that suggest the franchises deserve premium growth valuations.

Yahoo! and AOL are predominantly content-driven media platforms that have created applications in order to enhance user engagement. That business model is an interactive evolution of the traditional media business model. In this regard, the companies are very different, and have very different challenges, from Google.

The primary challenge remains how to effectively keep content and applications fresh while managing a huge consumer audience, and how to make that base of content accessible and valuable to advertisers. The problem solving is discrete, because one approach doesn’t necessarily fit to every different content platform and user experience. (In this respect, the companies suffer in comparison to Google, which is incredibly simple to explain.)  An underlying question is whether focused media brands are more viable than diversified media brands.

When thinking about the strategic challenge of Yahoo! and AOL, I’d suggest that the most salient question is how these two platforms retain consumer interest and loyalty in an environment where Facebook is becoming a de facto operating internet operating system.

One of the Google searches that drives traffic to this site regularly is “Is Facebook the new AOL.”

The query could just as easily be, Is Facebook the new interactive media model? As an interactive media platform, Facebook is organizing and directing shared content, providing content publishing tools, generating scale audience with a high definition of individual interests and producing content within its own operating system seamlessly.

Facebook allows users to dictate what content is important and interesting.  That model is fundamentally different from the Yahoo!/AOL model.

Facebook can be an incredibly valuable tool for anyone trying to generate a business from content, and it could ultimately be a profound disintermediator for Yahoo! and AOL, which today look like legacy media brands on the web.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Yahoo! CEO Giving Google Advice Is Like Yahoo CEO Giving Google Advice (oliverwillis.com)
• Carol Bartz Has Some Advice For Google (paidcontent.org)
• Yahoo CEO Takes Google Home Page At Face Value [Blockquote] (gizmodo.com)
• Yahoo! CEO Says Google Has a Growth Problem (domainmacher.com)
• Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz Sees Trouble For Google (huffingtonpost.com)