If you are reading this, then it’s likely that you’re in the business of people.  Entertaining them, keeping them up to date, connecting them to each other and their community.  Targeting them, selling them and selling to them.  So it begs the question: are we doing them a disservice by reducing them to a set of numbers and ‘last click’ behaviours, as opposed to paying attention to why they make the consumption choices they do? 

Having worked in agency land and publisher side, I’ve learnt to live with the inherent tension between strategy and investment or commercial and content (depending which side of the industry I’m sitting on at the time).  I will always err to the more humanistic side of audience planning because I am a strategist by trade, but lately I’ve felt myself getting irritated at the excessive commoditisation of media – more specifically, localised Australian media.

It’s clear why it happens, as publishers, we’re trying to grow businesses using a tried and tested ad-funded model but in an ever-expanding industry.  The problem is, this expansion is coming from international players and while their offerings bring many benefits for advertisers and publishers alike, their highly advanced global transaction platforms are playing into a vast devaluation of the local audiences we generate and in doing so, our local media industry suffers as a whole. 

Value versus valuable

In starting the conversation around attention, Karen Nelson-Field and Amplified Intelligence have sparked a reconsideration of how we value media.  Shifting us along from pure reach and cost per thousand metrics to asking questions about quality.  This is a good thing, if the metric doesn’t become so widespread or easy to use that it falls into the same binary consideration mode that those afore mentioned metrics have.  I have terrible futuristic visions of media buyers everywhere doing ‘attention’ runs, ranking STAS scores high to low and picking the top publisher. 

It diminishes the value of the metric but more importantly the value of the channel by completely removing any context around the audience.  Largely intangible or ‘publisher claimed’ metrics like the audience’s level of influence on purchase decisions, their loyalty and commitment to the medium (yielding greater levels of trust) and the reasons they choose to consume a channel or specific piece of content, can provide significant insight into the value of that channel beyond the pure numbers. 

There is a reason that local media organisations tout their products as premium.  It’s not just because their screens are bigger but because their content is designed to connect with the audiences they serve.

For instance, Life Uncut, ranked #5 on the Australian Podcast Ranker, delivers an audience of scale. But its female listeners, responsible for around four times more household purchase decisions than their male counterparts, makes them a more valuable target audience than a ‘people’ or ‘grocery buyer’ target of greater volume.  For every ad an advertiser delivers to this audience, they’re likely to reach four times more decision makers and therefore quadruple the value of every dollar they spend.  This insight isn’t something that surfaces in the standard decision-making tools that media buyers and marketers use, so it’s the responsibility of the publisher to get this information to the client which is a problem in an industry suffering a talent (and time) crisis.

Ease trumps engagement

From a commercial perspective, the local media industry is largely constructed around a service-based model.  Relationships play a huge role in the ability for a publisher to receive a brief, let alone be successful in winning the pitch.  This model is cost heavy, difficult to scale and slow to adapt.  As a result, I fear we are in a moment of time that risks diminishing the value of local media.  As agencies experience an employment crisis, and the international players like Meta and Google have made it so easy to transact, I worry that we’re about to witness a further decline in tier-one advertising spend in the same way we witnessed the decimation of the SME ad dollar over the last few years. 

According to SMI Data, the proportion of Australian ad dollars spent with internationally owned media companies¹ has more than doubled over the last five years and the rate of acceleration has not slowed in over twelve.

It sends a powerful (but sad) message to Australian media companies that ease of transaction, which is absolutely the strength of the internationals like Meta and Google, is more valuable than a deep understanding of the ‘why’ behind their audience or the value they add to the Australian economy and way of life.  Clients simply don’t have time to consider the power of audiences generated by local media, which forces a race to the bottom, if they’re to remain competitive. 

But what if there was another way to reinstate the value in Australian made media like local radio?  With the closure of local newspapers, for many regional towns, radio remains the stalwart voice of the community.  Not just giving the people a voice and providing a collective listening experience that creates a sense of belonging, but a vital source of support whether that be financial or promotionally based.  Unfortunately, when it comes to national ad-spend, regional radio is often a ‘tick box exercise’ at the bottom of a plan, despite the value of the deeply connected audience they generate. 

I would argue that consideration for the broader role that the channel plays as part of our economy and Australian way of life could be systematised.

Three-way win

It’s no secret that media agencies are filled with educationally privileged, forward-thinking personnel.  People who want a better, more equal and ethically responsible world and this is reflected not only in their own policy, people and culture frameworks, but also the operating frameworks they hold their media partners accountable to.  This is a good thing for the industry and for Australia, but I would argue, there is one piece missing from this thinking and it’s the ‘Australian made’ lens. 

With this in mind, I suggest that ‘Australian Made Media’ could exist as a consideration for advertisers and agencies as they develop their ESG frameworks.  By systemising the inclusion of local media, it could help protect local voices, support the Australian economy and force true consideration for the value of one audience over another. 

The question is, is it the responsibility of the Australian government, the industry bodies or the publishers to raise this agenda?  The answer likely lies somewhere between all these parties, but I also wonder, do advertisers have a responsibility to recognise the value of domestic media and consciously pay a premium for the good of the industry and therefore our economy?  It’s a little like making a choice between a homemade hamburger or visiting Maccas. You get the same end product, but one takes more effort and is better for you.

Ultimately, I don’t really think I’m going to win the argument for an audience’s value to be considered beyond the current volumetrics, particularly in a resource-constricted environment. But I hope that as advertisers start to lay down their plans for 2023, they think about the circular nature of what they do; that by supporting local media, they can produce more valuable audiences who in turn will buy more of the advertisers product and as a whole, improve our economy.   

¹ Spotify + Meta + Google + TikTok (does not include the likes of Newscorp or smaller publishers which would make the proportion of internal dollars even greater)