It\u2019s not a new notion that\u00a0every company is a media company, but it\u2019s still a succinct way to describe the shift in communications the web has enabled. This isn\u2019t a strategy, it\u2019s simply the way the world is. Either embrace it or don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Yet I think a lot of companies and marketers pay lip service to the shift but don\u2019t do a damn thing about it. Which is fine, but they don\u2019t\u00a0really<\/em>\u00a0have much to ground on when their\u00a0organic digital marketing\u00a0efforts fail.<\/p>\n Being a\u00a0modern, relevant<\/em>\u00a0media company involves a pivot of your communications strategy to put an owned channel at the center. You don\u2019t see popular media brands\u00a0yielding their presence\u00a0100% to the stream. They would have to be crazy to do this as they\u2019d be basically giving any of their personal leverage away. They are\u00a0building opt-in at the source\u00a0and growing their main communities safe from externalities in an\u00a0environment\u00a0with a signal to noise ratio they control.<\/p>\n Pontificators\u00a0look hypocritical when they say\u00a0blogs are dead, meanwhile they sit back and continue to build up their own publishing ventures, funneling traffic and communities from the streams and the engines. It\u2019s in their interest to\u00a0propagate\u00a0controversy: it creates links, traffic and attention. All which contribute to their brand and help sell more ads to build revenue. And if their influence is that far-reaching, hey it could even mean less competition for them.\u00a0Meanwhile at the end of the day a blog is simply a publishing platform \u2013 so anyone who says blogs are dead is basically saying self-hosted digital publishing is dead. Right. What would everyone link to? If the social web is a problem in search of a solution, perhaps you should be the solution.<\/p>\n So just what are modern media companies doing right?<\/p>\n They are not just embracing\u00a0search and social\u00a0\u2013 they are reorganizing to dominate them<\/strong><\/p>\n Did you see\u00a0AOL\u2019s master plan\u00a0leaked to the web? Yeah it\u2019s a bit convoluted but the main takeaway is they are\u00a0aggressively<\/em>\u00a0going after search and social. To the point they aren\u2019t even afraid to throw paid promotions at stories. Likely, they\u2019ve ran the numbers and understand a certain thresholds of visitors are necessary to create the highest chances for content to\u00a0propagate and build up enough organic momentum for search and social channels. Meanwhile, media entities and companies who are reticent not only continue to fall further behind, they\u00a0are dying.<\/p>\n Being efficient with their time<\/strong><\/p>\n As I noted above, many smart media companies are focused on building opt-in at the source and creating a hub on the web. This is smart \u2013 ultimately they will monetize by serving ads, affiliate links, selling premium services\/subscriptions\/apps or even consulting and software (no, it\u2019s not far fetched and yes, modern media companies could easily compete with you). They\u2019re still leveraging outposts, but in many cases doing so efficiently. Consider the\u00a0NY Times doesn\u2019t really have a Facebook page, they basically just have another RSS feed. Subscribers don\u2019t notice the difference because likely many of them never used RSS in their life. Facebook just makes it possible to syndicate there much like you would a feed.<\/p>\n The Times also\u00a0gutted their social media position:<\/p>\n The move is part of the Times\u2019 efforts to more fully integrate its print and digital operations. It\u2019s also an acknowledgment that social media needs to be \u2014 and is already \u2014 a shared responsibility.<\/p>\n \u2026.Social media can\u2019t belong to one person; it needs to be part of everyone\u2019s job\u2026It has to be integrated into the existing editorial process and production process\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Indeed, once an organization gets to a certain level of sophistication social media-specific positions start to make less sense. Get\u00a0everyone<\/em>\u00a0to be socially smart. Shows you some media companies may actually be ahead of the curve in terms of having a digitally-savvy team. Not to say social media team members aren\u2019t still valuable. Of course they are, but once a company has a larger social strategy everyone is executing on they can transition into larger and more strategic roles. Jeremiah Owyang notes this trend in\u00a0a recent report.<\/p>\n Tapping communities for content<\/strong><\/p>\n A-list blogs and media frequently tap expert guest contributors for content. It\u2019s smart because they get something: compelling content and the reach into that person\u2019s network (undoubtedly anyone who guest contributes will share it back with their network) and the person gets something: the\u00a0notoriety\u00a0of being features in that publication and the reach into that publication\u2019s network. Sites like the Huffington Post basically organized around their community for content and offered this as the norm, not the rule\u00a0to the tune of 315 million. Again any community member who was upset doesn\u2019t really have a right to be:\u00a0they get something too\u00a0for contributing.<\/p>\n Investing in content and viewing it as an asset<\/strong><\/p>\n I noted this in my\u00a0primer on content marketing\u00a0but I\u2019m going to share this one again. Have you seen the posts at\u00a0Smashing Magazine? If not, you should take a look at what they do right whenever they publish. They vest the effort make\u00a0every<\/em>\u00a0post an authority on the given subject. What has this built for them? Hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Millions of visitors per month. Leverage to create an\u00a0e-commerce platform\u00a0and even a\u00a0job board. They have attention and a community \u2013 now they get to decide what to do with it. If they ever need anything: research, more contributions or to help spread news they have built permission with a community they can ask. And I bet their readers are happy to help due to all their value Smashing provides.<\/p>\n Of course all of these examples have different views on content. AOLs view is to be fast and prolific, Smashing wants to be authoritative and definitive. But if you boil it down they are actually built on the same underlying foundation despite different approaches to get there.<\/p>\n These are just some samples of what modern media companies have done, but let\u2019s go back to the beginning. Are you really embracing being a modern media company? Are you building a community and view your web content and audience as assets to accrue over time? If no, you likely still see marketing as a cost-center, not a revenue generator and have bigger problems. You also probably keep paying new money to reach the same people. I\u2019m sorry for you, but no one says that has to continue: it\u2019s up to you to evolve your approach. If yes, are you taking cues from the successful media brands of today? Perhaps you should be.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It\u2019s not a new notion that\u00a0every company is a media company, but it\u2019s still a succinct way to describe the … <\/p>\n