Bo Sacks sent an email about publishing execs selling advertisers on their ability to grow and engage audiences. That’s getting harder because platforms like Facebook are not promoting publisher content like they used to.
Which gives me a good opportunity to remind everybody not to rely on platforms.
In the article, Dominic Carter from The Sun says their audience growth has come from “giving the people what they want,” including coverage of TV celebrities. Does that mean titilating stuff? Who wore what on the red carpet?
At that point I stopped and wondered if this is precisely why media companies are having such trouble selling subscriptions.
The top of the funnel – traffic to the site – is “what people want.” It’s what the algorithm demands. An algorithm, remember, that is written by people who manage the whole advertising ecosystem. Their fundamental model is free content, supported by ads. (That they control.)
The techniques you will develop from following that model will attract eyeballs, and if you do it right you can attract a particular audience. But … what do you have when you’ve done that? Do you have people who are interested in buying something?
Magazine and newspaper sites struggle to get people to spend peanuts on an annual subscription. Meanwhile, people are spending $11 a month on Spotify, and $15 a month on Netflix.
Let’s go back to basics for a moment. If you can’t sell your product, here are two of the many questions you might ask.
- Am I offering something of value?
- Am I offering it to the right people?
Is it possible – I’m asking, sincerely – that the “build an audience for advertisers” mindset – and the techniques that come along with it – is a poor match for the “find people who might buy” mindset? Are you qualifying your prospects from a completely wrong-headed perspective?
From an ad perspective, you’re looking for a certain demographic with “an interest” in some subject. But I can have a vague, passing interest in all kinds of subjects where I have no interest at all in spending any money. There’s nothing “need to have” there. It’s just candy. A distraction.
Marketers often talk about the difference between “nice to have” and “need to have.” An ad-driven site doesn’t even pass the “nice to have” threshold. It’s lower than that. It’s “nice to take a quick look.” “Nice to distract myself while I’m waiting in line.”
If I want to sell content, I want to focus on things people need to have and are willing to spend money on.
So here’s what I’m wondering. Is it reasonable to expect an ad-supported website to draw an audience that’s interested in paying money?
Is it possible that you need a completely different mindset and approach to create a “top of the funnel” site for selling subscriptions?
Links
