Skip to main content

NYT Sells (Out?) Content to Facebook: Digital Myopia?


NYT Sells (Out?) Content to Facebook: Digital Myopia?

TThis week, the New York Times (NYT) signed a deal with Facebook to distribute instant articles through Facebook’s news feed. The NYT is sacrificing audience for ad revenue. Could this be a case of “digital myopia”? Is NYT making a mistake by defining its business as content distribution instead of the audience trust?

In 1960, Theodore Levitt coined the term “Marketing Myopia.” His main point was that businesses will do better in the end if they concentrate on meeting customers’ needs rather than on selling products. Levitt introduced the famous question, “What business are you really in?” And with it the claim that, had railroad executives seen themselves as being in the transportation business rather than the railroad business, they would have continued to grow.

This deal has all the symptoms of modern “marketing myopia.” The NYT in concert with five major publications (BuzzFeed, NBC News, and NatGeo are said to be also joining the rollout) are giving up “audience” control in exchange of the distribution and monetization of their content. While the deal allows the NYT to keep all the consumer data, nothing guarantees Facebook from changing the rules down the road. They have done it in the past. Facebook becomes the gatekeeper of the audience and NYT becomes just another provider of content.

On a positive note, you have to give credit the NYT for trying something new. They have been bleeding. The NYT app has not worked as expected. The Times gave up on charging $8 a month for its mobile news app, NYT Now, making it free in hopes of attracting more users and, ultimately, more ad revenue. This new Facebook deal opens the door to the nearly half of American Internet users who get their news about politics and government on Facebook, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last year.The NYT is also limiting this experience to 5 articles per week. Perhaps this is inevitable and the NYT doesn’t have much of a choice?

I get that the NYT doesn’t necessarily have a better option. But they need to focus on services, not content. Audience trust, not content, is the scare resource. If the NYT is in the audience trust business, maybe it could consider packaging and selling its content to businesses for decision making in a similar way that Bloomberg and Reuters do today? The NYT could become a provider of data and analysis for social, economic and political issues. This does not mean that the newspaper side won’t continue to exist. It just means that advertising and newspaper subscriptions are not the only way to monetize and survive in this digital economy.

Comments

  1. I’m a mother! I chose the sleepSEE nonsurgical vision correction system for my son. It provides Joe with clear and comfortable vision. And as a mother, I’m completely satisfied with sleepSEE! lenses for kid

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Curse of Advertising Resources

With more platforms, more products and more content who are trying to reach a disengaged audience, it is becoming harder and harder for brands to stand out. Conventional practices are no longer working. People don't watch TV as much as they used to, so they don't see commercials.  They don't click on banner ads. They don't pay attention to billboards ads. And they don't trust brands' messages. Part of the problem is that we are too dependent on traditional ad resources, which limits the realm of our creativity. To thrive in this new environment, we, ironically, need the freedom of a tight brief: what can you do with no budget for mass media?  Or limited marketing communications dollars?  To make a comparison, traditional advertising is a lot like countries and economies that rely on oil. This reliance handicaps innovation. Countries with a vast amount of natural resources tend to have (1) less economic growth and (2) worse development rates than other countrie…

The Irrational Power of Nudge Brands

Nudge brands are brands built on interactions, not attitudes. They are mostly defined by experiences, not TV campaigns. They are designed around people's inconsistencies and errors, not for machines. They are simple, not complex. They like to break things into small chunks that are less daunting than big tasks. They focus on changing behavior, not generating awareness and interest. The Paris metro system card is a nudge brand. It is designed against human errors. You can use the card in any direction. IKEA is a nudge brand. It uses the power of personal investment. The more involved people are in creating something, the better they feel about the end product. Ryanair is a nudge brand. It chunks the whole purchase process. They lock you in with a low 'seat price' first to get a mental commitment. Then, they start to add the extra charges in bite-sized 'chunks.' Hare Krishna is a nudge brand. It is built on the reciprocity rule by giving away daisies. People should …

The Irrational Challenger

Today, irrational is the new normal. People want products and services that break conventions and defy social norms. They have expectations that don't fit the traditional business model and feel irrational. However, they are very real and have created an irrational economy with irrational challengers. To thrive in this new playing field, business needs to be human, irrational. Think about it. Having a concierge to run our weekly errands for $99 month. Alfred. Ordering a healthy and delicious meal ready-to-eat under 7 minutes delivered at your door the next day. Hungryroot. Booking unlimited blowout appointments at salons in Manhattan for just $99 a month. Vive. (A typical blowout cost $40 to $90 inNew York City.) Renting a room on a month-to-month basis without going through the traditional methods of verifying applicants (e.g., two years of tax returns as proof of income).