Printed version of Independent to close

Having worked in newspaper circulation for 30 years ( until 2000) I find this very sad news. It sounds like the beginning of the end for printed newspapers. Not everyone can get access to the internet or wants their newspaper online. Sales seem to have dropped away drastically though and I guess it makes sense financially. When I use the train I still see more people reading newspapers or magazines than I do looking at laptops or tablets.

Having worked in newspaper circulation for 30 years ( until 2000) I find this very sad news. It sounds like the beginning of the end for printed newspapers. Not everyone can get access to the internet or wants their newspaper online. Sales seem to have dropped away drastically though and I guess it makes sense financially. When I use the train I still see more people reading newspapers or magazines than I do looking at laptops or tablets.

Really? Like who?

Really? Like who?

When I used to commute a paper and a coffee was the best part of the journey. Peering at a phone isnt the same.

Really? Like who?

The last house in rented just outside Maidstone didn't have a strong enough signal to get online regularly. There are plenty of people who live around the village I live in currently who cant get a decent connection. There have been plenty of reports about how poor rural internet connections are. Go check it out if you don't believe me.

Really? Like who?

Most of the population of Cornwall judging by my last visit. It was almost impossible to get data on my mobile anywhere in the county. I was amazed that anywhere in a developed country could have such poor coverage still. I can be in my cabin in the forest, surrounded by mountains and no town for 40 miles and still get 4G here, but get 5 miles from Plymouth...

Most of the population of Cornwall judging by my last visit. It was almost impossible to get data on my mobile anywhere in the county. I was amazed that anywhere in a developed country could have such poor coverage still. I can be in my cabin in the forest, surrounded by mountains and no town for 40 miles and still get 4G here, but get 5 miles from Plymouth...

Exactly. I expect that there are 3rd world countries who have better coverage than we do.

Only a few years ago the IOS commercial sales team were "selling" full page ad's as late space in exchange for pizza to be delivered to the office on Friday PM's so they could put the paper to bed and go to the pub. Amateur.

Last Sunday I saw the Sunday Times Driving section is being moved into the Mag, that will be the direct result of falling ad' revenue, pagination dropped to 12 pages the week before so the writing was on the wall there. Traditional media is in real trouble, media buyers now demand response metrics (easy to get from paid social/ search/ native and digital ad's) print advertising is a unquantifiable "luxury" that buyers are either pulling out of all together or demanding much lower rates.

I still buy the ST, at weekends the Sun now and again for a light hearted read on the train in the mornings and get the Standard in the way home (the "Wifi" SWT offer is not fit for purpose and like others have said, no way can you rely on 3/4G).

Loved the Indy's front pages BTW, they'll be missed. However at 40k paid sales per day there's no way they could sustain that.

You will know more about selling advertising space that I do Jackanory, but I would imagine a full colour page ad in the Sunday Times would be a lot more appealing than an ad online to both advertisers and consumers? How do newspapers make money online?

Having worked in newspaper circulation for 30 years ( until 2000) I find this very sad news. It sounds like the beginning of the end for printed newspapers. Not everyone can get access to the internet or wants their newspaper online. Sales seem to have dropped away drastically though and I guess it makes sense financially. When I use the train I still see more people reading newspapers or magazines than I do looking at laptops or tablets.

Ha. Me and SOG shared a field of industry for about seven years then.

Newspaper Circulation = where 0% growth will see you romp home with "Newspaper of the year" at the year end awards.

Ha. Me and SOG shared a field of industry for about seven years then.

 

Newspaper Circulation = where 0% growth will see you romp home with "Newspaper of the year" at the year end awards.

Wasn't there a time when virtually all of the titles carried the Newspaper of the Year on their mastheads?

Wasn't there a time when virtually all of the titles carried the Newspaper of the Year on their mastheads?

Quality/Colour/etc of the year.

In fairness that was nothing compared to the dark arts of circulation massaging.

Quality/Colour/etc of the year.

 

In fairness that was nothing compared to the dark arts of circulation massaging.

Were you there when "bulk sales" started off?

I can probably say this now but back in the 70s I used to put the figures together for The Times for ABC. We used to keep the returns notes in my draw and the Circulation Manager would tell me how many credit notes to put through each month depending on what sales figure he wanted.

You will know more about selling advertising space that I do Jackanory, but I would imagine a full colour page ad in the Sunday Times would be a lot more appealing than an ad online to both advertisers and consumers? How do newspapers make money online?

I worked briefly for the same digital agency as ericb on here and was out on a board meeting jolly thing when one of the chief ad people (for that is 80% of the cash for said company - producing and managing digital ad campaigns) said something very interesting. The analytics that are possible for digital adverts - what you look at, what you click on, what works, what doesnt', have driven down ad prices offline as well as it's proven how little effect these things can have on you as a person. Basically, the Don Drapers of the 50s / 60s / 70s pumped up the importance of marketing to massive levels where you could commission a multi-million $ campaign etc. due to the lack of any direct proof of what you are producing makes people buy it. In digital you get an almost immediate validation, and massive returns, but the costs are tiny - hence print dying (along with all the free news / twitter etc.)

To be honest, I'm an avid reader of it, but I've always felt that BBC news website is anti-competitive compared to say The Indy or whatever.

ANyway...

Having worked in newspaper circulation for 30 years ( until 2000) I find this very sad news. It sounds like the beginning of the end for printed newspapers. Not everyone can get access to the internet or wants their newspaper online. Sales seem to have dropped away drastically though and I guess it makes sense financially. When I use the train I still see more people reading newspapers or magazines than I do looking at laptops or tablets.

Just not surprised. Who buys these printer versions? On my daily commute, people pick up the free paper, Metro, or they're looking at papers on tablets/phones - I barely see anyone with a printed paper now except the FT.

I worked briefly for the same digital agency as ericb

As a side note - didn't know you two knew each other. ericb and I strolled round unchallenged in Seattle in our previous company before

As a side note - didn't know you two knew each other. ericb and I strolled round unchallenged in Seattle in our previous company before

To be honest mate, we never met - I think I saw him in the company video Christmas 2014 but I was working in a different bit and then buggered off last August

I worked briefly for the same digital agency as ericb on here and was out on a board meeting jolly thing when one of the chief ad people (for that is 80% of the cash for said company - producing and managing digital ad campaigns) said something very interesting. The analytics that are possible for digital adverts - what you look at, what you click on, what works, what doesnt', have driven down ad prices offline as well as it's proven how little effect these things can have on you as a person. Basically, the Don Drapers of the 50s / 60s / 70s pumped up the importance of marketing to massive levels where you could commission a multi-million $ campaign etc. due to the lack of any direct proof of what you are producing makes people buy it. In digital you get an almost immediate validation, and massive returns, but the costs are tiny - hence print dying (along with all the free news / twitter etc.)

 

To be honest, I'm an avid reader of it, but I've always felt that BBC news website is anti-competitive compared to say The Indy or whatever.

 

ANyway...

'Due to lack of direct proof'. I think you have massively underestimated the advertising industry there

And of all the papers to go shame it was first to go. Given their targets readers were young intelligent liberals you were probably going to becoming very quickly doomed in a digital era.

The Express etc only have a few years until all their pensioners die off

Been years since I last bought a paper. Same when I bemoan a great boozer going to the wall and realise i have given them a tenner this year.

I worked briefly for the same digital agency as ericb on here and was out on a board meeting jolly thing when one of the chief ad people (for that is 80% of the cash for said company - producing and managing digital ad campaigns) said something very interesting. The analytics that are possible for digital adverts - what you look at, what you click on, what works, what doesnt', have driven down ad prices offline as well as it's proven how little effect these things can have on you as a person. Basically, the Don Drapers of the 50s / 60s / 70s pumped up the importance of marketing to massive levels where you could commission a multi-million $ campaign etc. due to the lack of any direct proof of what you are producing makes people buy it. In digital you get an almost immediate validation, and massive returns, but the costs are tiny - hence print dying (along with all the free news / twitter etc.)

 

To be honest, I'm an avid reader of it, but I've always felt that BBC news website is anti-competitive compared to say The Indy or whatever.

 

ANyway...

You seem to be suggesting that digital advertising only works/is validated by people clicking on the ads.

I think the Don Drapers of the 50/60/70s and even those of today understand advertising better than you think.

The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return. And obviously advertising does work but not in the very linear way you think.

Were you there when "bulk sales" started off?

A bit of that but I was working in local/regional circulation at a national level, so the tricks were more about 7 day subscription bribery, punitive sale or return rules that no one understood and was responsible for more stolen "circulation" than any other single factor. We did a fair bit of dumping thousands of papers on co-operative vendors for them to "distribute" free, but funnily enough we'd always do that in the last week of June just in time for the end of the ABC period.

Bulks dumped at hotels and airports was more the preserve of the nationals, we tried it at local level but too fiddly when we could get 1-2% added on much more easily through sale or return management. Trebles all round.

You seem to be suggesting that digital advertising only works/is validated by people clicking on the ads.

 

I think the Don Drapers of the 50/60/70s and even those of today understand advertising better than you think.

 

The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return. And obviously advertising does work but not in the very linear way you think.

Well, to be fair to me, I'm a techny nerd not in advertising but was able to vicariously live out my Mad Men fantasies for a year through the actions of my colleagues

I think the general gist was that digital is driving the cost of "old" advertising down through improved analytics on what actually works (not just clicks on ads) and obviously the ability to target people better than a TV ad campaign (as so much is tracked it's easier to get that click by offering more relevant ads), and obviously an ad that might only be seen for 5 seconds is not going to cost that much.

Still, I've quit now so I'm just here to be marketed at ;-)

The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return. And obviously advertising does work but not in the very linear way you think.

Main problem being so many watch it at 32x speed these days.

Main problem being so many watch it at 32x speed these days.

It's not getting easier but still the most effective - the vast majority of TV is still watched live so you can't escape the ads on Corrie. Well, I can. Never watched it.

Well, to be fair to me, I'm a techny nerd not in advertising but was able to vicariously live out my Mad Men fantasies for a year through the actions of my colleagues

 

I think the general gist was that digital is driving the cost of "old" advertising down through improved analytics on what actually works (not just clicks on ads) and obviously the ability to target people better than a TV ad campaign (as so much is tracked it's easier to get that click by offering more relevant ads), and obviously an ad that might only be seen for 5 seconds is not going to cost that much.

 

Still, I've quit now so I'm just here to be marketed at ;-)

The main issue is that micro-targeting is over rated. Actual buyers come from much broader ranges than profiling will give you - the biggest brands starting point for advertising is "everyone that could buy this category" which is often far closer to "everyone" than a segment of a segment of a demographic group.

Brands grow by attracting light/casual buyers.

Also, clicks are over rated. Aiming to get clicks is not the same as getting sales. It's a false metric in most sectors.

Even brands that are seen as entirely Web based - insurance comparison sites, say - their entire brand equity and awareness is built from memorable old-advertising TV campaigns - wall to wall meerkats, dancing robots and comedy opera singers. Analyse that!

The main issue is that micro-targeting is over rated. Actual buyers come from much broader ranges than profiling will give you - the biggest brands starting point for advertising is "everyone that could buy this category" which is often far closer to "everyone" than a segment of a segment of a demographic group.

 

Brands grow by attracting light/casual buyers.

 

Also, clicks are over rated. Aiming to get clicks is not the same as getting sales. It's a false metric in most sectors.

 

Even brands that are seen as entirely Web based - insurance comparison sites, say - their entire brand equity and awareness is built from memorable old-advertising TV campaigns - wall to wall meerkats, dancing robots and comedy opera singers. Analyse that!

Do you work in advertising?

Do you work in advertising?

No, knowledge from what the trade would call client side.

Main problem being so many watch it at 32x speed these days.

Yes, true. Ad blockers are doing a lot of damage to the online model though, and then there's the annoying discovery that a lot of online ads simply don't deliver.

In any case, the main driver over the years of lower prices in TV advertising has been competition from multiplying channels. Before November 1982 there were just three territorial channels. Now there are hundreds of cable, satellite, online and digital (including formerly terrestrial) channels, most of which are competing for the same-ish business (some TV advertising is decidedly 'niche').

In any case, ITV, which still takes the largest slice of TV advertising in the UK, is doing rather well, especially in ad spend. At least a good part of the reason is the huge, new-money spending by online companies (from the cost-comparison and internet-of-things sites to Apple and Google). Without the kind of brand-building that ad spending on TV does, and does in a way that digital advertising does much less well, a lot of new tech companies, for example, would struggle to get critical mass.

Besides, try booking an ad slot around Coronation Street - or in the US the Super Bowl - and you'll find out it's really not so cheap when TV is doing its water-cooler thing.

A bit of that but I was working in local/regional circulation at a national level, so the tricks were more about 7 day subscription bribery, punitive sale or return rules that no one understood and was responsible for more stolen "circulation" than any other single factor. We did a fair bit of dumping thousands of papers on co-operative vendors for them to "distribute" free, but funnily enough we'd always do that in the last week of June just in time for the end of the ABC period.

 

Bulks dumped at hotels and airports was more the preserve of the nationals, we tried it at local level but too fiddly when we could get 1-2% added on much more easily through sale or return management. Trebles all round.

I went to a few of the locals national conferences in the 90s tasked with nicking ideas from you guys. I presented a paper on subscriptions to the Board but they weren't interested in those days. Did you used to go to the ACE Christmas lunches? Many a liver will never recover from those!

I wonder how long an online Independent will last. It's a shockingly slow website to load because of all the adverts it carries. Something it has in common with the Portsmouth News.

Readership/hits of online newspapers seem to be falling year on year. I left newspapers in 2004 and at the time they were starting to get excited by online possibilities but we (the old school print side of the business) couldn't work out how that would make money. I still cant get my head around it. When I was at The Guardian the split was about 50/50 between the revenue from sales and the ad sales revenue. I get that the overheads are reduced but so is the income now from what I can gather.

I still buy the ST, at weekends the Sun now and again for a light hearted read on the train in the mornings and get the Standard in the way home (the "Wifi" SWT offer is not fit for purpose and like others have said, no way can you rely on 3/4G).

Nothing like a balanced diet. Still, it explains a lot....

The main issue is that micro-targeting is over rated. Actual buyers come from much broader ranges than profiling will give you - the biggest brands starting point for advertising is "everyone that could buy this category" which is often far closer to "everyone" than a segment of a segment of a demographic group.

 

Brands grow by attracting light/casual buyers.

 

Also, clicks are over rated. Aiming to get clicks is not the same as getting sales. It's a false metric in most sectors.

 

Even brands that are seen as entirely Web based - insurance comparison sites, say - their entire brand equity and awareness is built from memorable old-advertising TV campaigns - wall to wall meerkats, dancing robots and comedy opera singers. Analyse that!

That's not entirely true though.

Firstly it's easy to measure reach of a campaign, you ask questions/ask for feedback, you force a little box which says "where did you hear about us", you ask people in the street, you look at the dataset in your analytics tools for visitors that have arrive straight at the site etc etc etc.

In my last 3 online ventures, what you would call traditional advertising is actually a much smaller segment than driving traffic through SEO/SEM and ad retargeting. All these companies have absolutely enormous budgets dedicated to SEO & SEM.

You said; "The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return."

Take booking.com. Not that many years ago, no one had heard of them, knew about them or anything. They acquired a shed load of hotel inventory and "search-engined" the f**k out of it. They grew through SEO & SEM ONLY, to become the biggest hotel booking engine on the internet, while rivals such as Expedia were playing catch up, trying to advertise in printed media (foolish) and on TV. There is *some* value, but nowhere near the amount of value as SEO, SEM and click-through ads using relevancy to retarget.

Ad clicks are not a false metric, its just the start of the funnel. If your bounce rate stays the same and your conversion stays the same, if you're attracting more ad-clicks, you'll make more sales, simple as that. Of course also having someone to own the conversion and site/page bounce rates will drive revenue up higher, but it's certainly not a false metric.

I don't know what your background is, but FWIW I do know and respect so22saint's industry achievements.

That's not entirely true though.

Firstly it's easy to measure reach of a campaign, you ask questions/ask for feedback, you force a little box which says "where did you hear about us", you ask people in the street, you look at the dataset in your analytics tools for visitors that have arrive straight at the site etc etc etc.

In my last 3 online ventures, what you would call traditional advertising is actually a much smaller segment than driving traffic through SEO/SEM and ad retargeting. All these companies have absolutely enormous budgets dedicated to SEO & SEM.

 

You said; "The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return."

Take booking.com. Not that many years ago, no one had heard of them, knew about them or anything. They acquired a shed load of hotel inventory and "search-engined" the f**k out of it. They grew through SEO & SEM ONLY, to become the biggest hotel booking engine on the internet, while rivals such as Expedia were playing catch up, trying to advertise in printed media (foolish) and on TV. There is *some* value, but nowhere near the amount of value as SEO, SEM and click-through ads using relevancy to retarget.

 

Ad clicks are not a false metric, its just the start of the funnel. If your bounce rate stays the same and your conversion stays the same, if you're attracting more ad-clicks, you'll make more sales, simple as that. Of course also having someone to own the conversion and site/page bounce rates will drive revenue up higher, but it's certainly not a false metric.

 

I don't know what your background is, but FWIW I do know and respect so22saint's industry achievements.

Not familiar with that case study, but I do know Booking.com spend a fair old amount on TV too.

The bottom up growth of social media/other sites are interesting exceptions and not really my area of knowledge (I'm not pretending to be an authority on much but know what I know from many years in Brand at a high spending global FMCG business whose entire existence is founded on building core brands through year long TV support.)

TV advertising still delivers the highest reach, most effectively than any other medium which is why the biggest brands in the world would or should always maximise that part of their advertising budget first. It's not as exciting as click throughs or search engines but I've seen plenty of data that shows it to be the case. The world will continue to evolve but "TV" (in whatever form) will reign supreme for a while yet.

Not familiar with that case study, but I do know Booking.com spend a fair old amount on TV too.

 

The bottom up growth of social media/other sites are interesting exceptions and not really my area of knowledge (I'm not pretending to be an authority on much but know what I know from many years in Brand at a high spending global FMCG business whose entire existence is founded on building core brands through year long TV support.)

 

TV advertising still delivers the highest reach, most effectively than any other medium which is why the biggest brands in the world would or should always maximise that part of their advertising budget first. It's not as exciting as click throughs or search engines but I've seen plenty of data that shows it to be the case. The world will continue to evolve but "TV" (in whatever form) will reign supreme for a while yet.

TV is weird though isn't it - at the moment I mean.

For example, I can't work out (as I'm not in that exact sector) whether sponsoring a programme has more value than being in the ad break? I couldn't tell you for example, what ads are currently running as I watch everything on catch up or boxsets. BUT, I could probably have a good stab at guessing/remembering who sponsors programmes.

But then, I know what brands I like and from the sponsorship I do remember, I'm not certain anything has changed my purchase - certainly not online, but maybe subliminally in store maybe for the rare occasions I'm in a shop. It certainly would be interesting to know more about how TV advertising works, as I have no doubt about the reach, but it's how it "converts"?

I see that the Echo won't allow you to read their online version if you use Ad-block. You

have to disable it first, I did that but as I also use Ghostery I still don't get many adverts.

Also some websites don't allow you to read "comments" unless you disable Ghostery so I do

disable it but only temporally but then never click on any adverts that appear.

TV is weird though isn't it - at the moment I mean.

 

For example, I can't work out (as I'm not in that exact sector) whether sponsoring a programme has more value than being in the ad break? I couldn't tell you for example, what ads are currently running as I watch everything on catch up or boxsets. BUT, I could probably have a good stab at guessing/remembering who sponsors programmes.

 

But then, I know what brands I like and from the sponsorship I do remember, I'm not certain anything has changed my purchase - certainly not online, but maybe subliminally in store maybe for the rare occasions I'm in a shop. It certainly would be interesting to know more about how TV advertising works, as I have no doubt about the reach, but it's how it "converts"?

From what I've seen, sponsoring shows is a poor use of spend. The brand I worked on a couple of years ago sponsored ITV Saturday nights for six months (we had a contract for a lot longer but bailed when we saw the ROI was awful). There's an inbuilt narrowness of tying yourself to the viewers of one particular programme or strand, and there are annoying things about what you can or can't say in those bumpers which makes for poor copy.

Standard ads still the most effective, aired consistently to the widest possible reach within the buyers of the category.

In most categories TV ad spend (and, by extension all trad advertising) isn't really about driving immediate action or conversion. The desire to see immediate returns are what drives weak marketing departments to pull ad spend, or, much worse, keep changing their ad copy.

Generally, advertising is about growing awareness and building memory structures that can hang about for a long time. If you are the first deodorant/pasta sauce/hairspray/family saloon/insurance website most people think of, then that's half the battle won, and that's what trad advertising can do. Mental availability.

It's not all the battle and I was thinking about your booking.com example and I think it's wrong to compare it to advertising as such. it's actually more like something I am more familiar with - securing space on supermarket shelves, which is something that works in much the same way as being the first item searched for online. Being physically available, making it as easy as possible for the shopper to purchase. My current and previous employers will lob just as much if not more cash on that as they do TV spots.

Be top of mind when you're not shopping, be the first thing you see when you are. That's the core of marketing most brands from my perspective.

Anyway. Match of the Day.

In the main, I agree with CBF observations. Different media benefits different campaign objectives, so no right or wrong answers. TV generally good for softer brand building, audience dependent. Digital great for more specific call to actions and tracking. But most well managed campaigns will be delivering integrated but varied assets across a range of media (and press still has a role in that media mix, dependent on objectives). TV costs more, and you need higher spend to get any impact, whereas with digital (and bear in mind that's a very broad catch-all term) you can achieve on a smaller budget, but unlikely to change brand perceptions on a larger scale. But to achieve that, you should be looking wider than just advertising anyway. I'm no media buyer, and a great media buying agency collaborating with the ad agency is worth their weight in gold. They will consider media mix based on what you need to achieve/who you want to reach/what your creative solution is. The difference these days is there are more options than say ten years ago - which is great, but more complex.

Well a new newspaper is being launched by the Mirror called New Day to compete with the 'i' priced at 25p apparently, does this spell the end for the mirror?