Let that be a lesson to you
I just did an e-mail interview with Bill Mitchell of The Poynter Institute about what we're planning with the Web site. Violated those cardinal rules of PR-dom. I did it at the end of a tough day when I had other things on my mind, and I did it without someone reading over my shoulder telling me not to be stupid. He said it would be posted Wednesday.
Like The Business Journal, he asked about our business plan we have. My response:
Business plan? We don't need no stinkin' business plan! We're a bunch of journalists doing this, and we're approaching it that way. We figure if we can create good, interesting, dynamic content, then readers will come and will value the site. We leave it to our ad side to figure out how to make money off of that.
I don't mean to take the business implications lightly. Because our costs right now are minimal, we're just not worrying much about it. If we drive eyeballs to the site, someone will want to pay to reach those eyeballs. At least, that's the way we're thinking about it. But we haven’t tested it. Call me naive. On the other hand, we have a very good leader on the sales side of our online operation, so I’m not too worried.
I believe that energy around the Web site will naturally drive energy to the newspaper. I know that we're going to mine the Web site and reader discussion and contributions for stories and commentary in the newspaper. There is, to use that lovely word, a nice synergy.
Wednesday Update: Here is the actual interview.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
You should have more bad days if your response above is an indication of the fruits of your misery.
It is exactly right, of course. Try something, screw up, try something else.... Adjust... Piss and moan... Write about pissing and moaning... Adjust, lose some money, try something else... Just moan this time. Repeat.
I'm a 'seat of the pants' guy, and I love this, and I think you should hire me for the pissing and moaning part. Price, negotiable.
Posted on January 18, 2005 11:24 PM
Because our costs right now are minimal, we're just not worrying much about it. If we drive eyeballs to the site, someone will want to pay to reach those eyeballs.
Forgive my lack of tact, but your answer to Mitchell's question makes you sound like one of those optimistic Internet pioneers who were one minute rich (on paper) and the next minute shocked that their nonbusiness plans had fallen apart.
The belief that good content would draw "eyeballs" that would, in turn, draw advertisers was the pie-in-the-sky dream of many now-failed Web sites. There's so much more to it. It's so much more complicated, and it requires a solid business plan, just like the one your own brick-and-mortar News & Record business needs.
Maybe you just were being secretive and poo-pooing Mitchell's question, but I really think this new venture needs to be taken as seriously as any business move.
Posted on January 19, 2005 10:16 AM
If we drive eyeballs to the site, someone will want to pay to reach those eyeballs.
Is this the birth of faith-based publishing? A lot of talented people have followed this fallacy into bankruptcy.
The irony is that an advertising model based on eyeballs is as obsolete as the "old journalism" you're leaving behind.
Posted on January 19, 2005 10:42 AM
your honesty is refreshing. the key is low costs. if your costs were high you'd need to justify the investment. don't underestimate the "relative cost" of time investment - that is, would eyeballs be driven higher doing something else?
if you want justification for your gut reactions read BLINK by Malcolm Gladwell (aka the Tpping Point guy) - excellent stuff.
Posted on January 19, 2005 10:55 AM
The reason we can whistle past the graveyard right now is that the vast, vast majority of the revenue in this company comes from places other than our online operation. Michael's right. Our costs are low -- ambitions high, but costs low -- so we can easily afford to try stuff to see what works, works for us and works for the community.
Guided by a philosophy of serving the community rather than making money helps, too. The money will come at some point but right now, it's not our reason for being.
Posted on January 19, 2005 11:28 AM
"Blink" is only the latest weighing-in on impulsive marketing strategies. There's so much evidence that the best decisions aren't those planned longest and most comprehensively. This is an era of change, of innovation, and true innovation doesn't come at the end of a focus group session. This from Douglas Atkin (in a 2000 issue of FastCompany): "These days, you can't succeed as a company if you're consumer-led - because, in a world full of so much constant change, consumers can't anticipate the next big thing. Companies should be idea-led and consumer-informed."
I just learned of your "experiment." Excellent. And good luck.
Posted on January 20, 2005 3:00 PM
see this post from web guru seth godin (a world class blog IMHO) http://sethgodin.typepad.com/
Posted on January 20, 2005 5:56 PM