|
Newspapers have
roared back from the brink of doom at which they were tottering a decade
ago. As the 1980s ended, every pundit on the planet offered the certainty
that print was an archaic medium, and that newspapers were the most
hopelessly antiquated of all — sure to be supplanted by vague and
unspecified electronic wonders.
Wrong. Newspapers
are growing. There’s been some industry consolidation, but the papers that
survived the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s are, for the most part,
posting profits. The longer outlook is promising, too. Why else would
Hollinger Inc. and its division Southam Inc., both of Toronto, be willing to
lose up to $130 million before they project their national daily will break
even after five to seven years?
Newspapers’
resurgence has meant new territory for the traditional daily, covering the
day’s main stories in greater depth than its electronic counterparts can, as
well as offering analysis and a broader range of subjects.
There have been
changes in the possibilities for advertising, too. And the most fundamental
is happening right now, as dailies alter their basic structures to lower the
once-sacrosanct church/state wall between advertising and editorial
departments. The most dramatic example in the last year has been the Los
Angeles Times, which has put together teams of people from both advertising
and editorial to devise approaches and ideas that serve the interests of
both camps, giving readers more value for their money and advertisers more
bang for their buck.
That change hasn’t
been without controversy. Some decry the LA Times model as a prescription
for selling out. But that’s a minority view. Increasingly, newspapers know
that advertising is what keeps them alive, and managing to cater to
advertisers while maintaining editorial standards is a tricky but necessary
balancing act.
“Over the last
couple of years, we’ve been working very hard at all of our newspapers
between the business side of the paper and the editorial side to open the
gates to conversation and understanding,” says Gordon Fisher, Southam’s
vice-president, editorial.
It hasn’t always
been that way. Until just a few years ago, the concerns of advertising and
editorial only collided occasionally. And even then, it was a matter for the
publisher. Editorial people viewed the advertising staff as money-grubbing
whores. Advertising people viewed the editorial types as ink-stained prima
donnas, too caught up in romantic notions of their own importance to
countenance undeniable realities — no ads, no paper, to name one.
“The old
church-and-state used to exist in a number of ways,” Fisher says. “Not only
did editorial not talk to advertising people, but the editorial page people
wouldn’t talk to the news people. There were walls all over the place;
people prided themselves on not talking to each other. Those kinds of walls
have been blown away in all of our operations. They just don’t exist
anymore.”
Still, says Fisher,
“there are principles of journalism that journalists are proud of, mindful
of and should be. The best thing to tell an advertiser is that you have an
audience that trusts the newspaper for its credibility and its authority and
its truthfulness. I don’t think there is any benefit to advertisers if the
readership believes that advertisers have a pipeline to the news columns of
the newspaper. It’s in the interests of advertisers and the newspaper to
maintain that kind of credibility. But it is also in the interests of
readers and of the newspaper for cooperation to take place where it works in
the interests of advertisers and readers.”
Two examples Fisher
cites are New Homes and Automotive sections. A New Homes section seems, on
its face, to make complete sense. Here’s a chance to provide readers seeking
a place to live with vital reporting on real estate and its attendant
financial details. That kind of content delivers an audience primed for ads
from lenders, builders and real estate agents.
Fisher says when he
was managing editor at the Vancouver Sun, it didn’t have a New Homes
section. “There was a lot of discussion about the need for one,” he says.
“But do you do it through advertorial and control the content and probably
end up with not quite as good a section? Or do you involve the editorial
folks and the advertising folks and go to the customer together and say,
‘What are your needs?’ and then, thinking of the readers, put together a
package that serves both advertisers and readers? That’s been done very
successfully in a lot of ways, and there are huge homes sections now — not
only in Vancouver but in many other markets. That kind of collaboration in
the interests of the business goes on all the time.”
Both Fisher and
Toronto Star marketing VP Jeffrey Shearer point to automotive sections as
another prime example. In their infancy, many auto sections were put
together by advertising folks. Editorial types figured such work was beneath
their dignity. It might be necessary and make money for the paper, but they
didn’t have to like it, and they sure as hell weren’t going to work on such
a thing.
But as car sections
became bigger, journalists stepped in. There were opportunities for
reporting. And the more stringent journalistic work meant the sections were
more respected. That, in turn, made them better ad vehicles.
That strategy
reached a new level with the Toronto Sun’s coverage of the Canadian
International Auto Show Feb. 13-22. It focused on a different automaker each
day, without any loss of editorial integrity.
“A great example
recently was the launch of the Volkswagen Beetle,” says Cossette Media group
media manager Sheri Metcalfe. “All the guns were manned at the same time:
press releases happened at the same time as the newspaper coverage, the
outdoor and everything. That definitely was a success. There was coverage
beyond that helped create noise in the marketplace.” But Metcalfe says
cooperation between ad and editorial departments hasn’t improved as much as
newspaper people like to think it has.
“I used to work at
Chiat (TBWA Chiat/Day) on Shoppers Drug Mart,” Metcalfe continues. “There
were a lot of discussions about doing regular articles on health and
wellness and bringing Shoppers on as a main sponsor. At the time, it was
really cost-prohibitive. From an advertiser’s perspective, it’s a great way
to move along that relationship continuum with consumers. It gives them that
much more credibility, which is great, and it adds dimension to the brand or
the product. There are a lot of products — cereal or a soft drink — where
there’s not a lot to say.” Looking at these opportunities in newspapers
requires case-by-case or product-by-product judgment.
Metcalfe probably
couldn’t have approached the Toronto Star with her idea of Shoppers Drug
Mart’s serving as a “main sponsor.”
“We don’t believe in
sponsored editorial at The Star,” Shearer says matter-of-factly. “Editors
and ad people can work together to create better products, but not by
compromising either’s standards.”
Nevertheless,
advertising and editorial people at the paper have been working more closely
together to serve their common interests. A prime example came from the
editorial side. The Star’s sports editor approached management with the idea
of expanding the paper’s special section of golf coverage into a
free-standing magazine.
Co-operation between
ad and editorial staff led to this magazine in the Toronto Star.
“Advertising,
editorial and production people met as a task force for three months and
came up with a business plan,” Shearer says. “We’re publishing our second
edition this April — 108 pages. It’s profitable, and we increased the
circulation so that it can go to everyone who received that Thursday’s
paper.”
Those who decry the
greater ad/editorial cooperation as selling out ignore or forget a key fact:
if the paper’s editorial integrity slips too far, it’s no longer a
worthwhile vehicle. As much as advertisers might want to dictate the agenda
and demand preferential placement, too much of that destroys the paper’s
value as a worthy place for their advertising, and they know it.
“The fundamental
interest that I have is intruding on the lives of the readers and delivering
a message,” says The Media Company’s managing partner Doug Checkeris. “I’ll
push it as far as I can. I’ll take the centre of page one if someone will
let me have it. We’re pigs that way — we can’t help ourselves. I understand
the need to strike the balance of doing what’s right for the readers and
creating interesting and innovative and novel ways for advertisers to
deliver their message.”
Checkeris says
this kind of cooperation and coordination is new for dailies. As a result,
they lag behind media such as radio in their sophistication. “For example,
probably today on CHUM-FM (in Toronto), there’s a promotion that features
one of their advertisers, but also it features the advertiser’s product in
the promotion of CHUM-FM. I find the marketing people in newspapers don’t
have a strong voice in the marketing of the newspaper.” |
