In the fourth decade of digital media and advertising revolution, too many voices in the industry still insist on making a mess about the zero-sum game in advertising, where it can win only as others lose.
That built-in media assumption remains, even if it contradicts our own experience in the digital age. We all know those days, when media was flat, static and disconnected means of information delivery, which in turn will pay attention and the audience is sold to advertisers, is long gone. But we seem to be harder to accept that this means that now players have become interdependent, even codependent, web.
The complementary, interconnected nature of today’s media “press” no changes are converted by digital—has never been more clear. That’s why the launch of the new Google initiative (GNI) came as no surprise to me. Google, in conjunction with the Washington post, financial times, Harvard Shorenstein center, the local media consortium and many others come with tools designed to help increase publishers ‘ revenues from their content.
It’s simply not true that the two largest media players have not contributed to the reduction or even the disappearance of smaller, more traditional.
GNI will direct $ 300 million. to support three primary objectives: to raise and strengthen the quality of journalism, develop business models to promote sustainable growth and empowerment of information organizations due to technological innovation. Publishers expressed particular interest in the announcement of the new subscription tools that aim to make paywalls easier to navigate and potentially to help newsletter publishers to be more profitable online.
Personal interest can benefit others
Why Google did this? Just to be good citizens? If you dig a little deeper, we can see this clearly in Google’s self-interest. His business depends on the health of other media players. Google needs quality information to guide users, and publishers should expand their audience and readers are directed to them through Google.
Call me stupid, but who would still use Google if he sent us only unreliable content?
The same purposeful amplifier (accelerated Mobile pages), the draft certainly provides benefits to Google, as well as wider benefits for industry and consumers, and the pages loaded faster in mobile. Google a study from Forrester Consulting found that amp leads to 10 percent increase in site traffic and double the time spent on the pages. Not zero sum …
More powerfully told in the announcement of GNI the most part overlooked the fact—Google has announced that last year it paid its publisher partners $12.6 billion So, in all the panic tweets over the last couple of years about the dominance of certain players in the media, it would seem, people are not doing all the math—that’s $12.6 billion accrued in the reporting part of Google’s online ad sales were and again to other publishers, in addition to the $17.5 billion in network advertising revenues paid to publishers, as is evidenced here on pages 28 and 35 in the alphabet 10K for 2017.
Carefully read that 10K from the alphabet shown on the Platform takes home less than one-third the revenues that it receives from its targeted advertising, making it less similar to the OOO driver, at the expense of others and is more like a game for stability and partnership.
Supplements in the media
In this new world of media, phone each Publisher that sells advertising “direct competitors”, we lose sight of what actually has happened and is happening the Union of diverse things. The old theory edition that all sellers are competing for a limited pie of dollars for the final fragments the attention blew up before our eyes, when, for example, his attention fragmented across multiple forms of media from different regions at the same time.
The media business has moved so far away from rolled newspaper once a long time ago in our doors, I wonder if we do ourselves a disservice by calling it and no longer think of him as one. It’s simply not true that the two largest media players have not contributed to the reduction or even the disappearance of smaller, more traditional. All media are complementary. They need each other—platforms need publishers and Vice versa like never before. To get past the old thinking in the media, we need to find new ways of overcoming the gaps.
Technique is not going away, and each player should media believe that technology can tell us about consumers want and how they behave. Voices call for shipping charges or government regulation generally miss the point. The real way forward is partnerships that make efficient use of relevant knowledge of publishers and technology companies to enable them to serve consumers better together.
Learn from each other, to reflect the new reality isn’t a choice for those who want to survive.