There are many brands using their relationships with customers and marketing budgets as a force for good in the world. Just over the weekend I listened to a Barclays radio advert discussing how to protect yourself from Facebook tracking, and the FMCG space has made excellent inroads to wider societal issues such as supplying clean water, providing education and preventing children from joining gangs.
But I ask the question: with all this good work, should charity not start at home?
And I don’t just mean worrying about missions for good in the UK. Advertisers ultimately need to place their ads in front of eyeballs, for it to result in a product being bought. Ultimately this is why CEOs give CMOs a budget – to sell.
So for this mission to be successful, which in turn allows the wider societal missions to thrive, they need to be where the eyeballs are – and you probably don’t need to look at the latest Mary Meeker Internet report to know that all eyes are on the web.
Now you may be starting to wonder what I am about to write about – the web is literally plastered with ads. Publishers must be making a fortune, with all the video and display ads on every page all at the expense of our user experience (25 per cent of UK internet users have got so fed up that they use an ad-blocker). So why should they need any charity?
KleinerPerkins Internet trends report
Unfortunately the inverse is true. The reason web pages are plastered with these ads is because each ad is so cheap to buy – because it is so ineffective. Publishers have relied on their print subscribers to fund their entire operations. Annually, each print newspaper reader makes a publisher about £500. Each digital open access reader makes a publisher less than 50p – and print readership is declining 20 per cent year on year.
You would think the responsibility of saving the Internet should sit firmly with those profiting the most from its existence, but not providing any of the underlying value – the content.
But alas, this has not been the case. Even Sir Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the World Wide Web) in the FT has attacked Facebook, Google and Twitter for “promoting misinformation and ‘questionable’ political advertising while exploiting people’s personal data, in a stinging rebuke to the world’s biggest Internet companies”.
And don’t kid yourself that these guys care about anything other than their own interests (or their shareholders’). After all, in the blink of an eye Facebook went from being the provider of 80 per cent of traffic to publishers to less than 20 per cent with one change of an algorithm, in an attempt to keep readers within the Facebook ecosystem.
Or Google – whilst they have set up a fund of $300m to help publishers, they turn over more than $100bn ever year.
So not even a percent of their annual revenue goes towards helping content producers – the reason why we use Google Search after all!
If they really cared about publishers, they could have stop ad-blocking at source, by not allowing AdBlock Plus and others to integrate directly into browsers, reducing publisher digital revenue by 25 per cent.
So brands, if you are going to have an Internet to advertise on, you need to make a stand today and follow the old rugby referee line “use it or lose it”.
Because by my calculation, most print publishers will not survive beyond the next fifteen years on their current business model of true open access. They will have two choices – cut costs further, and reduce editorial desks right down to the bone, or put up a paywall. Both of which only damage the Internet further.
Well roll back to 2002 when the great team at regional publisher The Boston Globe had a team of c.10 journalists working on just one story, for months at a time. Today, the open access paper’s journalists have to write multiple stories a week – with barely enough time to spell-check, let alone fact check.
The actors from the film Spotlight,based on the Spotlight team from the Boston Globe
No wonder fake news is impossible for the average member of the public to spot.
Unfortunately with the democratisation of content production, consumers have yet to develop a healthy cynicsim to the content.
And whilst so far this has not impacted any individual, other than a few general elections and votes to leave Europe, it will soon.
The next wave of democratisation is retail, where virtual stores are popping up on Instagram, without even a website. Take a nice photo, add an ‘add to basket’ button, and you can buy and sell without even leaving Instagram.
A great enabler for entrepreneurship, as was the case with content (PlayBuzz, Vice etc.) – it will also be open to fraud. Consumers will need to get savvy quickly, the big platforms have already proven that they are only interested in profits.
So I think we can all agree that, in the famous words of Apollo 13, “we have a problem”.
I think we can also agree that for the greater good of democracy, and in turn society (or just because you actually need somewhere to put your ads!), we need to find a solution.
By asking just three simple questions to hold your vendors to account, and ensure your money is going into funding the internet, and not just someone’s pocket:
Do your tech vendors have direct relationships with the content producers of the internet? If they don’t, how can they be working with the content producers best interest at heart?
What business model do your tech vendors work on with the content producers? Rezonence works on a 70:30 revenue share, where we keep 30 per cent of the revenue, and give the publisher (who have done the hard work of writing long form quality content, the reason consumers use the internet) 70 per cent.
What is the yield of the pages where your ads are appearing? If it’s £10 per thousand impressions, and you have paid £1 for a video – don’t be surprised when ten videos are playing at the same time.
I think saving the Internet matters. So much so that four years ago, I left a well-paying job in investment banking at Citi to set up Rezonence – with the mission of funding journalism. I spend my days presenting exactly what I am speaking about here – to rooms full of people who completely agree that something needs to be done. But we need brands to do more than just listen and agree – we need them to act.
Charity needs to start at home!
This article was previously published in the Rezoncence blog.
More like this
The acceptance of the need to turn data into valuable information has reached a tipping point and will accelerate in the next three years, writes Thomas Howie, COO of events software platform Evessio.11th Feb 2019 Opinion
Rumours of the death of print media have been greatly exaggerated. While online publications have been experiencing tremendous growth in recent years, the fact is that 58 per cent of subscribers still describe themselves as primarily print-oriented, and 60-80 per cent of publisher revenues are still generated from print. It’s true that the majority of print-first subscribers are older, but that doesn’t mean younger audiences won’t pay for print. They will, and they do.16th Jan 2019 Opinion
At UPM Communication Papers we have a long history of demonstrating responsibility for the environment. But few people know that our sustainability agenda extends to also include a commitment to taking care of people and society throughout the value chain whilst simultaneously creating value for our customers through delivering products with high sustainability credentials.26th Nov 2018 Opinion
Forty-four per cent of the world’s news consumers get their news primarily via the smartphone, Reuters Institute states in its 2018 Digital News Report. But although technology has changed the distribution of news dramatically, the stories are still told in the same way as they were 100 years ago.19th Nov 2018 Opinion
As increasing numbers of news and magazine media publishers around the world look to reader revenue strategies for sustainable business growth, retention has taken on new importance across the magazine media landscape.11th Feb 2019 Features
The international magazine industry routinely sees big advances, large transformative strategies and exponential growth. But, changes don't always have to be big - small changes, like pebbles tossed in a lake, can have ripple effects.11th Feb 2019 Features
In December, FIPP and UPM announced the winners of the fourth annual Rising Star Awards. Amongst the accolades was the Special Jury Award, given to nine year old editor, Charlie Robinson, of Inside Out Publications.8th Feb 2019 Rising Stars
Loyal podcast listeners will stomach a few more advertisements to support their favourite show, a study by Westwood One found. Advertisers have successfully incorporated their products into podcast programming, yet podcasts’ ability to translate that willingness by listeners into substantial revenue still lies further down the road for the medium.11th Feb 2019 Insight News
“That’s what I thought. I’m ready for this. And I was excited. I had spent five years in digital; I was excited to be able to return to the media I had fallen in love with, which was print. That was the thing that defined my decision to become a magazine person in the first place. I had been a maniacal print obsessive for my whole childhood. And spending those years in digital really helped me have perspective on consumers and consumer behaviour.” - Kate Lewis, chief content officer, Hearst Magazines14th Feb 2019 Features
Visit our Youtube channelFIND OUT MORE
FIPP newsletters allow you to keep up with industry trends, research, training and events across the worldFIND OUT MORE
What’s happening now, what’s coming next