Nick Denton: Media Sleepwalking Into Extinction

|

nickdenton.jpgTo judge from a hysterical press, one might think the apocalypse was already upon the media industry: rolling cuts this month at Time Inc., the hallowed magazine group; a new catchphrase among advertising pundits, flat is the new up; and revisions even of the internet advertising that was supposed to be the salvation of the media industry. J.P. Morgan's Imran Kahn just slashed projected growth next year of US online display advertising from 16% to 6%.

We should be so lucky. These supposedly brutal layoffs at Time and other titles amount to only 6% of headcount at the bloated Time Warner magazine group. Other media groups such as the New York Times and Conde Nast—a hiring freeze, how callous!—are being even more squeamish. From conglomerates to internet ventures, executives should be planning now on a decline of up to 40% in advertising spending during this cycle. Instead they're sleepwalking into economic extinction—even those lean online ventures which were supposed to take up the mantle and preserve New York's position as a media capital.

Isn't a 40% decline overly pessimistic? (That scenario—which I first floated last month—is gloomy even by my standards. And Gawker Media's trademark bearishness in 2006 or earlier this year has sometimes been dismissed as gamesmanship: an attempt to unsettle actual and potential competitors. My motives are indeed not entirely pure.) Actually, such a collapse in advertising spending—affecting internet media as much as television and print—is a contingency internet businesses should plan for. Here's the argument.

Advertising forecasts don't anticipate a deep recession. Mary Meeker showed recently with a regression analysis how sensitive advertising revenue was to GDP trends: for every 1% decline in output growth, the rate of advertising growth falls by 3%. But the Morgan Stanley analyst and her counterparts are still basing their models on redundant forecasts for the world economy as a whole. Economists are notoriously bad at predicting the depth of a recession. Meeker's presentation to the Web 2.0 conference cited the IMF's 2009 forecast that the US economy would be basically flat. Again, we should be so lucky; let's look at the precedents.

Other banking crises point to steeper declines. A more reasonable assumption is that US output will follow the path of other countries that have suffered a credit crunch in the last two decades. A relatively mild scenario is that of Japan, where GDP grew at an average rate of only 1% a year during the Asian economy's "lost decade" of the 1990s; a central projection might be based on Sweden's banking crisis in 1990-1993 during which output fell by 6% even though Stockholm acted relatively promptly to recapitalize troubled banks much as western governments are doing right now; and let's take as the nightmarish extreme the experience of Indonesia, where the economy collapsed by 13% in 1998. Plug these scenarios into Mary Meeker's model: US advertising spending would decline by between 9% and 43%; if the US experienced a three-year downturn like Sweden's, the advertising market would decline by a projected 27%. But that won't hold across the board, will it?

Internet advertising is by no means immune. Advocates of the internet claim that the sector is both more mature than it was during the last downturn; and it's more "measurable" than other media. They hope to avoid a repeat of the 27% decline in 2000-2002. Good luck with that. The sector's maturity also means that its underlying growth is more sluggish than it was in the late 1990s. In 2001, internet advertising swung to a 13% decline from 78% growth the previous year; this time the sector starts from a growth rate of 27%; I would hate to see what a swing as violent as the dotcom burst would look like. As for the measurability of internet media: sure, marketers and their agencies can track engagement and clicks in great detail online; but it's still only television advertising that can demonstrate a correlation between spending and a boost to a marketer's sales.

So, what to do? Well, first of all, publishers should be planning for the worst—now. Check out the title of this chart from Sequoia Capital—presented to scare the Valley venture capital partnership's portfolio companies into drastic cuts. The motto—survival of the quickest—is self-evident to lossmaking venture-backed companies. It applies even to companies such as Gawker Media which are—for the moment at least—profitable. Fortunately, private companies can move more nimbly than established behemoths to boost revenues and reduce costs. There are six main levers.

1. Get out of categories such as politics to which advertisers are averse. That's easier for us to say since we spun off Wonkette earlier this year. And outfits such as the Huffington Post and most big-city newspapers—defined by their political coverage—will have difficulty redefining themselves. But media groups cannot afford in the current environment to fund their most noble missions; they should leave that to public-spirited non-profits such as Pro Publica.

2. Renegotiate vendor contracts. It's the one silver lining of recession: just as publishers compete more fiercely for advertising business, so our own vendors such as hosting companies and hardware providers come under growing pressure. This is how deflation spreads. One might as well take some advantage of it.

3. Consolidate titles. Time-pressed media buyers are drawn to scale. Most websites are still way too small to register with the audience-tracking services that agencies rely upon. Of 18 titles launched at Gawker Media, we've already spun off or shuttered six. Even now, 91% of advertising revenues come from the top six remaining titles. Every media group has a similarly lopsided distribution. It's time to choose which properties make it aboard the lifeboat. The era of the sprawling network—established franchises mixed in with experimental sites—is over.

4. Offshore more. For publishers with most of their operations in the US, the decline of emerging market currencies is a potential boon. The dollar cost of development work in Hungary, for instance, has fallen by more than 30% since mid-July. It might seem perverse to push work offshore when costs in the US are falling; in fact, companies should move operations where costs are falling even faster.

5. Variable compensation. Sequoia recommended that their portfolio companies increase variable compensation such as sales commission in exchange for a reduction in base salary and bonus guarantees. We believe media companies should go further than this: reducing base pay for all highly-paid executives in exchange for a share in a profit-share pool. That way staff share more directly in the benefit if revenues turn out better than feared—in proportion to the amount they've sacrificed. And the company lays off some of the risk of volatile revenues. One other possibility along the same lines that we're exploring: four-day weeks for writers willing to trade some income for more free time.

6. More value for marketers. Internet publishers have forced marketers into a straightjacket of standard ad units too small for brands to breathe. If the sector is to capture a larger share of brand advertising from magazines and television, the creative needs to have more impact. We've introduced three new units: the marquee—1,000 pixels by 250—at the top of each page; the panorama in the flow of the posts at 800x250; and a sponsored post format for marketers with a message best communicated by text.

This is all pretty abstract so let me share a couple of charts. They're based on real numbers—and our projections for next year—though we've removed the numbers on the y-axis to maintain at least the appearance of commercial discretion. The first chart shows where Gawker Media would be if the company only reacted in the middle of next year after the decline in advertising hits; the second shows our current plan assuming internet display advertising declines by 20% in each of the next two years and we can no longer out-perform the market. It looks pretty bleak: but at least lean internet businesses can make it through! And if I'm being unduly gloomy? Well, then—see third chart—there will be plenty of cash to invest—or acquire the assets of companies that can't withstand even the mildest of downturns.

Too late

30% decline a year in ad market—with cost cuts

The optimistic scenario: quick bounce back

Background
—-A blog mogul turns bearish on blogs [New York Times, 2006]
—-Gawker Media ditching three sites [Alley Insider, April 2008]
—-How low will online ads go? [All Things D]

Nick Denton is the CEO of Gawker Media. This post is reprinted with his permission from his blog.



< Prev. Story
Next Story >

18 Comments

douglas mcintyre (URL) said:
Remarkably good and detailed analysis, and probably right.This recession is going to be worse than 1973 or 1982.
clickbot said:
Allow me to cut and paste my favorite part from this, since it addresses a pet-peeve of mine, online advertising's alleged "measurability":

"As for the measurability of internet media: sure, marketers and their agencies can track engagement and clicks in great detail online; but it's still only television advertising that can demonstrate a correlation between spending and a boost to a marketer's sales."

This is quite a remarkable admission coming from Mr. Denton.
Dan Daoust said:
Nick, change back the commenting format on Deadspin. Do it now. You've lost half your commenters there only because of the new format. This is obvious to everyone.
GaryD said:
Off topic, sorry...

The posting on Google seems to be getting blocked by Google. The rest of your site is working through both my RSS reader and my browser; only the google post is not working and I am getting a 502 server error.

"Don't be evil"?
Steve Baldwin (URL) said:
Great analysis, very scary. I would only quibble with the following passage:

As for the measurability of internet media: sure, marketers and their agencies can track engagement and clicks in great detail online; but it's still only television advertising that can demonstrate a correlation between spending and a boost to a marketer's sales.

Paid search (PPC) marketing does in fact let marketers precisely correlate spending with actual sales. Naturally, the precision level is greatest with pure-play e-commerce merchants because offline orders are difficult to track. This form of marketing does not have the scale (I hate that word: make it volume) of mass broadcasting, but it is significantly more measurable. Of course, this in itself does not make it recession-proof. If people stop buying goods and services en masse (as appears to be happening), marketers will stop renting keywords, which will have a profound impact on the growth rates of Google and the other engines.

Alex Schleber (URL) said:
@clickbot - I beg to differ. If done properly, that is using direct response methods, PPC and other internet marketing methods are THE most accountable for of marketing, period. It's just that most big brand co's don't understand how to do this vs. the image advertising they prefer (and are being sold by the "creative" ad firms), even though there is nothing mutually exclusive about them.

Step 1: Your PPC ad can have only three outcomes - purchase, email capture (optin), or no action.

Step 2: If there was no purchase, the prospect then gets an auto-responder sequence of emails, further elucidating the offer, providing useful information for further bonding/trust building, special deals, etc. etc.

Step 3: The optin either purchases or they don't. Either way you can track the whole thing with precision, and arrive at statistically relevant numbers for your conversion rates. This tells you how much you can spend on e.g. your PPC up to break-even.

Step 4: If you are really sophisticated and understand back-end/repeat sales, and drive this properly through your optin list marketing, then you can get a number for "life-time value of customer". Once you have this with a decent degree of reliability, then you can afford to even go past break-even on the front end, i.e. market more aggressively through higher PPC bids, or loss leader type front-end offers.

All in all, you cannot match this with TV at this point, because to get the response, you have to switch the medium, e.g. to phone, or online, which isn't seamless. Of course you have to understand direct response to make this all work.
Clyde McPhat said:
@Alex Schleber...please oh please oh please don't ever use the phrase "big advertisers don't understand how to do this" ever again...it makes people stop reading because a sentence like that equates to snobbery that you know better.

If they don't see the fucking ad on the internet how do they know they want the product?????

I use my 16 year old daughter as my lab rat about the internet advertising business. She sees NO ads even though she is all over the place everyday. I think her experience is typical of the young consumer, ages 12-24 and 18-34.

Do I want more junk mail in my in box? I haen't bought anything from POttery Barn in 5 years but everyday at 12 noon I get an email from them about some sale that they are having. I have clicked away at the ad to get them to stop sending it to me for the last 5 years. I never want to see an ad fronm the Pottery Barn ever again. I hate them.

How are the car manufacturer's doing now that they shifted the majority of their ads to the internet over the last two years? How is the internet experience going to convince the American buying public that it is okay to spend the money to buy the car? Not by a PPC ad, I can tell you that.

The creatives that you lambast at the agencies are failures at one major thing though. They have yet to be able to translate a magazine ad to the internet. The experince of paging through a Vanity Fair issue is nothing like paging through the Vanity Fair web site. Or the New Yorker web site.

Is Nick Denton the new David Ogilvy? I read his sites, but please, I couldn't tell you if he has any advertisers at all...oh, he does? Wow.
Stephen said:
I don't generally think offshoring is bad, but too much of it is a vicious cycle:consumers have less money -> they spend less -> advertisers spend less -> media companies cut jobs/offshore -> consumers have less money.
Alex Schleber (URL) said:
@Clyde McPhat - well, that's why I said "most"... which is a fact because if they understood direct response, they would be using it more.

Very few co's even mail to their lists (or don't build lists in the first place) more than say 1 x month with impersonal sales pitches.

In regard to unconscious ad "block-out", it is a very real phenomenon, and exists in EVERY medium including TV commercials. The cure is two-fold: First, you only pay for actual clicks, and second, you use the most context targeted, disruptive ads to get attention. That means offering things that MAKE SENSE in a given context, unlike offering a car as a pre-roll ad to a YouTube entertainment video, etc.

The Pottery Barn email should have an "Unsubscribe link at the bottom, else the would be violating CANSPAM regulations and you could sue them.
Clyde McPhat said:
@alex....most cable networks have a TON of dr advertising on them...P&G uses a ton of DR...American Express....yes.

I don't want to sue the Pottery Barn....I want them to actually unsubscribe me when I tell them too...but who would want to receive an email a day?
Sleeps With Fishes said:
I am so happy to see the Gawker Empire folding, one cut at a time.

Next up: Valleywag is being folded into Gawker. The unredoubtable Owen Thomas will now be a "writer." That ought to be rich!

Look at Valleywag's traffic. What a train wreck. It'll be interesting to see if the lies he spouted on VW will get Gawker sued. I assume he never got sued on VW because you need at least five readers to prove libel.
Ian Bell (URL) said:
Nick,

It looks like you are not running any network ads on your sites. I don't mean to sound rude, but why measure an industry's growth based on a sales departments inability to, well, sell?

Hire a better sales team, strike deals with Advertising.com, 24/7 Real Media and other ad networks to monetize your unsold inventory. I see ads promoting Gawker on your sites, ditch those and run some network ads.

Marketers are keen on video, why not produce more video content so you can monetize those? Video ad networks like BrightRoll and Yume are still paying $15 or so NET which is pretty good...
Marah Marie (URL) said:
@Alex: If I give a retail website my email address and get constantly spammed in return I consider that an outrage, not a service. I go through this with several companies. Everyone knows the old "1 pixel image" trick to track who opens an email and who doesn't, and everyone who sells something uses it, yet somehow these same spammers cannot get it through their thick heads that if I delete their emails without even opening them for months or years, then that means WOW! I am NOT interested in what they have to offer! Why should I have to unsubscribe from their relentless spam when they can tell I'm not interested by my ongoing, long-term lack of response? If I wanted to buy anything from them, I would have done so the day I gave them my email address, or not long after (perhaps a month or two at most). Do you agree that people like me should be relentlessly spammed unless we unsubscribe from something that we clearly chose not to bother with in the first place after we provided them with an email address? Then you're just another typical, overly-aggressive marketer, for sure.
davido (URL) said:
Tiffany rings He added that he thought there were still opportunities for some kind of partnership around search.
We don't think Steve is bluffing. We think he really has moved on. But we also note that this is Steve Ballmer we're talking about: He could always just wake up one morning and change his mind.
fiaoio3 (URL) said:
tiffany necklaces Welcome to Tiffanysale.co.uk, We offer Discount Tiffany Rings,necklaces,Earrings,Bracelets and other Tiffany & Co Jewellery. All our Tiffany Jewellery are 100% Authentic sterling silver made guaranteed, exactly the same as the items in Tiffany London stores.
Clyde McPhat said:
@ian bell.....sorry but going the ad network route is a slow and painful death. And if someone is paying 15.00 net on video through an ad network...it will soon be 5.00 and then under a dollar. There is no limit on supply, and demand can NEVER catch up with supply. If Gawker was to add a video element, Nick's costs would ratchet up and his return would ratchet down. There is no there there.

By the way, a sales department's inability to sell is usually based on price, and if you give the inventory over to an ad network, there goes your price. TV NEVER gave in to the third party route of selling their inventory, mags didnt either. The danger is you can't control the cost, and when the ad networks feel the heat they drop their prices in a heartbeat, and that's what has happened. If you were an advertiser and Gawker sales came to you at 10.00 and a ad network with Gawker in their inventory came to you at 2.00 bucks, I don't think you would keep your job recommending the 10.00 buck deal. So, Ian, please tell me again why ad networks are the way to go?



Clyde
Ian Bell (URL) said:
@Clyde McPhat

Time to build your bunker now, because the way you talk, the sky has to be falling.

Ever heard the saying that a small percentage of something is better than a large percentage of nothing? That is exactly what you are saying with your comments.

I will break it down for you so you understand:

1) Do not "hand over" your inventory to ad networks, give them your unsold inventory. Keep your sales team in place. CNN uses Advertising.com to sell their unsold inventory for example.

2) There are enough ad networks out there fighting to represent premium sites with unsold inventory - Gawker has good content. CPM rates might lower in the long run, but getting paid for something is better than nothing - it's as simple as that.

3) As for video, who says Gawker needs to create their own? YouTube certainly doesn't. They can grab videos out there and run ads against them. Maybe have user video reviews or something on Gizmodo for example...just an idea.

4)TV never gave into the third party route?

http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/

NBC Universal already struck a deal with Google: http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080908_nbcuniversal.html

Spotrunner: http://www.spotrunner.com/


You don't need to re-invent the wheel, just find out what the survivors are doing and emulate them. It's not hard to do...but don't take my advice if you don't want to.

www.digitaltrends.com

davido (URL) said:
I will break it down for you so you understand:
Do not "hand over" your inventory to ad networks, give them your unsold inventory. Keep your sales team in place. CNN uses Advertising.com to sell their unsold inventory for example.
There are enough ad networks out there fighting to represent premium sites with unsold inventory - Gawker has good content. CPM rates might lower in the long run,Online shopping but getting paid for something is better than nothing - it's as simple as that.
As for video, who says Gawker needs to create their own? YouTube certainly doesn't. They can grab videos out there and run ads Online collector against them. Maybe have user video reviews or something on Gizmodo for example...just an idea.
TV never gave into the third party route?

Join the discussion