Stretch your online edit budget Repurposed and user-generated content for your magazine’s website...
-
Upload
jeffrey-hubbard -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Stretch your online edit budget Repurposed and user-generated content for your magazine’s website...
Stretch your online edit budget
Repurposed and user-generated content for your magazine’s
websitePresented by Kim Pittaway
[email protected] Kim Pittaway. Do not forward, republish or distribute without
permission
What to expect
• An overview of the competitive environment
• Insights into what consumers are doing online and what they expect online
• Examples to prompt your own idea generation
• Feedback on what might work for your site
What not to expect
• Answers to your every technical question
• Hard cost estimates on what you’ll need to spend on your site
My expertise
• Magazine editor and writer• Worked with the Chatelaine.com team
during my tenure at Chatelaine• Consulted with St. Joseph Media on
editorial strategies for their magazine web properties
• Project leader on Torontolife.com real estate pillar launch
• Editorial consultation with magazines across a range of sizes and budgets with a focus on editorial and brand strategy
Laying the Groundwork
In the beginning…
The recipe for a magazine website looked something like this:
1. Take 30-40% of your magazine’s content.
2. Pour it into your website, preferably into content sections with cute but unclear labels.
3. Wait for users to arrive.4. Serve cold.
Advanced cooks
1. Add forums. Then try to get users to get out of the forums and back to your content where you can serve them ads. Keep trying.
2. Add the occasional web-exclusive article.
3. Wonder why the only thing users get excited about were contests.
4. Project break-even around the time your children retire.
That was called…
Web 1.0--but it was so 1.0 we didn’t even know it was called that!
And it actually worked sort of okay for sort of a little while.
But now…
…we’re in the world of Web 2.0.
What is Web 2.0?
Web 1.0 was about making information available.
Web 2.0 is about making information useful and participatory.
In Web 2.0, the user is at the centre of the experience
1. The user becomes a content creator.
2. Users define how they see and organize the information.
3. Users build communities in the process of creating and organizing content.
4. Users expect more--more interaction, more content, more flexibility--more that is created or creatable just for them.
Ask yourself:
• When did your website launch?
• When was your last major redesign?
• What has happened online since your initial launch? What has happened since your last redesign?
Here’s a rundown of what your online competitive universe looks like from a user’s perspective.
Blogs• Grew out of online journals; started in mid-90s• Took off around 1999 as better blogging tools
became available.
• Today: • 133 million blogs.• Blogosphere doubles approximately every year• About 120,000 new blogs created every day• About 1 million blog posts every day
• Stats: Technorati.com State of the Blogosphere Report, April 2007, Sept 2008
Wikipedia
• A collaboratively-written online encyclopedia launched in 2001
• Today has:– 10 million articles– Publishes in 253 languages*– 2.24 million English articles– Ranks in top 10 most-visited sites in the world
And it didn’t exist 8 years ago
– Stats: Wikipedia.org
iTunes
• Launched Jan 10, 2001• iTunes video launched May 2005• Over 4 billion songs, 50 million tv
shows and 1.3 million movies downloaded since launch
• Has changed the way people buy music
And it didn’t exist 8 years ago•Stats: Steve Jobs presentation at MacWorld San Francisco 2008 & 2007
Craigslist.org• Network of online urban communities featuring free
classifieds and forums• Founded in 1995; in 14 cities by 2003• Today: 450 cities worldwide• The number one source for classifieds in any medium• Serves 9 billion page views per month• #17 in Canada, #11 in the US, #39 in the world• Ads 30 million new classifieds per month
And it barely existed 5 years ago
• Stats: Alexa.com and Wikipedia.org
MySpace.com and Facebook.com
• Social networking sites• Facebook founded in 2004• MySpace founded in 2003• Facebook.com #2 in Canada (#5 in US);
MySpace.com #14 in Canada (#3 in US)• The world’s largest high school hallway
• And they didn’t exist 5 years ago
• Stats: Alexa.com and Wikipedia.org
Flickr.com• Photo sharing and social networking site• #30 in the world, top photo-sharing site in the
world• 2 billion photos as of Nov 2007
And it didn’t exist 4 years ago
• Stats: Alexa.com and Yahoo.com
YouTube• Launched Feb 2005• Video sharing site featuring 83 million+
videos• Serves 100 million videos/day• 65,000 new videos uploaded daily• Jan 08: 79 million users watched over 3 billion
videos• Accounts for 60% of all online videos watched
And it didn’t exist 4 years ago
• Stats: Youtube.com Fact Sheet Feb7, wikipedia.org
On the online timeline, where do you fit?
1999: Blogs and Google2001: Wikipedia and iTunes2003: MySpace and Craigslist2004: Flickr2005: YouTube and iTunes video2008: ???
There are two ends of this rope
• User-generated and participatory sites are driving massive web traffic and taking share from traditional media sites.
• But traditional media sites are still viewed--even by all of those newly empowered content creators--as authoritative.
So what does this mean for you and your site?
• Authoritative content still countsBut
• Users want to be heard
And another thing…
• Many of the leading Web 2.0 sites do not yet have a proven business model. That means they haven’t figured out how to make money doing what they’re doing. Yet.
• MSM sites do have a proven business model based on the delivery of an audience to an advertiser. Which means….
We’re well-positioned to…
…generate revenue by delivering ads to users for whom we’ve provided an opportunity to create content within the context of an authoritative mainstream media website
The secret to success is to…
• Maximize Authority
• Maximize Participation
• While Remaining True to Your Brand
Easy-peasy!
And I’m telling you this because…
• A critical component of your site’s authority is your magazine’s content. Effectively repurposing content can boost your authority.
• A critical opportunity to maximize participation is to increase your use of user-generated content. Through your magazine brand, you already have a relationship with users, and being associated with your brand carries status for those users. Both are critical elements in your ability to attract and engage users in the creation of content.
What’s in your well?
• Photos?• Directory content?• Annual packages?• Lists?• Seasonal content?• Projects, recipes and how-to’s?
What others are doing
• http://www.BHG.com– Slideshows– Decorating Inspiration program– Garden flower gallery
• http://www.Nationalgeographic.com– Photography on left rail
• http://www.InStyle.com– Starfinder
• http://www.Torontolife.com– Real estate pillar and resto listings
What others are doing
• http://www.cottagelife.com• http://www.Chatelaine.com
– Sponsored sections
• http://www.Finewoodworking.com– The Gallery (drop-down)
• http://www.Concierge.com– City guides
• http://www.SI.com– Fantasy and SI Photos
What others are doing
• http://www.aarpmagazine.org/lifestyle/dream_towns.html– Location Scout
• http://scienceblogs.comAggregating blogs
• http://www.seventeen.com/fashion/shoe-box– Visual poll
• http://www.dominomag.com– Daily Dose aggregated blog
But repurposing doesn’t have to be a one-way flow
• Marmalade magazine (UK) and MySpace.com: March 07 print issue created entirely from MySpace-solicited work
• NYMag.com: Special fashion issues to be created from online content--photo rather than text-driven
• AllRecipes.com: User-submitted recipes syndicated to other sites
But repurposing doesn’t have to be a one-way flow
• CNN I-reports basis of new show
• Toronto Life Real Estate City Guide: relaunched based on ad interest generated by online edition; web-exclusive content pushed back to print
• JPGmag.com and Everywheremag.com: Repurpose online submissions into print magazine
So what can you do?• Create slide shows--but don’t be limited to the
specific subjects already showcased in your magazine. Sort your images into new categories divorced from their original stories.
• Create visually-based tools and polls• Turn static information into an interactive section• Repackage content into sponsored sections• Bring back content when there’s a news hook• Create recipe boxes, job jars and project galleries• Bundle it by season• Create an online encyclopedia
The basics
• Polls and quizzes• Post a comment• Rate this article/feature/recipe• User forums• Most viewed/most emailed--one US
study of marketing sites found that 85% of users used “most popular” links in deciding what to look at
Beyond the basics
• www.AllRecipes.com www.TripAdvisor.com
• www.Yelp.com• www.jpgmag.com• www.everywheremag.com
MSM and user-generated content
• www.Time.com most popular/most emailed• www.TheKnot.com • http://collectiblecars.nytimes.com/
List_Listings.asp• www.cnn.com I-reports
What can you do?
• Get inside your users’ heads: what do they really want to share?
• What are they passionate about?• How technically adept are your users? How
simple can you make it for them?• Can you layer in a viral component?• Don’t be afraid to seed the ground, within
your site and reaching out beyond your site
What do you do when you can’t do a lot?
What’s the one thing they can’t get elsewhere?– Contact with your editor/columnists?– Restaurant reviews?– A unique photo of the day?
• What’s the one thing they can’t get enough of?– Dog pictures?– A favourite columnist?– Weather?– Recipes?– Their own wedding plans? Family reunion plans?
• What’s your unique spin: why should they do it at your place rather than someplace else?
Create your own recipe
• Combine what they really want with what you can deliver better than anyone else
• Evaluate your idea based on what your audience--and your potential audience--are already doing online (hint: maybe a podcast isn’t the way to go)
• It’s better to create a small number of highly-valued features than a site with a lot of content that isn’t distinctive