Recent happenings


Category Archives: Media

Tuned In: The Brain’s Response to Ad Sequencing

The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Temple University’s Center for Neural Decision Making conducted a neuromarketing study to understand the human response to the sequencing of digital and physical advertisements. (PDF download link.)

For example, if a consumer first receives an ad in the mail and later sees the same ad via email, did the order in which she viewed the ads influence the ads’ effectiveness? Would a reversed, digital-physical media sequence have resonated more powerfully with her? How about if she had seen two advertising mailpieces instead?

The results of the lab portion indicated that the physical-physical sequence was particularly effective at eliciting ad recognition, brand recall, and ad likability. […]

The field study campaigns, although not statistically conclusive, showed a higher consumer response to a physical-digital ad sequence compared to a digital-digital sequence… Other findings from the lab study have practical implications for marketers and the Postal Service: faces spurred higher recall rates than scenes or words, and the physical-physical sequence was best for brand-building messages.

Proof That Magazine Media Still Deliver the Best Results for Advertisers

Sadie Hale of FIPP reports on Linda Thomas Brooks’ (CEO at MPA, USA) FIPP World Congress keynote:

Based on her experience, and research conducted and collated by MPA, Linda made the strong case that no medium is more trustworthy (and trusted) than magazines when it comes to selling ads. “Our research proves that magazine brands help tell stories and sell products for advertisers,” Linda began. […]

The data shows that rather than abandoning print, people are just adding other methods of consumption — Instagram, Facebook, and other platforms, for example. “The lesson is, consumers are holding onto their print editions,” Linda said. […]

She used an impressive case study to demonstrate how magazine media delivers for advertisers. Out of a total of 80 measured campaigns, all 80 delivered positive ROI for the advertiser.

Print vs. Digital: How We Really Consume Our Magazines – 2017 edition

A survey by the Freeport Press found:

When it comes to our magazines, we read more, read longer and subscribe more often to print than digital. […]

25.8% of respondents had NOT read a print magazine this past month. Nearly 44% have read 1 or 2. 30% have read 3 or more print magazines.

59% of respondents had NOT read a digital magazine this past month. 27% have read 1 or 2. Only 14% have read 3 or more digital magazines.

45% do NOT subscribe to print magazines. 32% of respondents subscribe to 1-2 print magazines. 23% subscribe to 3 or more.

76% do NOT subscribe to any digital magazines. 17.2% subscribe to 1-2 digital magazines. Only 7% subscribe to 3 or more.

There are several other interesting conclusions in the survey too. Most striking to me, is that despite all the marketing to entice publishers to provide their news through social media platforms, there’s no long term relationship created that way:

75% of our survey takers do not follow magazine content on social media. 7% follow 1 magazine, 12% follow 2-3 magazines, 4% follow 4-5 magazines on social media. Only 1% follow 6-10 and about 1.2% follow more than 10 magazines on social media.

Why We’re Starting a Print Magazine After 20 Years of Publishing Digitally

Paul Petrunia at Archinect

We can satisfy our reader’s cravings while they wait for a render to complete, and still give them something more substantial to inspire and enlighten at the end of a long work day. As a publisher, we believe it’s our responsibility to not just entertain but also elevate and enliven the profession’s discourse by maintaining a high standard for editorial.

Variable Fonts Are Coming!

Sara Cannon at Range:

There is a lot of buzz going on in the typography industry. It’s all about the introduction of Variable Fonts into our ecosystem. It’s being developed jointly by Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, and Google. […]

But as Tim Brown mentions, we have a long way to go. We need designers to make and offer variable fonts, rendering engines that can show the fonts, browsers and design software to support the rendering engines, and ways for people to design with these new fonts. Even though the world is not quite ready for variable fonts, designers should certainly be excited about the future.

I was excited about Multiple Master Fonts in the 1990s, too. Like OpenType Variable Fonts, they were to provide a way to create the perfect font width, weight or optical size to fit a designer’s needs. Unfortunately, MM Fonts didn’t gain any traction from font designers who preferred to sell fonts in prepackages styles. Or, from software companies who found it difficult to incorporate the features into design software. Or, from designers themselves who found it simpler to pick the a readily available style than to muck about adjusting and creating a new style in separate software.

I can think of terrific uses for this new technology, from adjusting a font’s width to match a headline’s length to fine tuning a font’s weight to match different type sizes. But if OpenType Variable Fonts are to succeed, it will require everything to come together including font selection, price, and ease of use.

This Porsche magazine ad brings the 911 to life as a floating hologram

David Gianatasio writing for Adweek:

Working with ad agency Cramer-Krasselt, the automaker is running a special spread in about 50,000 copies of Fast Company’s April issue for a select group of affluent subscribers. One of those pages includes a small acetate prism, along with directions for assembly.

Placing the prism atop a tablet computer—while it runs a video from—brings shimmering 3-D footage of the latest Porsche 911 to life.

Blendle, the Dutch ‘iTunes for news,’ arrives in the U.S. with major partners

Well, if Facebook’s Instant Articles isn’t the answer, what’s an alternative? Blendle, the micro-payment digital newsstand from the Netherlands, is starting a 10,000 user/20 publisher beta test in the USA. It’s a concept that hasn’t caught on in the past, but Blendle hopes its combination of simplicity, solid recommendation engine, and no question refund policy will strike a cord.

Rick Edmonds at Poynter writes:

The appeal to the who’s-who of publishers is not surprising. If Blendle catches on, the partners’ share of the payments (70 percent) could be a welcome supplemental source of income from readers.

And even if the uptake is more modest, Blendle will introduce the branded content to a new audience that tilts to younger readers that might be converted to paid subscribers.

One of my favorite media analysts, Frederic Filloux of Monday Note, was initially a skeptic of Blendle but eventually concluded the startup has a fighting chance to become “something big” though a combination of good design and good timing.

Wanted: suckers to provide content for Facebook

Greg Krehbiel writing for his The Krehbiel Report on Publishing:

I’m still in Facebook detox right now, so take all this with a grain of salt, but I predict that in a few years publishers will look back on “Instant Articles” the way many of them currently look back on their decision to put content online for free. Both decisions will be seen as sucker moves from desperate and short-sighted execs who were fighting yesterday’s battles. […]

In any event, Facebook is kindly offering publishers a flashy version of yesterday’s business model (selling cheap ads against expensive content) so the publishers can give Facebook the raw material it needs to pursue tomorrow’s business model, which is user data.

Once again, publishers will be the suckers and kids with keyboards will take their lunch.

Greg is outspoken and he has an important point. Publishers shouldn’t give away their autonomy and reader data for eyeballs. It’s just not a long-term solution.

When to hold, when to fold: quitting social media

Conrad Lumm at Publishing Executive:

Your team’s been sinking hours a week into Pinterest (or LinkedIn, or Facebook, or Twitter, or Vine). You’ve gotten three comments: one generic “Nice photo” from a bikini-clad person in Miami who comments on thousands of posts a day, one from your cousin (a social media early adopter), and one from someone you’ve been doing business with for years.

When do you start seeing a return on your time? […]

Fortunately, there are a lot of ways you can pivot if you aren’t seeing a dogpile of likes, shares, and interaction. A few things you can try before calling it quits:

A new air of confidence for large magazine media brands

Tony Silber describing the American Magazine Media Conference for Folio:

Yes, the “media” part of “magazine media” was an emphasis, but there was a kind of cockiness in the air this week, based on a growing realization that magazine brands are really, really good at creating world-class content—across platforms. And aggregating audiences. And generating revenue. “Yes,” the unspoken sentiment seemed to be, “Facebook, Google, Buzzfeed and other new competitors lead in some ways, but they’re not as well rounded as we are, nor as skilled in content creation as we are, and they don’t have generations of brand loyalty working for them.”

Time Inc. CEO Joe Ripp took a swipe at the approach of many digital-only media brands when he said, “People who don’t want to write listicles and want to do serious journalism are attracted to Time Inc.”

Ouch, BuzzFeed.

Maria Rodale also made a reference to low-quality internet content, but more obliquely, when she said, “Consumers are willing to pay for media that’s free of bullshit.”

But Hearst’s Carey put it best. “Who would have thought that the magazine business was such a springboard to all of these other media forms,” he said, “but we’re seeing that.” / 855-MORR ART / 303-432-2922