Diversification: The Key to a Thriving Media Empire

Here at EContent, we recently had the misfortune of reporting on a competitor's demise. In March, Gigaom posted an announcement on its site telling readers that it was closing up shop because it was unable to pay its creditors. This came as a big surprise to those of us in the media and technology space. Gigaom was the cool big sister who just seemed to have her stuff together.

Much of the hype surrounding the site that helped it secure $22 million in venture capital (VC) funding turned out to be the source of its demise. Gigaom eschewed the ad-driven model, instead charging for research and events. When the company didn't reach its goals, this became a problem. As Digiday's Lucia Moses wrote, "Rafat Ali, an outspoken critic of VC funding, warned that backers' expectations are often unmatched by the business realities. ‘Media companies get seduced by that idea that if they operate in a startup environment, that they believe the hypergrowth story.'"

There are many lessons to be learned from the rise and fall of Gigaom. The thing that struck me, though, was that this seemed to be an argument for ad-supported media. You don't hear many of those these days.

We're used to hearing about newspapers and websites shutting down after dwindling ad revenue is not enough to keep them afloat. We see The New York Times and its ilk instating paywalls to help pad the bottom line. Rarely, however, do we hear cautionary tales of companies that dared to experiment with different monetization strategies and lost. That is not to say that we never hear those kinds of stories, though. In fact, those of us in this world hear them more often than we'd like to admit.

Here's what I take away from the Gigaom story: It's not enough to be forward-thinking in your monetization strategy-you have to be flexible. The truth is, according to Pew Research Center, 69% of financial support for news still comes from advertising. Just 1% comes from philanthropy/VC and capital investments.

Gigaom didn't need to completely reject the world of advertising just to avoid becoming a traffic-chasing collection of click-bait. There is a middle ground where you can focus on creating great content that draws in a quality audience to sell ads against, while also experimenting with other revenue streams. And by creating a loyal following, you just might be able to tap into the 24% of financial support that Pew says comes from the audience.

As any financial advisor will tell you, diversification is the key to a healthy portfolio. That's true for media companies as well. In this climate, simply writing off any potential revenue stream is unwise. It's not just the business side of media that needs to be open to new possibilities: The newsrooms need to be willing to change as well.

I'm not only talking about being open to branded content, which is a big enough hurdle to get over. According to Pew Research Center, "One recurring theme in the Pew Research Center's journalism research over the last two years has been that of newsroom collaborations." Rick Edmonds and Amy Mitchell continue, "Legacy media outlets are looking more than ever for ways to augment what they can produce with a depleted staff, and news startups are eager to place their work before a wider audience and figure out roads to sustainability." 

In fact, some of the biggest-and most surprising-success stories of the past year or so have been from companies that showed their willingness to change and diversify. As Amy Mitchell writes for Pew in "State of the News Media 2014," "BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as ‘click bait,' now has a news staff of 170, including top names like Pulitzer Prize-winner Mark Schoofs, and is the kind of place that ProPublica's Paul Steiger says he would want to work at if he were young again. Mashable now has a news staff of 70 and enticed former New York Times assistant managing editor Jim Roberts to become its chief content officer." With these stories in mind, it's time to take stock of your portfolio and find the perfectly good routes to success you've been avoiding-then, figure out how to make them work in your organization.  

Related Articles

Are cable companies laboring under the illusion that they can keep customers by simply refusing to provide them with an easy, decent way to watch web content on their internet-connected televisions? This may be the last chance cable providers have to prove their value, and they are tossing it away.
I admit to being a skeptic about connected cars. But as Business Insider's John Greenough points out, "The connected car is equipped with internet connections and software that allow people to stream music, look up movie times, be alerted of traffic and weather conditions, and even power driving-assistance services such as self-parking." BI Intelligence estimates that by 2020, 75% of new cars will be capable of connecting to the internet. According to Greenough's article, BI Intelligence also says that "of the 220 million total connected cars on the road globally in 2020, we estimate consumers will activate connected services in only 88 million of these vehicles." I would be among the other 132 million people.
I wondered: When did we get too lazy to navigate websites-that generally serve up plenty of content suggestions in the sidebar-using simple links and arrows? As soon as the previous thought entered my mind, I had to ask myself if I was just being a cranky ol' fuddy-duddy. But I'm not the only one who finds the infinitely scrolling page to be a plague among us. Jack Schofield wrote on ZDNet, "Sometimes, ‘infinite scrolling' means you can never get the information you want." Truth!
I am the first to admit that, in the digital age, it is easy to play fast and loose with attribution. We are all guilty of it sometimes. For instance, when most of your writing is for the web, you get so used to linking to an article-rather than meticulously naming it and its author-that when you are writing for print, you might forget how to let your readers know exactly where a quote or statistic came from without the help of a hyperlink. This isn't a scholarly journal--no one wants to read footnotes, least of all me--but it's still important to give credit where credit it is due. It's one of those gray areas in which some people expect precise attribution for every fact and figure, and the rest of us are happy with a good faith effort that says, "This came from somewhere else." But lately, I've seen some plagiaristic antics that make my head spin--all in the name of content curation.