I agree that publishers who cling to print and defend it at all costs are usually missing huge opportunities to expand content in new, sustainable directions. Print needs defending, but not at all costs.
Posted by on 04/27 at 01:47 PM
Two angles, one message
In the past couple of weeks, I’ve encouraged associations to take heed from successful business-to-business publishers and “surround" their members with products and services that uncover and meet needs their members may not even know they have.
I’ve also written about successful and less-successful trade magazine strategies. Publishers clinging to print and defending it at all costs can miss the opportunity to shift content strategies while the resources are available to make a healthy transition.
For associations, these are two angles on a single message. Good trade (B2B) publishers are both competitors to and models for next-generation association publishers. Less successful trade publishers show the risks inherent in waiting to make a change.
Every association should have a multi-platform, member-supported content game plan in place today. Like budgets, plans change, but we need the plan first. Otherwise, we’ll continue to evolve the current models in an unplanned and incremental fashion. That’s a high-risk tactic.
Comments
For-profit publishers are particularly challenged in this regard. Digital ad prices and absolute dollar margins on the web are a lot lower than in print, and it can be hard to justify migrating to a smaller pie. My core argument here is that publishers unwilling to adapt are likely to soon compete with someone else who will.
Posted by Brian O'Leary on 04/28 at 10:03 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.