Scan-N-Land

Brands can't save newspapers

The Independent published an in-depth look at news industry leaders' views on the future of news media. While most (if not all) of those interviewed for the story were based in the United Kingdom, many of the lessons also apply to U.S. media.

The prognosis is grim: they all seem to agree that newspapers are in trouble unless they can find A) a better revenue model than selling ad space and B) a means of retaining a readership in an Internet environment bursting at the seams with highly-specialized news producers.

With regard to the latter, several of the commentators said effective branding could save them. Jon Gisby from Yahoo! Europe sums up this perspective:

Do [newspapers] have a future? Absolutely, but it's a future that looks quite different from the one they've been used to. When you are putting content online, you need to use the brands that newspapers have around authentic news and quality journalism in a medium that's more democratic and interactive and slightly less tablets of stone.

If the industry's hanging its hopes on effective brands, then journalist James Surowiecki has news for them:

A study by retail-industry tracking firm NPD Group found that nearly half of those who described themselves as highly loyal to a brand were no longer loyal a year later. Even seemingly strong names rarely translate into much power at the cash register. Another remarkable study found that just 4 percent of consumers would be willing to stick with a brand if its competitors offered better value for the same price. Consumers are continually looking for a better deal, opening the door for companies to introduce a raft of new products.

"Brand equity" -- the value of a brand -- ultimately rests on the quality of the product. Newspapers have to make sure that they're doing quality reporting and commentary because that's what's going to distinguish them from all the rest of the news producers in the blogosphere and elsewhere online.

- Milo Sybrant

posted by Mark H. @ 11/15/2006 05:42:00 AM