Above the masthead on the Chicago Sun-Times read this little banner: “Still 75 cents.”
Amidst a global recession, the casual observer might think: “Wow, the price of something is staying the same.”
But observers of this space know that intuitive thinking like this, while safe, doesn’t get you where you need to be.
Chicago’s days as a two-paper town have been numbered for, like, forever. There’s the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Both can’t survive long-term (right?) so the Sun-Times apparently thinks it needs to compete on price.
How bout this: Compete with Relevance.
Is it that easy? NO. But here’s what’s wrong with the price tactic:
- It does not communicate value. “Still” 75 cents? That’s spare change. That also tells me you’re less-expensive than your competitor, which means…
- You’ll get the price shopper – and not the value shopper. Buying a newspaper isn’t buying a car. Might be closer to buying a cup of coffee. Ooh, nice analogy…
That’s where the relevance factor comes in.
The Sun-Times just might be the most relevant paper in Chicago. But they lost me at the masthead.
They’ve hired away columnists from the competing Tribune – and they have brand-name journalists on staff. This is the paper that gave you Roger Ebert long ago.
Can Newspapers Learn from Starbucks?
There’s relevance for ya. Pick one and roll…
Starbucks is relevant not just because of its ubiquity but because of how they communicate value. Every cup has something attached to it that you’re willing to pay extra for — there’s a lagniappe factor here that’s part ambiance, part smell, part music, part coffee. I pay for it – not all the time, but I don’t hit the Dunkin’ Donuts unless I want something quick and less-expensive.
The Sun-Times might be the Starbucks of newspapers, but they have to tell me that. Thus, here’s the 3-step plan for Newspaper Relevance.
1. Personal Brands. Lots of em. Start by taking your individual rock star columnists — I’ll use Rick Morrissey as an example, as he’s one of those recently hired away from the Chicago Tribune — and positioning them as, well, the rock star columnists they are. Give them their own mini-sites or micro-sites. Treat them like personal brands. It’ll make your product stronger — it’s still a muffin if you buy it at Starbucks, but you’re more likely to buy it at Starbucks because it’s showcased right next to the cashier.
2. Perceived value equals value. I received my home-delivery of the Chicago Tribune this morning and looked below the masthead, in small print. “$1.00 City and Suburbs.” The Trib has always been more expensive – it has also always been perceived as the white-collar paper.
The Wall Street Journal – if you talk about perceived value, then whoa, Nellie, that’s something I’d pay top dollar for.
Any newspaper’s relevance alone won’t be determined by price, but the perception of “you get what you pay for” is pretty spot-on.
3. Make your web sites suck less. It’s not a secret — newspapers are not good at doing the website thing. I won’t single out any of the bad ones — I’ve visited scores of newspaper websites, and, save for three (The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today), they all follow the same formula: let’s take a paper product and put it online, but also use it as a means of selling more ads.
USA Today should be singled out for being the most “Web 2.0″ looking of them all; but all three take their product (NEWS) and package it online extremely well.
The Chicago Tribune, it should be pointed out, is doing something interesting with the “relevance” thing when it comes to their “Chicago Breaking Sports” page. As long as the news itself is relevant (read: “actual news” and not rumors), they score serious points for getting in my head.
Can this 3-step program fix your newspaper’s “relevance” issue?
Maybe. Each paper has its own personal brands – think of the reporter who has been at every local high school playoff since 1963. There’s a brand.
Each paper also has a price/value perception issue – and while I’m not advocating across-the-board price raises, or cuts, I am saying that communicating that you’re the lowest-priced competitor means little when free news is everywhere. Give me something worth paying for by showing me you’ve got something worth paying for.
Oh, and every newspaper has to have some web guru, 20-something on staff who can ramp up your quality without sacrificing things like revenue.
Agree? Disagree? Barking up the wrong trees?
