Talking Digital Q&A #9: Andrew Hunter, Network Director ninemsn

I first met Andrew years back when I was at Mindshare. We were exploring a content led initiative for a client and Andrew got involved to ensure it didn’t become a piece of dull branded content that the users had no interest in but it appeased the brand manager involved. Through collaboration and lots of insight we created something that not only got great traction with users, but also appeased the client. A win/win scenario. Since then I’ve kept in touch with Andrew as he has an amazing understanding of how media is being consumed across channels, the technology challenges facing publishers and a view of the Australian media world that is hard to beat. He has been a leading driver of the evolution of ninemsn and its position as a leading, innovative content business in Australia, leading a large team of journalists and producers that together control some of the biggest destination sites in Australia.

Lots is happening at Nine Entertainment/ninemsn right now – the amazing ratings success of the block, the introduction of trade brand MI9 and the Summer Olympics coming up in July – so it felt like a good time to ask Andrew a few questions and get his opinion on a bunch of things.

TD: ninemsn has evolved into mi9 – can you explain what this means in terms of product evolution and also benefits to ninemsn users?

AH: Mi9 is natural move for us, but it’s more of a trade/sales story than one for our audience. The joint venture (50/50 Microsoft and Nine Entertainment Co.) had got to the point where a number of diverse businesses were operating under the ninemsn banner that the trade rightfully equated with our network of 80 owned-and-operated sites. These businesses include Cudo, Microsoft Advertising Network (MMN), Microsoft Ad Exchange, Hotmail, Bing, comparison sites Rate City and iSelect, among others. So the new umbrella brand was created to sit across the entire joint venture. ninemsn is a still a massive part of this group and remains our consumer web and mobile brand. In a nutshell, it means something to us, our shareholders and the trade but it’s business as usual for our audience and products.

TD: How have the demands on editors/content producers etc changed over the last 5 years as content becomes ‘format’ agnostic and sites like ninemsn feature content that could be copy/images/video/liveblogging/user comments or something that includes elements of each?

AH: The digitisation of journalism has given producers new avenues to express their creativity. We’ve always made a point of recruiting our news journalists from print and then helped them build video, image production and real-time reporting skills on top of that base. The biggest change has been the demand for analytical and distribution skills. Our producers monitor real-time analytical tools (some they have built themselves) to get a read on the audience and tweak the mix or pitch accordingly. They’re also good at distributing their stories through social media and search. Understanding the way social distribution works, where the levers are and when to pull them are essential components of the producer skill set.  Sharing is the ultimate valuation of a story. The more it gets shared, the more valuable we believe it is to our audience so social is embedded into our editorial workflows and culture.

TD: Which companies do you believe are at the forefront of content creation and delivery in 2012 and why?

AH: Much innovation in content creation is coming from the edges, from individual bloggers and smaller publishers. I like what the Business Spectator crew are doing perhaps as much for the niche they’re occupying and the overall business play as the content, but the journalism is high-value. Crikey is always an interesting read. Gawker’s approach is worth following – Nick Denton is about a year ahead of the pack and wilfully cuts through the crap surrounding digital/social media. The Atlantic has done a great job in journalism and distribution. I admire News Limited’s ability to generate news and know its audience. On the distribution front, Zite on the iPad is excellent. It’s a news aggregator that has exposed me to many of the great small bloggers and publishers covering technology and Silicon Valley, two of my favourite news topics. And while they’re in our stable, I think Nine News TV has aced it on the distribution front. They have ground out a strong position against Seven in part by reeling in audience across the schedule with news story promos. They use social media well too. And at the risk of moving into shameless plug territory, the ninemsn newsroom is one of the most innovative and forward-looking content organisations around. They have made the audience their absolute focus. Users are now a major source of news stories (we tap them for story tips) and the key distributors of our content (through social media).  Our news operation generates more traffic from Facebook than any of our competitors. We’re proud of that.

TD: Sometimes it feels that it’s more viable to create conduits for other people’s content (ie social media, twitter, Facebook) rather than investing in the creation of content? How do you see this working over the next 5-10 years as content creators and content conduits compete for investment and ad revenue?

AH: People who make great content needn’t worry. The money will come.  If not through advertising, then through subscriptions, sponsorships, transactions or endorsements. Distributors need content and will continue to. I think it’s these middle men distributors/publishers who will feel the pinch over time. In video, for example, I think Hulu and NetFlix will get squeezed by the studios/content owners. As insidious as it is, Demand Media created a clever content model that straddles content creation, distribution and media sales. Then there’s the Silicon Valley social crew, such as Facebook, who are making money by advertising against user-generated content but appear to want to stay out of directly monetising professional news content. There are also the aggregators such as Flipboard, Zite and Pulse who are, or will one day, serve ads around the content others are producing. That’s already rankling the content owners/makers.

TD: The Voice has been a huge success both on TV and online. Can you give us an idea of the work involved in trying to create a format that lives so naturally across channels; and do you think this is the future of ‘live entertainment/reality’ type programming (ie – it becomes a cross channel event not a TV show).

AH: I had a chat to our Head of TV and Video, Ben Watts, about this and he says the format has worked so well as a cross-channel  event is because, primarily, the core show is so good. Nine and Shine have taken almost every aspect to the next level – from the calibre of coaches, to the production values, to the volume of great behind-the-scenes video content and the level of social media integration. It has been the most demanding TV integration ninemsn has worked on, but also by far the most rewarding and successful. We are currently working with Nine to raise the bar a little bit higher still with the rebirth later this year of the original ‘multi-media event’, Big Brother.

TD: The London Olympics is the first time in a long time 9 has broadcast the summer Olympics … what does ninemsn have planned and how important will ninemsn be to 9’s Olympic coverage?

AH: We’re throwing the kitchen sink at the Olympics because Nine has the rights and the time zone works well for us. The timing is great because we have the catch-up TV web streaming rights on a six-hour delay so all the big overnight races will be ready to view each morning at ninemsn. We’re integrating with Nine’s coverage from TODAY through the schedule. We will have a team producing original video content in London alongside the Nine TV guys and bulked-up team in Sydney running our Olympics site around the clock for the 17 days of the Games. We’ve been alongside Nine from the start on editorial planning, logistics and sales. All of the Olympic partners and sponsors are working with the group across web and TV. It’s going to be huge.

 

Can advertising help MSN search gain ground?

I saw this article on Paid Content and it got me thinking (article – http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-microsoft-plans-100-million-campaign-for-live-search)

Basically it outlines that MSN in the US is reportedly investing $100m to develop an ad campaign around it’s next version of search (which could be called Kumo, or Live Search, or Bing!).

From the article: “the company is convinced that perceptions of its search product—and not the product itself—are responsible for its lackluster market share, which badly trails Yahoo and Google”

I was thinking the other day about what could be done to unseat Google’s dominant position in search. Google gradually built up audience – helped a helluva lot by powering Yahoo!’s search results when Yahoo! was more dominant that it is now – and was far and away superior to the dominant pure search product around at the time (AltaVista) when it decided to go solo. It’s important to note that pre Google search was pretty shaky in terms of quality.

“In the future a multi-purpose services strategy likely will be the new normal for media companies”

Ben Shepherd writes: So says IABs Randall Rothenberg in this excellent blog post – http://www.iab.net/iablog/2008/12/a-services-strategy-for-intera.html

It’s worth a read – basically Rothenberg talks about a lot of digital’s ad growth coming from ‘low hanging fruit’ and not enough of it coming from the top 50 brand advertisers in the US.

He also talks about the danger of pigeonholing digital into DR type metric areas … as it devalues the medium and what it can truly achieve (the number of marketers saying they use the Internet to “generate sales” leaped 50 percent in that two-year period. The number saying they deployed interactive media to “influence purchase decisions” rose by one-third) in the areas of sales, site visits (ie post view) and e-commerce transactions.

He also talks through issues with measurement. He should be thankful he doesn’t live here …

Anyway, towards the end he gets to this point.

“… advanced publishers aren’t waiting for a set of magic metrics to instantaneously ignite a brand-advertising renaissance online. Instead, they have determined to build multiple paths to customer value and their own prosperity”

Personally I think agencies are in the same boat as publishers in this respect and one of the things I think the IAB does well in the US is think about the wider members of the digital marketing ecosystem and what they will need to do moving forward to remain competitive and innovative.

Just like publishers can’t really rely on selling banners to keep the growth alive, neither can an agency rely on buying banners and search campaigns and expect to keep its masters happy.

He mentions a company like Microsoft purchasing AvenueA and aQuantive … as well as CNet/CBS Interactive Content Solutions services direct to technology companies. Cars.com in the US has a CRM solution direct to dealers.

I often rant about the issue of publishers not telling advertisers enough about their audience and audience insight being too narrow in AU. Surely there is potential in this area for publishers – especially those with large, loyal, regular audiences.

The same with branded content. My attempts at talking about branded content with some ‘big 5 publishers’ has been awkward and clunky … dictated by a culture of saying ‘no’ … personally I think it’s possible but the sales resource on it now isn’t educated enough.

On a side note, I think publishers like Private Media, Kidspot and Allure Media should be setting up branded content arms right now and proactively creating a market (there are easier ways to monetise words and images than selling ads next to them) around custom publishing.

DMGs Nova are doing some excellent competitions and initiatives around the web that take what clever things they do on radio and making them come to life on the web. Amanda Good from Nova Melbourne has sent a stack through to me (including an excellent one for Trance Energy) that are really great and seem a far easier experience than dealing with the regular players.

iinet have teamed up with ninemsn to create a new consumer destination for iinet subscribers. It’s win/win – better content for iinet subscribers and a chance for iinet to add more value to consumers, for ninemsn it gives them advertising access to a credible, high end audience. (and one that has high numbers in a competitive market, Perth)

There’s also potential around sampling, research, CRM and content management.

I think times like this require a little bit of out of the box thinking (within reason) to fuel growth. One thing that excites me is agencies and publishers working together moving forward to create this. With the right (and adequate) resource some amazing things are possible.

And something that should excite us semi skilled (TM Liam Walsh 2009) web workers is the medium we specialise in can be the driver for these wider initiatives across all media.

Again, the key is making these out of the box thoughts added value not added cost. This will come with smart selling and positioning.

Digital should not try and go head to head with TV as it will never win the battle

Ben Shepherd writes: I was reading this in the SMH and was thinking that perhaps the publishers are fighting the wrong battle (or the journo is taking the wrong angle)

http://business.smh.com.au/business/tv-counts-the-cost-of-online-ad-drift-20081203-6qqr.html

ONLINE publishers are moving to poach at least $100 million in revenues off TV broadcasters next year using new technology that allows them to run commercials made for broadcast TV.

This is ridiculous. FDTV and Platform 9 and pre-rolls are not substitues for TVCs running on TV.

“With the amount of time people are spending online, we should be getting 2-4 per cent [of the TV market],” said Fairfax Digital’s managing director, media, Pippa Leary. “We should be getting more than 4 per cent.”

This argument is flawed and I believe a big problem for online. It’s the ‘we represent x% of media consumption thus are entitled to more dollars at the expense of other media.” Forget about context, time of day etc … the pitch needs a bit more of a polish. Numbers are only one small part of a bigger equation.

Most media forms can mount a similar argument, the problem is it doesn’t win over new converts. Imagine if all the media forms – TV, online, newspapers, magazines, radio, sub TV – all based their pitch on comparing against other media rather than focusing on how they can answer the business objective … media would be a pretty boring place to be.

Paul Meischke from Carat: “All the publishers here are having a crack at it. I think it can work but the pricing should not be comparable to TV. I’ll pay for the size of the screen you give me. It has merit in terms of audience targeting but we’re not talking about a 52-inch plasma screen.”

Yes. TV buyers will be open to this format. why? Because they understand the idea of running TVCs – it’s not foreign to them like flash banner ads and expanding and new metrics and conversion funnels etc. The real challenge is to give them a reason to move the dollars away outside of mass consumption. Just like you can’t really track exactly who is watching a TV ad, the same goes for pre-rolls, uninitiated video, initiated video, Platform 9 tech etc as well. They are all as gray as eachother.

TVCs are great on TV. Are they great online? Maybe – depends on what you’re trying to do, how you re-cut the TVC … what destination you push to, what time you run them, what content you run them against and so on.

 

Liam Walsh writes:  I had to laugh about the paying for size of the screen idea. I bet the chaps in mobile would be more than a little worried if that were true.

I am right there with you Ben on the issue of usage and people bleeting that usage should translate to share of revenue. If this were true, buses and trains could charge more than channel seven in Sydney. It is a silly but pervasive argument.

But fundamentally I agree with Ms Leary that TV money can and will move online. It will be much slower than publishers would like (well at least the digital ones) and complaining about pace of shift is always unattractive. 

For the money to move faster, the online industry will need to get infrastructure in place. We are miles away from that point.