What the New York Times’ transformation teaches us about brand management
Three years ago, the Canadian government commissioned a report to examine what the future of democracy would look like in a post-newspaper world. A reasonable enough move at the time, considering talk of the death of newspapers has been going on for at least two decades now. But this purported death is morphing into something else, as the transformation of The New York Times into a successful global news brand shows.
The Times’ new media columnist, Ben Smith, recently wrote a piece suggesting that his new employer “has become like Facebook or Google — a digital behemoth crowding out the competition”. If Smith is right, and it certainly looks that way, we’re looking at a new dawn for news brands. And a similar scenario could play out in Australia.
Key points
* The Times has gone “from wounded giant to reigning colossus”, experiencing a rise “as breathtaking as that of any start-up”.
* Far from its days in decline as recently as six years ago, The Times has signed up more digital subscribers than The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the 250 local papers combined, and employs 1,700 journalists — a huge number considering total employment in US newspapers is somewhere between 20,000 and 38,000.
* Times stock has rebounded to nearly triple what it was in 2014. (If you come across a time machine, it might be a good idea to buy, buy, buy.)
* The Times is branching out into audio, looking to acquire Serial Productions and build “the HBO of podcasts”.
* A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, believes The Times is creating a market for subscription news services. He also thinks Americans are willing to pay for more than one news subscription.
* The success of The Times could potentially crowd out most other competition.
What The New York Times has done is show the publishing industry what success in the 21st century can look like, but it involves annihilating much of the competition. In Australia, it’s not too farfetched to imagine a scenario where only two titles survive.
As brands, the value of mastheads around the world stemmed from the fortunes of their print circulation. With that now gone, a sweeping digital presence is the only chance for success. Unfortunately for Australian publishers, none of them built a significant national presence before the digital transformation arrived.
And, as is increasingly obvious to everyone, Australian audiences have wholeheartedly rejected the pay wall model. A 2019 report by the University of Canberra found that Australian news consumers would rather subscribe to a video streaming service, such as Netflix (34%), than pay for online news (9%).
So what would the Australian version of The Times success story look like?
It would more likely be two players – one for the two opposing political persuasions, left and right – with The Guardian and News.com the most likely candidates for each position. In the case of News.com, it could seamlessly absorb Sky News to form one large news organisation. The rest of the competition would most likely evaporate.
Like in the US, there would still be room for one or two niche players. Here, the likes of Business Insider could bolster its position by acquiring The Australian Financial Review, which would give it a more authoritative local presence. (Nine may not be considering a sale now, but things change quickly in this environment.) And there is always room for an international tabloid like The Daily Mail.
For marketers, this brave new world of news media would deliver a shrinking pool of media options, but they would be able to reach the majority of eyeballs with fewer transactions.
A more interesting perspective, however, is the lesson here for all marketers – and that’s one of brand management. The New York Times’ transformation teaches us the importance of rapid adoption of new routes to market, which can potentially be more powerful than the legacy of a 150-year-old brand. While The Times has both, the local emergence of News.com has shown us that, in some cases, rapid adoption trumps heritage.
Either way, now is not the time for brands to rest on their laurels. Change is mandatory to ensure survival. Whether you’re stewarding a prestige vehicle, a fashion brand or a washing powder, that’s a lesson for everyone.
