Four Steps to Successfully Negotiate Rates with Influencers

There’s more hype surrounding YouTube Influencer Marketing than ever. Even though collaborations with creators on social media have driven results, Influencer Marketing is still a young industry with rapidly shifting benchmarks: especially when it comes to compensating creators for the work they do.

At the end of the day, it’s always a negotiation between brand/agency and creator. However, here are some helpful tips that will help you and the influencer you’re building a relationship with leave the negotiation table on good footing:

Step 1: Find a Baseline: Views vs. Reach

Reach

First, figure out what you want: do you want to reach, do you want views, or do you want both?

Influencers determine their monetary worth based on their subscriber count or the views they get. Expect to pay about $1,000 USD for every 100,000 subscribers an influencer has on YouTube.

A good rule of thumb to abide by as you do your influencer research is to take a look at how many views on average an influencer’s videos are getting. If you see that views on a creator’s content — on average — represent roughly 20% or more of the total subscriber count — then you can safely assume that their subscribers are real and the content isn’t stale.

Don’t feel any pressure to go big either. Try booking a diverse portfolio of creators and test what works best for your brand. As we’ve seen through hundreds of campaigns on the Grapevine Influencer Marketing platform, micro-influencers yield increased engagement.

Views

If you’re leveraging an Influencer Marketing Platform, you should be able to access insights to metrics such as clicks, click through rates (CTR), cost-per-view (CPV), and more. These are additional tools to help you negotiate for better pricing.

Take a look at the performance of influencers with similar follower counts that work in the same industry and base expectations and benchmarks from there. There is a strong correlation between view count and cost. For example, breaking 100,000 views costs $3,000 USD. Expect to see creators negotiate up based on their views. Likewise, you can use view counts to negotiate down if you need to.

Whether it be views or reach, it really all comes down to how well your targeted influencer can sell. If a video gets 10,000 views but yields 500 conversions, then that’s a success! This is only the beginning of your negotiation process. It’s critical that you use this step as only a baseline for your booking process. The best marketers do their due diligence to ensure that these influencers actually drive a return on your investment.

Step 2: Negotiate Content

Have a clear idea or vision of what kind of content you want the targeted influencer to share. Do you want just a shout out at the beginning of a video or something more integrated? This impacts how much compensation a creator might ask for to promote your campaign, product, or brand. If you need conversions: be sure to equip the creator exclusive (and maybe even generous) offer to help drive more leads.

If you want to build a successful collaboration: give yourself and the creator some time to volley back and forth between ideas to ensure that your content actually resonates. Influencers are busy and the best ones usually have packed content calendars. Build campaigns around a 4-6 week buffer before content actually starts being published. This is especially important to keep in mind if you’re creating campaigns based on holidays or special events.

Step 3: Track and Test

If you thought booking and scheduling content was the end of your negotiation process: you thought wrong! Assign an internal champion on your team to keep close track of the engagement your collaboration is driving with a close eye on clicks and click-through-rate.

If it’s not driving the engagement you need, it might be worth re-negotiating with the influencer, finding someone new, or adjusting your offer/content produced.

Step 4: Collaborate Again

When you work with an influencer you are also building a relationship with someone that could potentially even be a brand ambassador. Think of how some NBA players are either fiercely loyal to Adidas or Nike. That’s all because of the relationships they’ve built with their contacts at those organizations.

read more here: www.thevideoink.com

Study: Growing consumer desire for aggregation

Findings from The Best Bundle: Consumer Preferences in a Peak TV World from Hub Entertainment Research point to increasing consumer frustration with the rapid expansion of TV viewing options.

Highlights from the study:

– Consumers find themselves forced to create their own TV bundles to satisfy their needs: Only those who subscribe to at least three TV services (pay-TV, SVoDs, virtual MVPDs, etc.) are more likely than not to feel that their viewing needs are “very well met”.

– But the work required to choose between services is becoming more onerous: Only 22 per cent say that the growing number of TV services makes it “easy to choose what’s best for me” (down 11 points, from 33 per cent in 2017).

– This is driving consumers to lean toward providers that offer aggregated solutions: Among those with a preference, more than twice as many would rather access all their TV content from a single source (69 per cent) than access sources individually (31 per cent).

Even with an aggregated solution, viewers only want to pay for the content they know they’ll watch: Consumers would overwhelmingly prefer services that let them choose and pay for just the networks they want (43 per cent) over services that offer a large number of networks in a pre-set bundle (10 per cent)—even if the larger bundle means a lower cost per network.
“The novelty of having so many options for TV content is wearing off. Now consumers want simplicity and efficiency,” said Peter Fondulas, principal at Hub and one of the authors of the study. “Bundles that aggregate content from multiple sources are highly desirable – but only if those bundles include little or no content they know they won’t watch.”

“Consumer preference for an à la carte TV offering has never been higher,” said Jon Giegengack, co-author of the study. “It’s not the price of traditional big TV bundles that turns consumers off, so much as how much of what they pay goes to content they don’t use. Viewers would rather have a bundle comprised of just the content they care about – even if it means they have to pay more for each network”.

read more here: hubresearchllc.com

Roku transitions to an ad-driven business

Roku had a very strong finish to 2017, with strong growth in active users and revenue from its platform business. The company seems well positioned to take advantage of the expansion of the online TV market, despite a tightening streaming media player market.

Q4 2017 sees strong growth in Roku’s key strategies

One of the key strategies for Roku is to grow the base of active accounts. On that basis, 2017 was a very successful year. Active accounts increase 44% year-over-year (YoY) to 19.5 million. The amount of streaming time also increased sharply, up 54% to 4.3 billion hours. However, on a per active subscriber basis, viewing was flat over the previous quarter, though up from one year ago. In Q4 2017, the average active user streamed 2 hours and 25 minutes per day. In Q3, average users streamed 3 minutes more and in Q4 2016 16 minutes less.



Player market tightens

In the earnings call and the investor letter, Roku was clear that it does not view player sales as a key engine of revenue growth for the company. The player is a tool to help the company expand its user base:

“Our primary focus in selling players is to increase active accounts; we are not focused on maximizing hardware revenue and hardware gross profit.”

In an ultra-competitive market like streaming media players (SMPs), there is little opportunity to charge a premium price. Apple is trying with Apple TV but not seeing much success. Roku lowered the price of its premium player, the Ultra, from $129.99 to $99 in the fourth quarter. That help to boost unit sales volume by 25%, according to Roku’s CFO Steve Louden, but led to a 7% decline in player revenue versus Q4 2016.

Even though rivals are selling their SMPs at close to cost, Roku continues to make 9.5% gross margin on its player business. Last year in the same quarter gross margins were 13.3%. Expect margins to continue to tighten this year.

Platform revenue surges driven by advertising

Platform revenue continues to grow strongly. It grew 129% YoY to $85.4 million in 2017. It accounted for 45% of total revenue, up from 25% in 2016. The company expects it to overtake platform revenue in 2018. 75% of platform revenue comes from advertising and 25% from platform licensing.

Though it does not provide much revenue, license sales are an essential part of Roku’s strategy. Most importantly, the company continues to win over smart TV manufacturers and help them sell TVs. Anthony Wood, Roku Founder and CEO, says that: “1-in-5 smart TV’s sold in the US in 2017 were Roku TVs.” He later commented that half of the new active accounts came from licensed sources.

2017 was the first year that smart TV sales exceeded streaming media player sales. Roku’s strong footprint in the smart TV and SMP markets positions it well to continue to drive the expansion of active users throughout 2018 and beyond.

The success of The Roku Channel is helping drive ad revenue growth. The free ad-support channel launched late last year and is already the third most popular ad-supported channel on Roku. Mr. Woods was clear about the importance of ad revenue to Roku’s future:

“We are increasingly tapping into the $70 billion that US advertisers spend on TV as the TV ad ecosystem moves online.”

read more here: www.nscreenmedia.com

HBO and Showtime are Being Revitalized using OTT

Netflix has become the poster child of how over-the-top delivery of premium content can create a hugely valuable business. But in Netflix’s shadow, traditional premium TV networks including HBO and Showtime are being revitalized by OTT delivery which is changing the dynamics of subscription TV.

Both HBO and Showtime recently reported record subscriber levels for 2017, mainly attributable to online growth. HBO and Cinemax gained over 5 million subscribers in the U.S., driving its domestic base to 49 million. Half of the online subs came from HBO Now, its standalone streaming service, with the other half coming from distributors like Amazon Channels and skinny bundles like DirecTV Now.

While HBO made a big splash with its HBO Now launch back in early 2015, the company has been extremely careful not to discount its monthly price below $15 (though distributors routinely offer it on promotion), continuing to pursue a market skimming strategy that inherently limits its upside. Yet, even at the relatively pricey $15 per month, HBO Now more than doubled in size in 2017.

Meanwhile, Showtime passed the 25 million subscriber mark for the first time in 2017, notching its best revenue growth in history. CBS said the nearly 5 million online subscribers it now has from All Access and Showtime are equally split between the two. That would mean approximately 10% of Showtime’s subscribers now come from direct-to-consumer, skinny bundles or online distributors like Amazon Channels and Hulu.

HBO’s and Showtime’s revitalization underscores how OTT’s ability to improve consumer choice can change business fundamentals. In the pre-OTT era, HBO and Showtime were entirely dependent on striking carriage and bundling deals with pay-TV operators. While both networks have created driven strong promotions, they were high-priced options for increasingly value-oriented consumers.

The heart of the issue was that for the most part pay-TV operators would not give their subscribers the option to subscribe to HBO or Showtime unless they first subscribed to an expensive tier of ad-supported TV networks. This “buy-through” meant the decision to add HBO and Showtime would only happen once a subscriber was already spending $50 or more per month. Talk about a hard place for HBO and Showtime to be positioned when Netflix is available for $10 per month with no contract.

Fast-forward to today’s OTT era and not only are HBO and Showtime available online as standalone services, but they can also be accessed on top of inexpensive skinny bundles. And perhaps more importantly, they can be accessed with a couple of clicks by tens of millions of Amazon Prime subscribers in the Channels program, with billing straight to the credit card on file.

read more here: www.videonuze.com

Study reveals strength of mobile video ads

New research from respected marketing science academic Professor Karen Nelson-Field has uncovered new insights into how and why video advertising works for brands when viewed on mobile devices.

The ‘mobile edition’ of Professor Nelson-Field’s ongoing Benchmark Series, commissioned by Australian commercial TV advisory resource ThinkTV, makes a number of significant findings that are designed to help advertisers and their agencies get the best out of video advertising.

Professor Nelson-Field used bespoke AI machine-learning technology and eye-tracking software to minimise human bias in her team’s data gathering.

The latest tranche of the Benchmark Series seeks to compare the sales impact and attention generated by video advertising viewed on mobile devices on Facebook, YouTube, and TV (over Broadcaster Video-On-Demand services).

It found that:

1. Advertisements viewed on mobile devices by consumers of Facebook, YouTube and Broadcaster Video-On-Demand (BVoD) all generated a positive sales impact for brands.
2. On mobile devices the sales impact of BVoD is 33 per cent higher than Facebook and 17.5 per cent higher than YouTube.
3. The sales impact of TV outperforms Facebook and YouTube irrespective of screen.

Key findings:

Sales Impact

Using the well-established metric of short-term advertising strength or STAS (Short-Term Advertising Strength) to measure the impact an advertisement has on sales, the research found that BVoD on mobile devices performed 17.5 per cent stronger than YouTube and 33 per cent stronger than Facebook.

Attention

The same pattern carried for attention, which Professor Nelson-Field scored out of 100 based on the results of eye-tracking measurements. On an aggregate of these measures, BVoD scored 63 points out of 100. That was 9 points higher than Facebook, which scored 54, and 19 points higher than YouTube, which scored 44.

TV wins on every measure

Professor Nelson-Field found that the sales impact of TV outperformed YouTube and Facebook irrespective of screen. So TV, whether viewed on a TV screen, computer or mobile device, delivered a significantly stronger result than both Facebook and YouTube on those platforms’ best performing screen, mobile.

Screen Coverage

The study found that screen coverage (the percentage of a screen occupied by an ad) was highly correlated to attention and sales, in line with previous findings from the Benchmark Series. On this measure, TV, at 100 per cent screen coverage, provided almost four times more screen coverage than Facebook and three times more screen coverage than YouTube, which Professor Nelson-Field identified as one of the key reasons for TV’s ability to have the most impact on sales.

Mobile

Professor Nelson-Field explained that because mobile screens tend to be held closer to the viewer’s eyes their peripheral vision adjusts to the screen proximity, which means that passive viewing on mobile is worth more to sales than passive viewing on other devices. (N.B. Professor Nelson-Field did not investigate other factors in advertising success such as the impact of reach and reach velocity.)
“In the first tranche of the Benchmark Series when we measured YouTube, Facebook and TV on PC, as well as TV on the TV set, we could clearly see why certain platforms drive higher levels of attention and greater levels of advertising impact than others,” explained Nelson-Field. “And in simple terms this is about visibility.”

“Now with mobile devices increasing in importance for video viewing, we can see that ALL platforms benefit from the lean-in viewing experience. Of course, as we predicted, those with better inherent ad visibility still benefit more.”

“This study takes the Benchmark Series a stage further; digging into the fast-growing world of mobile,” noted Kim Portrate, Chief Executive of ThinkTV. “It proves video advertising on mobile screens works on all of these major platforms – as more people lean in to their content choices – but it also shows that not all media is equal on mobile.”

read more here: advanced-television.com

Could The Chrome Ad Blocker Help Programmatic Move Past The Click-Through Rate?

by Michael Lehman

Despite efforts to evolve private marketplaces, investment in automated guaranteed and recent developments around non-standard formats being transacted programmatically, the indirect channel continues to struggle to attract brand dollars and relies heavily on click-through rate (CTR) over any other measurable metric.

As a result, many buyers typically follow standard direct-response purchase patterns and metrics like CTR when executing buys, regardless of the publisher or ad execution. This leads to a world where premium publishers must compete with bot traffic for ad spend, and ads that users find annoying generate higher yield than those that actually convey the marketer’s message effectively.

With Chrome’s new ad blocker, different analyses offer varying predictions of its impact, as competing parties are incentivized to guide the public and industry to certain conclusions.

Depending on where a given company sits in the crowded Lumascape, the blocking of the 12 outlawed ad types on more than 50% of global internet traffic, based on Chrome’s market share, will inevitably make an immediate impact on many businesses: Ad-blocking companies will find their consumer value proposition less compelling, smaller publishers that rely on indirect spend may feel short-term revenue pain and tech platforms that power intrusive, interruptive advertising will be forced to pivot.

But others will benefit. Consumers, for example, will enjoy a more respectful internet experience, and brand marketers and premium publishers will benefit from a less resentful and increasingly loyal audience. Also, tech companies supporting non-intrusive ads will be positioned to catch redirected spend toward their supported ad formats.

That said, Google’s enforcement of the Better Ads Coalition’s approved ad formats will also lead to significant indirect outcomes Effective advertising performance, for example, will no longer be compared to intrusive but high-performing formats, the mean performance for indirect advertising across the marketplace should change dramatically and premium publishers will be more accurately rewarded for audience and content.

The Better Ads Coalition has defined which unacceptable formats will be blocked by Google on its website. These ads were not necessarily built to annoy the user – annoyance is usually an inevitable byproduct – but they were clearly architected to score well against simple digital advertising KPIs geared toward direct-response budgets.

A huge adhesive ad that blocks content is 100% viewable, for instance, even if it forces users to look past and eliminate it. And a mobile pop-up with a tiny minimize button is likely driving excellent CTRs as users unintentionally click on units they are trying to delete.

In very rare instances do the ads actually achieve advertising objectives. In fact, they generally do the opposite by potentially linking consumer frustration to ad consumption, but they appear to perform well by manipulating performance. To make matters worse, these formats also skew the optics around what constitutes strong performance and effective advertising altogether.

For the marketplace to realize the positive indirect outcomes of the Chrome ad-blocking initiative, buyers, publishers and tech platforms must have desperately needed conversations about how to both effectively measure the value of programmatically transacted advertising and prove attribution without relying exclusively on short-term metrics. Ideally, this moves us closer to a world where programmatic channel is consistently attracting brand spend, advertising effectiveness is measured by more than just CTR and more sophisticated ad executions and audience quality will reward publishers with the appropriate upper-funnel spend.

read more here: adexchanger.com

Amazon will soon distribute ad-supported streaming channels

Amazon’s Channels program has been a big hit for TV networks and digital publishers with subscription video streaming products. Soon, Amazon wants to open up advertising as another form of revenue for media partners that have ad-supported streaming apps.

Speaking at Digiday’s Future of TV Hot Topic last week, Rich Au, head of Amazon Channels in the U.S., said Amazon will start offering ad-supported streaming channels later this year. While he did not provide a specific timetable, Au pointed to how Amazon already supports ad-supported channels in Europe, including a partnership with Discovery that includes access to the company’s linear TV feeds in European markets. Amazon will open up similar possibilities in the U.S., he said. (Amazon stressed that this is a distinct offering from the existing Amazon Channels program, which focuses on subscription streaming channels.)

In the U.S., the Amazon Channels program offers subscriptions to top networks, including HBO, Showtime and CBS. Advertising could substantially benefit streaming networks such as CBS All Access that already offer ad-supported tiers on their own. Right now, anyone subscribing to CBS All Access through Amazon can only access the app’s $10 monthly ad-free tier. When Amazon opens up access to the app’s $6 ad-supported tier, CBS has a chance to create a second revenue stream from its Amazon partnership.

It’s hard to understate the impact the Amazon Channels program has had on the growth of subscription streaming services in the U.S. When NBCUniversal launched its now-defunct comedy streaming service Seeso in January 2016, Amazon accounted for upward of 60 to 70 percent of total subscribers, said Evan Shapiro, the former NBCU exec who launched Seeso. By the time Shapiro left NBCU in May 2017, Amazon Channels accounted for 40 percent of total subscribers, Shapiro said.

“That was because over time, we found organic [search] traffic migrating to the native platform,” Shapiro said. “But Amazon’s growth didn’t slow — and the best part of the Amazon Channels product was that the churn is substantially lower than others.”

Two other Amazon Channels partners at TV networks corroborated the program’s impact on their subscription apps, privately telling me that Amazon Channels contributes anywhere from 25 to 45 percent of total subscribers.

read more here: digiday.com

Facebook Watch is not a TV network of the future

It’s safe to say “Ball in the Family,” a show starring famous basketball dad LaVar Ball, is the first hit show on Facebook Watch — it’s certainly the first Watch show that people outside of the media business recognize. And Facebook is spending good money for the exclusive rights to the show, which is produced by Bunim/Murray Productions. Multiple sources have told me Facebook is paying somewhere between $550,000 and $750,000 per episode. That’s cable TV money.

But that doesn’t mean Watch is a TV network of the future — mostly because that ignores the fact that Facebook doesn’t want to be a TV network. Don’t forget, Watch is a product test to get people to spend more time on Facebook — this time, with professionally produced video shows.

It’s been thrown around that Facebook wants its own “House of Cards” or “Scandal.” And Facebook’s pursuit of entertainment content has certainly piqued the interest of Hollywood:

“Facebook just bought a series that’s roughly in the $30,000 to $40,000 per minute range, with an exceptional piece of talent.” — Longtime film and TV studio executive

But as multiple talent agents and studio execs have recently told me, most sellers aren’t taking their best ideas to Facebook. Watch needs to make a serious dent with viewers because ultimately, the big stars that Facebook clearly wants for its shows care about whether their shows are actually seen.

What’s forgotten in all of this is that Facebook has given no indication that it wants to be a TV programmer in the style of Netflix or HBO. Yes, it has the money to buy its own “Scandal” — and it might. I just keep coming back to what Facebook CFO David Wehner said during an earnings call a year ago: Eventually, Facebook wants to fund Watch by sharing ad revenue, instead of subsidizing productions upfront. That doesn’t sound like a TV network to me.

“NewFronts are simply not a viable marketplace for buying video-based programming. We did not see the return on creating incremental, built-if-sold programming for one week where no transactions take place. The event has really turned into a branding moment, and we have a bunch of those throughout the year.” — Former NewFronts presenter on why his company is sitting out this year

read more here: digiday.com

Google says it will fix the online advertising crisis… but will it work?

by Enrique Dans

On Thursday, February 16, as part of its Coalition for Better Ads, Google launched an offensive it says will rid the internet of the worst of the many intrusive publicity formats the advertising industry has inflicted on users for years.

My impression is that Google is pretty much reprising its 2003 decision to introduce a function on its navigation bar to block pop-ups, thus protecting its main revenue stream, advertising, from short-sighted irresponsible companies. Advertising agencies, advertisers themselves, and many media, over time, have opted for anything goes strategies, utterly disregarding respect for a general public it assumes will put up with anything to get to the content we want. We can only count our blessings that some smart-assed developer didn’t come up with a way for ads to reach out of the screen and grab us by the throat, because some advertisers would undoubtedly have used it.

In 2003, the pop-up took us to a point of no return: by then, abuse of that format had made web browsing a misery. More recently, abuse of other intrusive formats and continuous tracking of users has prompted more and more people to install advertising blockers such as German Eye/o’s AdBlock Plus.

At the beginning of last year, the number of devices with advertising blockers installed already exceeded 236 million computers and 380 million smartphones worldwide, representing the largest boycott carried out by consumers in human history. Something had to be done, so Google went to work.

What’s changed since 2003? These were different times, and also a different Google.

In 2003, Google was a “nice” company, enjoying strong growth, with an incipient advertising model and a a positioning that allowed it to make its own decisions. Fifteen years later, Google is now the leading search engine, and along with Facebook, dominates display. Like a bull in the china shop of advertising, it tends to break things when it moves. Hence, its decision to take action has been carried out through the Coalition for Better Ads, the body it has set up bringing together ad agencies, advertisers and media to prevent an advertising apocalypse.

In 2003, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was the main browser, one controlled by a company that, at that time, was anything but “nice”: it was engaged in a crusade to redefine web standards, to exclude competitors, and it noticed how some companies, Google among them, were dominating categories it wanted for itself. All Google could do was to develop a navigation bar that any user could install in their browser with certain blocking functions. Today, Google’s Chrome is the leading web browser, and so can pretty much do what it wants, and knowing that its actions will be felt immediately.

In 2003, Google was practically alone in trying to defend users from abusive advertising formats. Moreover, from what I know about the company, I firmly believe that the pop-up blockade was not entirely about protecting its revenue stream, but also by a genuine desire to improve the experience of its users. In 2018, the user landscape is completely different: those of us able to install an ad blocker consider Eye/o and other companies are allies in the fight against intrusive ad formats, vastly improving our browsing experience. Google’s relationship with Eye/o is bittersweet: on the one hand, it has financed it by paying for the inclusion of its advertising on the company’s white lists, while on the other, it has not asked it to join its Coalition for Better Ads and sometimes refers to its practices as “blackmail”.

Eye/o knows perfectly well that an advertising blocker is nothing without a good block list, and keeping that list updated requires costly supervision, charging whoever it can to meet those costs. Eye/o initiatives to define good practices in advertising have done much more for users than anything Google has done so far, and are much more tougher than the Coalition for Better Ads’ proposals. If you really appreciate your browsing experience, take my tip: keep your ad blocker installed both on your computer and your smartphone.

Google now finds itself in a position where, in 2018, it is being forced to negotiate with agencies, advertisers and media before making a move. It’s looking for a balance between these players and users, a balance that should have a much greater impact on practices that go beyond annoying formats. We will all appreciate being freed from formats such as the one above, aberrations such as pop-up, the interstitial, videos with preactivated sound or large and persistent advertisements, although some advertisements with animation or with distracting formats will remain, because many of the players in the coalition still believe in their heart of hearts that if an ad doesn’t annoy you, it’s because you haven’t noticed it”. And they will continue to install trackers for everything and at all times, because Google itself does. In short, for online advertising to really change, we need all parties to change their thinking.

Is Google going to be an honest broker here? Is it a good idea to have the largest advertising seller (whose global online ad business is bigger than the next five biggest combined), using its position as the owner of the largest web browser (four times the market share as the nearest competitor), to determine which ads are fit to be seen or not?

read more here: medium.com

6 Magazine CEOs, 4 Strategies: How To Survive and Succeed!

The magazine industry is consolidating in the face of multiple challenges.

Rather than the newsstand, competition is coming from social platforms. Marketers want the performance advertising sold by key digital players. And as print circulation declines, magazines struggle to maintain the steady revenue from their direct-to-consumer subscription businesses.

The CEOs and presidents of Condé Nast, Meredith, Hearst, Bonnier, Active Interest Media (AIM) and New York Media spoke Tuesday at the American Magazine Media Conference in New York City about how they are addressing these challenges. In recent years, Rodale and Time Inc. CEOs took the stage – but those companies are now part of Hearst and Meredith, respectively.

1. Evolving to serve performance advertisers

Magazines are struggling to prove their value to marketers who know and love their content but need to prove ROI in a more concrete, logical way.

“There is a disconnect between what [marketers] think and feel [about the magazine experience] and … the KPIs and marketing science,” said Andrew Clurman, president and CEO of AIM.

Bonnier has incredibly old brands, but today it’s focused on connecting that editorial authority to the engagement and results that brand voice can create.

“Gone are the days of leading with how iconic or old your brands are in today’s performance-based environment,” said Bonnier CEO Eric Zinczenko.

The magazine CEOs said they were focusing on building first-party data assets and using this data to diversify their own businesses or help advertisers.

Condé Nast, for example, is investing in its data platform – and if it makes an acquisition, it will be driven by data, not a magazine brand, said CEO Robert Sauerberg Jr.

“We are in a world where whether we like it or not, more money is being spent on performance-based advertising,” he said. “We built a database business 25 years ago. We have been doing this forever. One of the things this industry can do is to use our first-party data to create some targeting.”

2. Paid content

As revenue from print advertisers declines, magazines want to boost subscription revenue.

Meredith’s Magnolia Journal earns 95% of its revenue from consumers, not advertisers. “Usually, it’s 60-40 the other way,” noted Tom Harty, president and CEO of Meredith.

At Condé Nast, The New Yorker is a standout in convincing readers to pay for its expensive-to-produce content, including a recent scoop about Harvey Weinstein.

“Our culture is about getting these stories right,” Sauerberg said. “Creating really great premium content that consumers will pay for its very expensive, hard and time-consuming.”

But such efforts are paying off, even online: “We have one of the most successful paywalls in the world, and it’s growing 40% a year,” Sauerberg said.

First-party data helps in this realm, too. New York Media is building up its data and analytics to help advertisers, and it’s expanded into events, where it can get its readers to pay for cultural experiences like the Vulture Festival.

“We have taken the understanding of why our audience is attracted to us and applied it to building new businesses and developing new brands,” said New York Media CEO Pam Wasserstein.

3. Brand safety

Magazine CEOs see an opportunity with Facebook’s and Google’s challenges policing their content.

“All these CMOs are saying, ‘I had no idea my content was showing up here and here and here – next to terrorists and Nazis,’” Wasserstein said. “Magazine brands are not only brand-safe but brand-enhancing. It’s a step beyond.”

Magazine media companies are also trying to position themselves as more authoritative than digital media startups.

“We have to remind our clients that smaller startups know if they don’t cut a corner sometimes, they won’t show revenue growth … and might go out of business,” Hearst Magazines President David Carey said. “We need to reinforce that [magazine] companies play for the long term.”

4. Revenue diversification

Magazine companies don’t plan on always relying on advertising to bring in revenue. Instead, they are turning to both conventional and surprising sources of revenue.

Case in point: AIM, which publishes Practical Horseman and American Cowboy, also sells horse trailer insurance. To further diversify, the company, which also publishes magazines about skiing and yoga, is applying its expertise in content and video to create online training and certifications.

read more here: adexchanger.com