Digg - Free, Paid New Media Backchannel

New media must be a most challenging business model for traditional media publications on many fronts.

Editors are not used to people talking back to them in real time. Publishers are not used to having to rethink their business model on a daily basis. Everything the print was set up for changes online.

Take for example content. Aside from the exceptional courtesy copies, which someone (either a hotel chain, or your employer) often ends up paying for, you pay for print content.

In many cases, the cost to you purports to guarantee a certain writing standard, layout and flow. The portable print version contains what you've come to expect in the quality and thus experience.

Because the Internet is still in many ways the wild, wild, way, many an attempt to control and wall off content has been seriously thwarted.

The pay-to-read model is but the domain of a very few publications. Some think that attempts to maintain the old, paid ways online are getting harder and less profitable.

Online models for main stream publications may mean in many cases forfeiting the revenues coming from subscriptions in favor of ad-sponsored content. That is hard on two fronts:

1. with a very few exceptions, the ads are not that exciting (and thus effective).

They are in fact more interruptive and often less relevant than they print cousins. Why they are less relevant is a mystery to me, as they could easily have more impact given the ability to sponsor specific content and geographies, for example. However, I do get the broadcast nature of such advertising.

In order for the buy to make sense for the buyer, there is a need to know what traffic it will generate. Never mind that much of that traffic will be somewhat indifferent to the "message." It is tempting to go for how many instead of who to justify a cost that is by no means smaller. But is this a justified cost for effectiveness? I believe it fails both on the advertiser's side and the publication's side.

2. the sponsoring is still happening through ads (we should know better).

This flies in the face of having actual conversations, which is increasingly the currency of online interactions, even when they are just in our own minds. I'm not advocating embedding products and services in news stories as we did in television programming. There must be a better way to go about it all the same.

I do prefer to know exactly who is sponsoring anything, as I am a strong believer in keeping editorial and advertising separate, even for bloggers. It seems to me that the opportunity created by the new media has not really been explored. And with readers increasingly becoming more concerned about the cost to produce and deliver print editions, it seems to me that there is indeed a perfect storm brewing in favor of online models.

Is there a third front?

I believe there is. This idea came to me as I was reading the comments to Chris Anderson's post (link above) and came across what Rex Hammox put forth. How about a free, paid new media back channel? Right now, for example, any article from the Wall Street Journal that is dugg becomes free through that channel. What's more, it now has an endorsement from a member of the Digg community.

Let's think about that. Linking is the currency of new media, it means Google juice. More juice means a higher Google PageRank and more readers through search because of that. More readers, many of them through a vetted/trusted member of a community, means the brand spreads faster. It also means that now the editor has a better idea of who is interested in what specific content.

Remember that online it is far easier to understand who will read instead of how many. Is this an opportunity for a better conversation with topical content? I believe it is if you're willing to make that conversation more intimate, more focused, highly relevant and thus valued.

How about building or joining a community that is more business-oriented than news? I am liking the LinkedIn industry topical feature for example. Many readers are spending more time researching information on businesses. There will be many more in the future thanks to an ever increasing free agency, courtesy in part of the greater access to networks and technology at lesser cost.

The free back channel might indeed give publishers and editors a better set of hows on paid content.

[the chart is from a couple of years ago, but it does indicate what content we consume online]

Comments

[Jon]

I agree. The 'who' seems to me to be of paramount importance in online media ads. If the web could know that I am me, it would serve up the ads that I actually want to see and would most likely click through.

The tech is already here to do this better, it's just not being used that way yet.

BTW, why do all Typepad blogs now reject my email address in comments. "Invalid email address" is the only error I get. Maybe it will take the Yahoo.com address?

[Valeria Maltoni]

Jon:

Thank you for persevering through the error messages. The more I think about the back channel on content and what consumers would buy, the more I am convinced there is opportunity there.

With all these publishers and free agents, access to research and special reports at different price points might be of value.

[Jack Wojcicki]

Great piece Valeria. There will still be a gap in true accountability for marketers if there isn’t a way to verify readership. As marketers, when we build an online community we have to assume that the readership of the site/blog/article is indeed our target audience solely because they came to the site. That’s not deep enough data to work into true ROI measurement--something marketing execs need to address if they are to be taken seriously--or at the very least understood--by their C-level peers (see The Daily Grind http://dailygrind.brandinfiltration.com/?p=121 ).

[Valeria Maltoni]

Jack:

That is a good observation you bring forth. I think the way to go deep is by facilitating peer to peer interactions and by permission steps. It works with me and I am a very picky customer.

I had so much more to say about permission that I wrote a post on it. Thank you also for sharing a resource.