Stand by for (gulp) the post-Murdoch media world

It’s time to use the past tense. Rupert Murdoch was the original international media mogul. Before him, there were (quite distinctly) press barons, television tycoons, book publishers, and film studio moguls; separate industries, mainly in separate countries, with their own distinct traditions and leaders. But that was until Rupert Murdoch stormed across national and industry frontiers as if they didn’t exist.

Indeed, the word ‘media’ started only to be ultra-commonly used (in preference to ‘the press’ or the quaintly British ‘fourth estate’) once the buccaneering Aussie had daringly launched Sky TV in Britain in 1989, bought into Twentieth Century Fox (in 1984), launched the Fox News Channel (in 1996), and bought what became Harper Collins (in 1989). These diverse businesses were all added to the power-pack of newspapers he had acquired in Australia, the UK, and the US. The result was News Corporation, with its sprawling satellite TV networks across Europe and Asia – the very picture of a modern media business. And it’s been like that for 25 money-spinning years.

For all the clouds of infamy round the head of News Corp’s pioneering chairman, the creation of that revolutionary international media business remains a remarkable tribute to the vision, abilities and energy of Rupert Murdoch.

But, like a reputation sullied by malpractice, criminality and bullying, the achievements of News Corp also now risk being reduced by the changing times. ‘Modern’, breakthrough developments in one decade, quite naturally, risk becoming antiquated in the next. And so it will be for Citizen Murdoch. Most of his businesses will survive and thrive in some way, of course. But the integrated ‘whole’ that made News Corp so powerful and influential across the the globe, simply will not survive him.

The signs are clear to see. News Corp was effectively forced to close the News of the World, one of its most profitable newspapers largely in order to clinch (as it believed) the takeover of a much more desirable business, BSkyB. Newspapers had been Murdoch’s route into ‘multimedia’ markets – and (as we can see so clearly in the UK) gave him huge influence. But, now, those same newspapers are in the way. News Corp’s best assets are in film and pay TV, so the sooner that Murdoch steps back from day-to-day control, the sooner that the company’s shaken shareholders will be able to unlock their hidden value and back today’s growth businesses and not yesterday’s. (And Murdoch is not the only publisher of newspapers, magazines and books to support endlessly-lossmaking titles through sentiment, false optimism or something else. So News Corp is very far from being the only media organisation to face some tough long-postponed choices.)

What the process of change at News Corp will show ( over the next 12-18 months) is just how dizzyingly fast the media industry is changing. And how anachronistic is the ‘integrated’ media company that Murdoch built in quite different times.

The major changes will scour the surface of media everywhere:

1. General news will increasingly need to be free of charge. Mass audiences will not pay for it. Selective, relatively upscale audiences may pay for in-depth and ‘contextual’ news commentary but the century-long paid-for popular newspaper market is dying fast. In the UK, the willingness and ability of Murdoch and others to support unprofitable newspapers has seemingly slowed the inevitable decline – and has similarly helped support the search (in vain) for a profitable online news market. Almost whatever happens to the News Corp national newspapers, this decline in paid-for news will now start to accelerate, pushed also by changes in advertising. It’s time to get real.

2. Advertisers will get ever more choosy about where they spend their money. Product placement will grow as will TV productions funded directly (and controlled) by advertisers. More advertisers will expect to pay only for the audience their ads actually get – like the online deals. Advertisers will increasingly be wary of media with two conflicting revenue streams – ie magazines and newspapers whose copy sales are used and engineered to maintain advertising rates. Advertisers will want guaranteed audience levels. Many magazines and newspapers will find it increasingly difficult to compete for advertising revenue and will, therefore, not be viable – unless readers themselves are prepared to pay more. Conversely, picky advertisers will be prepared to advertise in free magazines and newspapers that can guarantee the required levels of readership. The distinction between advertiser-funded and consumer-funded media will become more pronounced in hard copy, broadcast and online. So, consumers will be offered TV channels and mobile entertainment and information either free with ads OR by subscription without ads. That will pose a real challenge to newspapers and magazines which have already lost to online sites most of their once-lucrative classified advertising.

3. Online retailers are becoming publishers and publishers need to become retailers. Online sales of products and services will increasingly include newspaper and magazine-like content and vice versa. The strongest and most progressive magazine brands will be able to secure their profitable futures (in spite of the drop off in advertising revenues) by becoming fully-fledged ‘mediatailers’. But, if they don’t, major retailers will do it instead. This is a retail race in which major magazine publishers must compete to survive. It is decades since the US-owned Hearst (now the world’s largest publisher of women’s magazines) started making ‘ancillary’ profits from, for example, Cosmopolitan-branded merchandise. Now, they must turn such product retailing into major profits and mainstream activity. It’s the same for TV, newspapers and, perhaps, mobile phone operators too. Traditional media needs to become, well, much less traditional.

4. These trends, coupled with the shortening life-cycle of electronic media ‘kit’, mean that ‘content’ companies (like current TV, newspaper, and magazine operators) will have to maximise their use of ‘clubs’, subscribers, and user groups to maintain longterm relationships – and profitability, whatever the media platform. The casual availability of newspapers and magazines on news-stands will become an increasingly unattractive (and unprofitable) marketing method for retailers and publishers alike. Consistent profitability will, increasingly, be available only to those media companies with direct relationships with customers through which they are able to ‘leverage’ sales of additional products and services. So expect the “new” post-Murdoch News Corp to turn its back not just on newspapers, but also on its huge books business and even some online and TV production. Big changes are ahead.

Media companies routinely say that the future is all about ‘content’ and ‘brands’. But it is more complex than that. Owning a direct relationship to customers is crucial and can be as valuable as ownership of the content itself. The ‘internet mindset’ shows that media customers may compromise on content in return for convenience and easy access. That is what a “relationship” with consumers can really mean.

Nobody can predict the pace of these changes or expect them to be consistent or wholly comprehensive. And many good, old-fashioned media businesses will survive and thrive, no matter what. And some advertisers will carry on doing what they have been doing for years. But, we can be sure that the general shape of the media industry will increasingly be driven by:

  • Content which either customers or advertisers will pay for. Seldom both.
  • Brands with which the customer can be widely engaged (ie reading, buying, and ‘belonging’).
  • Serial readers/ users/ viewers and sharply-reduced dependance on the occasional or casual consumption of media.

If Rupert Murdoch were 37 years of age (as he was when he acquired the News of the World), he would be across all of this. But he’s not, so study it carefully: News Corp 2011-style is ready for the Museum of Media, along with a slew of other publishing businesses across the world. Stand by for the loss of some treasured media brands – and of the mogul who defined the world’s first ‘media age’.

[ do default stuff if no widgets ]

13 thoughts on “Stand by for (gulp) the post-Murdoch media world

  1. Simon Morice

    Aug 05. 2011

    An interesting analysis Colin. Advertising produces revenue because the content of media publishers aggregates viewers into communities of interest. This implied attention is traditionally rented to advertisers. But it seems that audiences are losing tolerance for, at least un-targeted, advertising.

    A significant number of Sky + and other DVR users tend to record and then fast forward to avoid the ads. The view-whilst-recording capability of these devices is breaking the deal of attention for content. Studies since 2006 suggest that TV advertising is declining in effectiveness.

    Can advertising supported channels survive this? Or do you think that brands will find it better to follow the example of Red Bull, Renault and others. These own pretty much ad-free channels filled with content they dictate or commission? They also get to own the relationship with viewers who now have more meaningful interactions with their brand. As you suggest, this is most valuable.

    Production will be interesting. Just as with DTP twenty years ago, the decreasing capital and operational costs of production and post-production are not the issue. The ‘what and how’ knowledge to effectively produce good content is the chief determiner of success.

    Reply to this comment
    • Colin Morrison

      Aug 05. 2011

      Interesting questions, Simon. I tend to think that advertisers are inclined to try and get more and more influence over content, hence product placement, customer magazines, sponsorship of different kinds and even TV production. The latter is new and is just starting to be seen in the burgeoning Chinese market. Advertisers are less and less inclined to be “passive” except when the audience is sufficiently valuable, “guaranteed” and difficult to emulate. There are clearly going to be fewer and fewer of those opportunities – victims, among other things, of viewing-on-demand, as you point out.
      Thanks,
      Colin

      Reply to this comment
  2. Kit Green

    Aug 05. 2011

    As Morice mentioned there is The ‘what and how’ knowledge that allows the current media setups to produce material that consumers wish to see. There may well be limited outlets (amongst the explosion in numbers) that have any ability, financial or technical, to produce content that can sustain interest for more than a few moments.

    It will be a disaster for creative people if the media is amateurised. Just how much wobbly, fuzzy content can the average viewer handle.

    Sponsored channels are all very well but too many viewers will (I hope) see them as patronising.

    As for news being free this is very dangerous which may seem a back to front way of thinking as one would think that the grip of the press barons will be dead. How wrong can we be? Information will fill the void and where will it come from?

    Social media has shown itself useful and at the same time hopelessly limited. Think Arab Spring and then fake stories (IE users are thick, dead celeb is alive being recent examples) gat picked up and they run on Twitter and then the MSM. Where is the validation of news in the new scenario?

    Customers have come to trust (sometimes foolishly) their chosen news provider because they need that validation of stories. In a multi-source news environment only those with a lot of time on their hands, or those that are news enthusiasts will be able to spend ages trawling through multiple sources to satisfy their desire for truth.

    This leads to the most dangerous part. Governments and their chosen agencies will provide news. They can afford it and will benefit. Welcome Pravda. So full circle, perhaps corporations will continue to provide news after all, as biased news is always going to be of a commercial benefit to someone.

    Will news be better or worse? Who knows.

    These discussions are interesting but remember they are in the same realm as looking to a future of flying cars!

    Reply to this comment
    • Colin Morrison

      Aug 06. 2011

      Thanks Kit.
      Of course, a large number of people anywhere are not actually very interested in news per se. The fact that popular newspapers have declined faster than quality ones in these countries tells its own story. But, while the mass market has been moving away from paying for news, there has been a strong move towards paying for sport, entertainment and leisure…

      The best thing about the churn and change is that there will tend to be more providers of media evrywhere.

      The Murdoch- like dominance may never be repeated because all media in the future will be more vulnerable to new competition than newspapers were in the past… ( ironic, really)…

      Colin

      Reply to this comment
  3. bucino ulje

    Aug 08. 2011

    Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is excellent, let alone the content!

    Reply to this comment
  4. Charles Norrie

    Aug 09. 2011

    Not so. Lord Thomson of Fleet was the first media baron (literally), for he us ennobled as Lord Thomson of Fleet, and he owned The Times, acquired from the Astor family and Scottish (commercial) Television, the original “licence to print money”. Thomson’s Empire did not survive him, the genes for media success seemingly are not inheritable and the TV station was disposed of and the newspaper fell in the hands of Murdoch.

    The so called quaint term “fourth estate” in the UK is actually a borrowing from Revolutionary France, when the King, the nobility clergy made up the traditional three estates, and in the fervid atmosphere of the times the Press was disparagingly called the Fourth Estate.

    In Britain the King held no power and his powerful functions were delegated to Parliament after the English Revolution but wags adopted the French term to apply to the Press.

    The US, which largely copies the trichotomy of the French three estates in President, Senate and House rather than King, nobility and clergy is a three estate system and the media is a kind of fourth estate, but carries out its duties woefully badly.

    Reply to this comment
    • Colin Morrison

      Aug 09. 2011

      Thanks, Charles, for your helpful comments. Roy Thomson was certainly a press-tv baron combined. But it was, compared with Rupert Murdoch, a relatively modest empire – by media categories and geographies, of course. I certainly agree also with your implied view of Thomson’s positive legacy in UK media (even if it was just a way of operating). Thanks for reminding me also of the historic origins of the Fourth Estate! Colin

      Reply to this comment
  5. nfl expert picks

    Aug 13. 2011

    Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!

    Reply to this comment
  6. nfl picks

    Aug 14. 2011

    Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate if you continue this in future. Numerous people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

    Reply to this comment
  7. rtyecript

    Aug 24. 2011

    I really liked the article, and the very cool blog

    Reply to this comment
  8. vimax

    Aug 25. 2011

    I think you should use more images on your blog, but besides that, it is really great. Cheers.

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply to Charles Norrie Cancel reply