So Microsoft guru Steve Ballmer has predicted the demise of media as we know it with some pretty bold statements in his recent interview with the Washington Post.
Steve feels that there will be no media that is not delivered via IP (the web) within a 8-15 year range. His particular point being the demise of print media but also revolutions in the delivery of TV as well. It's an interesting opinion but is it realistic?
Whilst I agree that the web does offer significant opportunities for a revolution in content delivery especially a media like TV, to predict that all print will go is simply crazy. It's a view I think he expresses for two reasons:
1/ Microsoft has a vested interested in trying to kill off non-web based media. They have invested massively in MSN and webmedia in general and have everything to gain by scaring the advertising market into shifting budget out of traditional media platforms.
2/ Steve's views are probably skewed since the print media Microsoft has used - IT, business and newspapers, have been the hardest hit by changes in advertising spend patterns.
Also it's simply not true that readers don't want to read print media anymore.
Talk to any publisher and they will confirm that while there is increases in web traffic, especially covering items like news, sports and social chit chat, the decreases in print magazine circulations and issue sizes is more to do with simple business economics than the readers massively changing consumption habits. It's declining ad spend that kills magazines and page counts not the readers (did you ever call a publication you liked and tell them to print less content?)
Look outside IT and newspaper segments and print appears to be doing pretty well. I recently reviewed magazines in the high household income, luxury lifestyle segment. There are magazines with circulations of less than 40,000 with folio sizes of over 250 pages. IT pubs rarely get above 60! Plenty of advertisers means plenty of pages.
Will IP based devices really replace print. Even today's coolest devices are hardly great platforms for reading long in depth articles, especially when the content is complemented by high quality glossy photography. There's also a generational aspect. Anyone over the age of 30 is still happy to read magazines. Even my younger staff sit down over lunch with trashy celeb magazines rather than continuing to stare a screen. It's just human nature.
So whilst not ignoring some definite trends...mostly driven by advertisers and not readers, the future is not so black and white. Just like TV didn't kill radio, a varied media landscape is here to stay.
As a parting shot, if Microsoft is so in tune with consumers desires, why are they now officially incorporating a "downgrade feature" into Vista . Hate to say I told you so....but I did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
First let me say that I switched from a PC to Mac because it was time to buy a new laptop and I didn't want to upgrade to Vista. Microsoft's XP extension is too little, too late.
Secondly, I also disagree that print media will be obsolete in 10 years. I subscribe to 5 magazines and read them cover to cover. My peepers can't take the eye strain when reading long articles on the interwebs. Plus I appreciate the portability.
Happy Friday!
print is so portable that you can read it on the toilet and elsewhere if you really want to. print will survive until they invent hygenic restroom terminals or until everyone has a personal device that works as well as the iphone but has a marginally bigger screen...not long then really.
If there are no readers then advertisers should not spend, right? How do you measure effectiveness of print advertising in business - how many mags get out of the bag?
"Pundits" have been predicting the demise of print since the internet first bobbed to the surface back in the late 80s (when it was still called Darpanet). This is just more of the same. Plus, considering that over half the world has never made a phone call (and it is therefore reasonable to assume they don't have a PC either) the global demise of print (and I say global because Microsoft is a global player with a global perspective) seems very unlikely.
Thanks for the comments.
To anonymous who worries about no readers. This is a common falicy. There are many people who still read magazines although the pressure is greater now on publishers to ensure the content is strong enough to be interesting given much of the "instant gratification content" like news is best delivered via the web.
The true test is to run campaign research to measure if the audience has indeed received and understood the message. At ouragency we have done this for numerous clients and without exception have been able to prove that print still does drive awareness, brand preference and core message to the audience.
If you wanted to know more please contact me directly.
Last I checked online marketing was still a nuisance to many of Microsoft's core customers who have enacted programs to block the messages out of their browser.
Online media boosts publisher margins and helps marketers sell programs - In othe words the benefits to us are obvious. But I'm yet to be convinced it helps the end recipient of these messages, or that companies can build brands as effectively via virtual media as through print / OOH / any other non-virtual medium.
The industry is in dire need of a credible third party platform to evaluate the qualitative aspects of online ad perceptions - the click ratios, cost metrics etc are becoming little more than a crutch that allow us to predict and secure easy victories quarter upon quarter.
Also why are we marketing "pros" accepting strategic advice from the head of one of the decades great failures in this space?
Hey Joseph
I agree that it's only when online and traditional media are judged according to the same yardstick that will we ever be able to give marketers solid feedback as to the relative strengths of each platform.
Our ROCO research attempts to do this and what we have seen is that print is significantly more efficient than online at driving core messages, awarness and brand preference but that online moves ahead during the consideration phase of the buying cycle. This follows traditional "gut feel" but it's nice to be able to show clients the quantifiable difference and help them establish common benchmarks applicable to both media platforms.
There's another problem with current online metrics - even those do a lousy job at giving credit to online campaigns as to the brand effect gained by running online ads. We are now starting to see even traditional online ads being dropped in support of pure performance based marketing.
Post a Comment