According to a recent Biz Report article by Kristina Knight, A new report from the American Press Institute and ITZBelden shows that the flagging print media industry can survive if it diversifies the channels it is offering its advertisers.
The API/ITZBelden report states that "media companies - newspapers, magazines, etc. - offering a broad range of services - online, print, etc. - serve the needs of local businesses better. Local businesses, according to the report, are looking for a kind of ad-agency-approach, which newspapers can offer by giving more choices to the local advertiser." The key, according to the report, "is in understanding where each local business will get the biggest advertising benefit."Forgive my cynicism, but is this really a surprise to anyone? I suppose it's nice that the report confirms what every print media outlet (and most marketers) have known for quite some time now, but I don't think this is a watershed moment.
There are two bigger issues that the print media industry needs to address to solve its advertising challenges, as I see it.
First, finding sales and marketing teams that know how to sell a diverse advertising portfolio; and second, finding a way to compete with other traditional and burgeoning marketing channels that are much less expensive.
The cost of a full page black and white ad in The Washington Post can go for as much as $100,000. For the same amount of money in the DC market, I can buy a fairly robust six month radio campaign with a frequency much greater than "1", or a very large, geo-targeted Facebook campaign generating millions of impressions and thousands of click throughs. To be fair, the price of a print ad will be less in smaller markets, but so will the cost of other advertising channels. Print advertising is still wildly overpriced for a dying medium even when packaged with digital offerings.
So - can print advertising survive through diversification? Sure. But at what point do you stop calling it "print"?
