Manage To Change

FOBM: Q&A with Reuters COO

Last stop on the FOBM blogging trail today is some commentary on an interview with Devin Wenig, Reuters COO.

When asked about the Thomson/Reuters merger, Devin’s first stop was culture.

“The number one priority is that when these two large companies come together they’re one company not two - one business one culture.”

While I commend him on that goal, he went on to say that Thomson is “not taking Reuters off a successful course” but helping to accelerate their current course.

“I don’t think we would have gone into this if we thought it was going to radically change what we’re doing.”

I’m certainly no expert on Reuters and Thomson, but I can’t imagine that a merger of this magnitude (impacting billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people) isn’t going to change what Reuters is doing – perhaps radically.

How many of Reuters’ activities are dependent upon their culture? If merging cultures is such a high priority, there may very well be more impact than Devin is anticipating.

This is going to be interesting to watch!

FOBM: Advertising; Where Should the Money Go?

PaidContent.org host Staci Kramer interviewed an FOBM panel made up of Peter Horan (CEO, IAC Media & Advertising), Rob Norman (Global CEO, GroupM), Gloria Scoby (Group Publisher, Crain Communications Inc.), and Tad Smith (CEO, Reed Business Information).

Some highlights:

Is the advertising pie growing or shrinking?

Peter: Historically the ad business and the marketing business were a series of small pies. Direct market, media, etc. all had their own pies. Now the client is saying I have a marketing budget and it’s all one big pie.

Gloria: The pie is growing in opportunity. There are more opportunities to reach out and create relationships with companies and institutions that didn’t traditionally market with us.

Tad: The pie is growing but print is declining. The pie is growing from a revenue perspective but perhaps not in terms of profit.

Rob: “My pie is growing for sure. I was never in the direct mail or directories businesses and those businesses have now migrated online – now I am in those businesses.”

How has advertising and communication planning changed?

According to Rob, until about three years ago, their conversations were with brand managers and media mangers.

Now he’s got corporate affairs and PR people seeking to manage reputation. He also has sales people to serve since media is now “shelf space” and not just advertising space.

Peter made some great points about how no one owns the internet or the conversations taking place through it.  The real question is how you participate in a conversation that you cannot possibly control?

How has search impacted advertising?

Peter talked about how media is now intent driven. We ask questions and get a list of answers – we Google it.

Tad felt that in the traditional model before search, the value added to content was by those that could distribute it. Search has redefined that value and redistributed it to those that can help you discover content.

My quick account here doesn't do all of the panelists justice.  They all had some great insights into how the market for advertising has changed and even been redefined.  The takeaways:

• There is one integrated communication plan
• Elements of that plan can be managed and elements are beyond your control
• Search has redefined how people engage with companies and brands
• Consumer behavior has shifted toward "intent" - finding an answer
• Value in advertising has shifted from "distribution" to "discoverability"

FOBM: Interview with L. Gordon Crovitz, Publisher of The Wall Street Journal

(Staci Kramer interviews Gordon at FOBM).

On Print versus Online

Currently, when a new subscriber becomes a print subscriber they’re almost always subscribing to both the print and online journals. WSJ sells print and online together at a single price and has experienced 7 quarters in a row of increased circulation revenue.

Why is print improving?

One reason is the bundling described above.

Another reason is that WSJ sought to “reorient the print journal … [attempting to make it] … more relevant to the audience.

The journal reporter is tasked with taking a corporate earning story, for example, and turning it into something that is essential on the online journal and then essential the next day in print.

The online version focuses on news. The print version puts news in context and adds perspective.

To engage the online audience, the WSJ has also started developing content and features in different verticals. Media companies traditionally served broad audiences. Developing verticals is an attempt to engage audiences more deeply.

One example is the WSJ legal homepage. WSJ has brought on Peter Lattman “a talented blogger that has attracted an extraordinary audience of engaged lawyers.”

On Working with Yahoo and Google

Someone in the audience asked: when you look at Yahoo finance they’ve build quite a business leveraging WSJ and MarketWatch content. How do address that? How important is it to you to control your advertising inventory rather than outsource it out (Google)?

On the Internet, “other news sources are only a mouse click away online.” WSJ’s goal is to work with others and to be creative.

As for Google, they reach advertisers that the WSJ couldn’t reach on their own (small advertisers through search). It’s a complementary relationship.

On the News Corp Acquisition

Gordon says he sometimes thinks that he’s the last person on the planet that has newspaper and publisher in his title and is still an optimist.

Being part of News Corp. will be a cause for greater optimism.

FOBM: Transforming the Business Media Brand

Rafat Ali interviewed James Spanfeller (CEO, Forbes.com) and Roger McNamee (Managing Director, Elevation Partners) as the opening session at FOBM.
Elevation Partners bought a stake in Forbes in August 2006.

Here are some excerpts.

What does Forbes stand for right now?

JS: We think the web is a platform. It powers the ability to have a lot of media formats in one place. It’s not just about text. It’s about real time elements. The brand is on one hand analogous to offline companion and on the other it’s completely apart. “We’re not Forbes magazine online. We provide a different service to our end users who go to online for different reasons” than they consult the magazine.

Why hasn’t the magazine changed in a long time?

RN: “I look at this as an investor. It serves a specific purpose. The audience for business journals today needs something that wasn’t possible before the internet. Not just data but interpretation of it and debate around it. The magazine will change when the audience needs it to change.”

“The reason Elevation got involved with Forbes is because Forbes looked at the web as a unique platform. People start off reproducing the old on the new. But the people that win let the new run.”

RN: The audience wants to get engaged with the content. We’re bringing the audience into our content. We’re doing a lot of experiments – some will work, some will not.

Roger, I couldn't agree with you more!

Future of Business Media

I’m heading to New York in the morning for the FOBM conference.

I’ll try to live blog some of the presentations, but I’m not very good at that.

Guess this is the week of experiments!

I figured it out.

I got Jott to work on Twitter.

You can either elect to post immediately without transcription and a link is posted to an audio file or you can skip that and Jott will transcribe the audio and post text.

I tried it once on the blog and deleted it. This is my second try.

Maybe I'll find a way to make this useful. Maybe I won't, but experimenting is definitely fun and it's certainly part of change now isn't it? So stay tuned. listen

Powered by Jott

Update: I couldn't resist the urge to change the font and add some space.  Perhaps there's no hope for me and audio blogging!

Remember Jott?

Jott.com is a free service that allows you to call in a message and have it transcribed and sent to your email account.

I started using Jott in April and have, to date, only sent Jotts to myself.

Well today that all changes!

I’ve set up my Twitter account and my blog as Jott recipients. I’m going to start Twittering today and see how that works.

If it’s not completely horrible, I might work in a blog post here and there.

I’m skeptical about the blog posting. If it doesn’t look right I’ll abandon that plan!

My hypothesis is that it will work well for Twitter and perhaps Facebook status (if it were offered), but not so well for blogging.

We’ll see. Let me know what you think.

I’m annmichael on Twitter if you want to introduce yourself.

Sticky Situations: Sparing Feelings or Being Cruel?

Have you ever worked with someone that, regardless of your feelings about them as a person, you knew they were completely unsuited for their position?

Have you ever seen someone that others regularly minimize, marginalize, or ignore because that person offers little or no value in their current role?

Do you think people in that position feel frustrated?

Do you think they ask for help?

I bet they do. I know they do.

I’ve seen it.

As managers, we often find certain topics difficult to discuss, but that doesn’t mean our best option is ignoring them. In fact, it’s usually quite the opposite.

What’s more humane?

1. Getting an issue out in the open
2. Letting someone struggle alone
3. Giving someone indirect or useless counsel because you don’t want to hurt their feelings

If someone isn’t suited for their job, or is missing vital skills that must be developed, avoiding the issue isn’t going help anyone.

We’re not sparing their feelings by not discussing their situation honestly. We’re sparing our own!

It’s selfish of any manager not to confront these situations honestly, respectfully, sensitively, AND with the goal of resolving them.

Diminishing Returns

The perfect application of process is when every step directly contributes value to an outcome.

Process that adds nothing is bureaucracy.

Old Dogs & New Tricks

Most people would agree it’s easier to start something fresh then to change something that already exists.

Maybe it’s easier, but is it impossible to change something that already exists?

What stops existing organizations from seriously considering new ideas or radical changes?

I believe it’s a combination of biases and constraints.

Biases are sacred cows, culture, previous experience (positive or negative), or anything that limits our ability to think about new directions.

They are something we can’t always touch but we know they’re there. They’re assumptions we make with or without being conscious of them.

Sure, other companies are doing this new thing, but we’re very different from them and it could never work for us.

Constraints are physical, legal, or other constructs that hinder our creativity.

They look like very sound reasons not to do something.

A new business model might cost us revenue in the short term that we’re unprepared to lose. Board demands, contracts, and staffing policies all seem to force our hand allowing us to make only incremental adjustments to our current course.

Or do they?

Temporarily Suspend Disbelief

Perhaps the best path toward change is temporarily banishing bias and constraints from the room.

Start by getting the team to consider how a new idea might be accomplished, not why it could never work. 

If the team you have can’t do that – change the team. Pull in some new people and let the “naysayers” stay in their offices until it’s time to consider constraints.

Give the idea some breathing room.

If the team feels it’s something worth pursuing, then start bringing the practical thinkers back into the room, but be careful.

Build a list of constraints, but sift and prioritize them.

Which ones are legitimate and why? Which ones represent unsubstantiated biases?

Are the legitimate issues insurmountable?

Is the idea worth the effort required to remove constraints and confront biases?

There’s no reason existing companies can’t start fresh.

We just have to try a little harder.