Today I was reading an article from the January/February issue of The Atlantic called End Times (and the unnecessarily snarky response from the NYT, here). A reader pointed it out to me the other day, and it’s well worth a read. The particular statement that jumped out at me though was this:
If you’re hearing few howls and seeing little rending of garments over the impending death of institutional, high-quality journalism, it’s because the public at large has been trained to undervalue journalists and journalism. The Internet has done much to encourage lazy news consumption, while virtually eradicating the meaningful distinctions among newspaper brands.
The thing is, it’s true: the public at large has been taught by overly-modest and marketing-averse journalists that journalism, you know, *shrug* isn’t all that much of a big deal.
I have a much different perspective on marketing than mosts journalists I know. Maybe that’s because a lot of what I do basically is marketing. But let’s think about it for a second. Yes, there’s evil marketing, and nobody wants to be a part of that (at least not by name).
But there’s also good marketing.
Let’s say I go visit a farmer’s market where someone is selling crepes. I’ve never heard of crepes, and they look kinda weird, so I’m not really sure I want to try one.
But the guy behind the counter (he’s marketing—or selling—his business) starts telling me about how they’re made, the ingredients, what some of the more popular ones are, how they taste…and pretty soon they start sounding like a pretty good idea to me.
So I buy one. And I love it.
I’ve been had, right? Because I was marketed to. Because someone sold me the crepe.
Wrong (at least I think so).
Two days ago I went online and subscribed to the paper edition of The Seattle Times. I realized that if I had a newspaper on my doorstep it might help me a) get up and b) eat breakfast in the morning, two habits that I’ve been wanting to develop for some time now.
But if you look at their home page, where do you think the “subscribe” link is? Here’s a screenshot (click to biggie-size):
Good luck finding it, because it isn’t there. The link is actually a tiny little thing in the footer of the page, labeled “home delivery” (a non-obvious phrase in my mind). I’m lucky I found it. They’re lucky I found it.
I wonder how much of the subscription loss they’ve suffered is because the one product they sell is damn near impossible to buy on their web site. That’s like going to the Google homepage and noticing that they’ve hidden the search box on some sub-page.
Not all marketing is evil. In fact, from a business perspective, most marketing is essential.
Don’t forget to check out the related posts listed below, or subscribe to the Eat Sleep Publish RSS feed! We have a good time, here.
Eat Sleep Publish is a Seattle-based blog that explores the difficulties and opportunities currently facing the publishing industry. 
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The other thing that’s hard to find on news web sites (and I’ve been looking at lots of them lately) is how to contact them. Usually, the “contact us” link is buried at the bottom of the home page along with “home delivery.” Or, it’s hidden inside an “about us” link.
And that’s just not good. One of the most prominent things on the page should be how to get in touch and talk with the site and its journalists. And it should be labeled “Talk with us” or something else more user friendly.
And you’re right: It should say “subscribe” and be at the top (just like it is on seattlepi.com).
@Jason – I’ve been trying to pen a good “news brand marketing” post for a long time — this is a point I never really considered (probably because I don’t pay a lot of mind to newspapers) and it’s a good one. Journalists seem oddly reluctant to take credit and promote themselves. In my imaginary post, I looked at it from the standpoint of advertising externally — billboards, stickers, t-shirts, etc. I can’t turn left on Capitol Hill without seeing an Apple logo stuck to someone’s bumper or stitched to someone’s backpack. And whenever I see it, I think, “Ooh, Apple. They’re cool,” whether I like it or not. The only time I ever have that experience with a news brand is when I occasionally see someone in a coffee shop reading a print product. And even then, it’s more an issue of, “Gee, I’ll go home and read the Times and then maybe log onto Twitter to talk about what I read.”
Which leads to the point that @Curt M. made — yeah, there should be way more entry points to talk with staffers. We’ve been pushing our writers and editors to be more active on our comment boards. Like anyone we get people asking questions or even just coming after us — so why not reply to some of those? I think it’d be even better if there were a way to highlight staffers on the boards (like having a different colored backdrop for their comments). That would provide an easy way of showcasing how active your staff is.
Another thought: Building community also builds your brand. All those Apple logos aren’t just because people love their iPhone. It’s because they consider themselves part of the Apple “community:” Other smart, cool people who love and use Apple’s products. News sites need to develop that kind of community, too.
@Curt M. – Exactly. Case in point, CHS’s crow buttons.
Paul – Sounds to me like you have a really strong grasp of the concept. I think shading the backgrounds on staff comments is an awesome idea (like the way my comments have a different color on this blog).
Keep me posted on how branding concepts evolve at PNWlocalnews.com, it may be something I should write about
Curt – As usual, I think you’re pretty spot-on: building community is a great way to build a brand, and touch points are a great way to build community.