|
ReefRaff, via Flickr (CC license)
Some attempts at translation just don't work. |
Today,
Kory Kredit (director of marketing at
AdOn Network) offers an
intriguing pop quiz in Media Post:
"Which of these URLs do you recognize?
"For those of you who claim to recognize the first two, you are either lying, or you have lived in both Iowa and Arizona, as I have. ...Even if you do live in those regions, the chance that you've never visited one of these sites increases as your age bracket skews younger."
The point of this exercise is Kredit's question: "Does a traditional media brand name (i.e. Seattle Times, Kansas City Star, etc.) provide significant value to an online audience, or does its value get lost in translation somewhere between the printed word and the 19-inch flat-screen you're currently staring at?"
This is well worth pondering, I think -- and definitely not just among media or journalism insiders. What makes news valuable enough to support a business for producing it?
I do think that mainstream news brands still attract (and deserve) a considerable level of "default trust" among many communities and demographics -- if only because with the recent explosion of news and media options, it's hard enough for many people to fully grasp the breadth of what's available, let alone decide what news to trust.
Trust is a pretty important and attractive selling point. It simplifies decisions and thus can reduce the inherent stress of uncertainty. When it comes to news and information, "Who can I trust?" is a primary concern that cuts across lines of age, race, income, ethnicity, politics, and other key demographics.
That said, it's interesting to look over NewsTrust's broad array of most trusted sources. People are definitely extending trust beyond established traditional news brands.
The "default trust" dynamic -- which keeps people coming back to news brands -- only works if people have experience with that news brand. So it's not just about trustworthiness, it's also about relevance and presence.
Kredit's point is that when news brands fail to continually establish relevance and presence early on with each new generation, they simply become invisible. He suggests that "Newspapers might consider abandoning their traditional print brand online, reinventing an entirely new media brand for the Web. This allows a great deal of autonomy to operate -- much the same as an Internet company, not a newspaper company with a Web site." I have my doubts about that strategy, since an established brand, even one in decline, almost always gets more recognition than a brand-new one.
So: What's your news brand's strategy for continuously establishing relevance and presence with new generations and communities? Please comment below.
[This comment was also posted to the original article.] Ah,...
