Tag: Peter Fader

The Pope on Twitter: 140-character Sermons?

As probably the whole word knows by now, Pope Benedict XVI plans next week to start tweeting in eight languages. His Twitter handle is @Pontifex, and he has already generated several hundred thousand followers even before his first official tweet, scheduled for December 12.

The pope’s decision to open a Twitter account raises a number of questions, including: Is this a good marketing strategy? Will it help the Catholic Church reach out to younger generations, and will those younger generations tweet back? What kinds of messages should the pope tweet? Finally, does the pope seem a little late to the game, since, as FastCompany.com noted today, he joins “an impressive, highly retweeted group of religious leaders,” including such names as the Dalai Lama, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger suggests that the pope’s new communication strategy is a good marketing decision for the Vatican. “As technology advances, religion often gets less attention. This raises the church’s profile and reminds people it is relevant to [our] day and age.” As to whether this strategy will help the church reach the coveted younger generation, Berger predicts that most of this age group won’t respond, “but some will. Churches have a target market just like Pepsi does. And this is another channel to reach that market.”

What kinds of messages should the pope tweet — and what kinds should he avoid? Berger’s advice: “Be authentic. A formal ministry in Japan started tweeting using slang, but people found it incongruous. No one wants to hear the pope talking about YOLO [you only live once] or using phrases like OMG. Tweeting useful information about faith or inspiring stories will spread their ideas while staying true to the [church’s] core message.”

Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader says the pope’s foray into Twitter “seems entirely sensible and natural to me. Twitter is nothing more than a personalized broadcasting channel. No one would think twice if the pope had his own radio station or cable channel. Perhaps he already does.” It makes sense for him, “and any other highly visible person/organization, to have a way to share information, perspectives and other relevant content with followers.”

In that respect, Fader sees Twitter as “very different from Facebook. I actively use the former, multiple times a day, but very rarely use the latter. I find it very valuable to be able to offer one-way broadcasting about my work, and find it equally valuable to read the broadcasts from other people/organizations that interest me. I’m not interested in having conversations.”

Fader laments what he describes as Twitter’s “cutesy name. If it were just called ‘micro-blogging,’ no one would think twice or raise eyebrows that the pope is doing it.”

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Vatican already uses other social media tools such as Facebook and YouTube. In addition, the pope’s “first tweets will be in response to questions put to [him] via Twitter about faith; the pope isn’t likely answer queries unrelated to religion.” The Vatican’s media advisor adds that the pope “won’t physically write each tweet, [but] will be personally involved in what it says,” the Journal reports.

Given that other religious leaders are already tweeting, does Pope Benedict XVI seem a little late to the game? “So maybe he’s a little late, but better late than never.” Fader says. “And as long as [Twitter] is used in an appropriate manner – and I’m sure that will be the case – then I don’t see any downsides to it at all.”

Adds Berger: “No one is counting. Or expecting the pope to be on technology’s bleeding edge.”

 

 

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Better Way to Buy Books?

Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group USA and Hachette Book Group announced plans on Friday to launch a new book site this summer called Bookish.com. The site will offer consumers a smorgasbord of options, including the ability not only to buy books, but also to recommend books to friends, read book reviews and excerpts, download books to certain mobile devices and find information about individual authors, according to articles in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

 In the Journal article, Carolyn Reidy, CEO of Simon & Schuster, described the site as “a one-stop shop for consumers because today they feel they have to go all over the place to find what they want to know,” adding that other publishers are expected to join the venture.

David Shanks, CEO of Penguin, told the Times that the site will “embrace all the amazing marketing materials that publishers have been doing on their own sites and put them together on one site,” thereby helping to provide an answer to a consumer who wants to know, “Which book should I read next?”

Wharton faculty who follow the publishing industry have mixed reactions to the venture. Stephen Kobrin, publisher and executive director of Wharton Digital Press, says that while the disintermediation of retailers — cutting out the middlemen (wholesalers or retailers) and selling directly to consumers — “has gotten a lot of attention, the most interesting thing about Bookish.com is the attempt to create a community of readers online.”

As fewer and fewer readers shop in bricks-and-mortar bookstores, generating awareness of new titles becomes more and more of a problem, he adds. “In the past, readers often selected a book through browsing a section of a bookstore – current events, fiction, biography, etc. – and in-store merchandising played a large role in any publisher’s marketing program. With the segment of readers served by physical stores shrinking, online sites provide the potential for interested readers to find out about new books and authors that might be of interest, to look at reviews and even discuss what they like and do not like with others. Bookish.com may provide a way to drive readers to books in the absence of a physical pre-purchase experience.”

But Kobrin cites “one big caveat…. If the site is seen as just one more attempt by publishers to push their books — if it is seen as primarily advertising and sales driven — the odds of developing a real community of readers drops. If Bookish.com is going to be successful, it may have to allow reviews and discussions of competitors, other than the three founders, to be posted.”

Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader describes the venture as “an example of history repeating itself. You look at the music industry now, and it’s an abysmal failure, despite efforts to do similar things along these lines. People forget the history of services like Pressplay [and MusicNet] – music downloading services that supported the labels but didn’t serve up content quite the way people wanted it. These services said, ‘We are going to embrace the digital age but we’re going to do it on our terms.’”

He acknowledges that Bookish.com is a somewhat different proposition. The music services “were more about downloading” as opposed to Bookish.com’s goal of creating a community. However, “people won’t have a really big compelling reason for going there unless there is more commercial activity or at least the ability to get content.” Fader sees the publishers as “taking their old ways of doing things and transporting them into the digital space as opposed to coming up with a stunning new model. It is basically the same people running it. There is no reason to believe they will shake things up.”

Publishers, Fader adds, are “very good at defining who the next hot author will be, and they are good at editing, but they are not good at selling and never have been. For most of their existence, they disdained it…. The only way publishers will learn is by letting outsiders in.” Unlike the music world, which had Napster, the publishing world has “no single place where everyone wants to come together and where the industry can [offer] its stamp of approval. Just having the publishers hang out a shingle isn’t going to create demand.” The good news, he adds, is that there are no such “places” now in existence, so the industry is not in competition with anyone in that space.

Fader also points to the difficulties that Amazon has had “trying to create its own imprints or pushing new content through the Kindle. It hasn’t worked.” Conceptually, on paper, he adds, Bookish.com could be successful. “But it won’t be, because publishers won’t be able to really truly embrace and leverage the technology,” relying instead on “an online equivalent of traditional tactics.” In addition, the initiative will require “a massive top-down marketing push. There is no existing groundswell of interest. It would be better if the publishers had a competition and told entrepreneurs to build an online one-stop shopping book world, because right now [the publishers] are not capable of creating the right kind of buzz themselves.”

Wharton management professor Daniel Raff considers Bookish.com “a step in the publishers’ attempt to reach out to a clientele which looks for books online, or might look for books online…. I have the impression that the major publishers already invested in these capabilities haven’t yet seen very satisfying returns from them.” He also characterizes the new site as “an attempt to mimic various attractive features of the main Amazon book site but without the central attraction of that site — its scope. In itself, this seems likely to leave the publishers better off than they were, but not that much better.”

The interesting detail, he says, concerns “the file formats. If I read correctly, the publishers are not committing to that yet. I think that the big question in these matters now is, ‘Who can download?’ We have seen distributors and device manufacturers trying to become monopoly suppliers to some large group of potential customers, using the size of the locked-in group to sign up more titles but also using the locked-in relationship to throw their weight around — such as by imposing pricing schemes on the publishers, who in this perspective feature as manufacturers. That is, in a sense, backward integration without bothering to buy up the upstream firms. This is the upstream firms gesturing at fighting back.”

Featured Professors: , ,
Posted in Business Ethics, Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Subscription Prescription: Who Will Pay — and How Much — for Online News?

On March 28, The New York Times launched its second online subscription model in nearly six years. And earlier this year, News Corp. launched a newspaper called The Daily, available exclusively on Apple’s iPad. The common thread between the two efforts: Both news giants are trying to test digital platforms, garner more subscription revenue and future-proof a content business that has been traditionally delivered via newsprint.

At issue is discovering the consumer threshold for paying for online news. “It’s an awkward period for content businesses,” says Kendall Whitehouse, director of new media at Wharton. “There’s the widespread notion that everything online has to be free, but that’s not sustainable. There has to be a way to pay for the work of professional journalists and photographers.”

What’s unclear is whether the Times‘s latest online subscription effort — the company tried charging readers in 2005 only to abandon the effort two years later — will prove to be a winner. News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, knows the subscription model can work since WSJ.com has been a success for years. (According to paidContent.org, the Journal has 449,139 “e-edition” subscribers, including Kindle, app and online-only subscriptions — a 10% increase over last year.) However, some are perplexed by News Corp.’s decision to limit The Daily to one platform — the iPad — for now. “The Daily was a bad idea from the start,” says Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader. “The iPad’s penetration is tiny and consumers are used to a real-time news source. It would have made more sense to start on the web and have an iPad app, too.”

According to Fader and others, one thing The Daily does have going for it is its straightforward pricing structure: 99 cents a week, or $39.99 a year. Compare that with the Times‘s model, which charges $15 every four weeks, or $195 a year, for access to its website and smartphone app. For web and tablet access, it’s $20 every four weeks, or $260 a year. For access to all digital content, tablet, smartphone and web, the Times charges $35 every four weeks, or $455 a year.

Fader argues that the Times had a better model with its “TimesSelect” offering in 2005. TimesSelect pricing — a flat fee of $49.95 for the year — was easier to digest. “Instead of tweaking TimesSelect and sticking with it, the company threw it away,” he says. “The Times should have been more patient.” In a letter to readers in 2007, the paper said it was ending TimesSelect because “readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources.” The publication’s bet was that it could garner more traffic by remaining free and therefore bolster ad revenue.

The conundrum faced by the Times and News Corp. revolves around whether consumers will pay for news on various platforms. Subscription models are prevalent in media, but not all content has been treated equally by consumers. Users will pay for online music courtesy of Apple’s iTunes. They will also buy subscriptions to music services like Sirius XM and Rhapsody. On the video front, more than 20 million subscribers pay Netflix at least $7.99 every month.

But Fader suggests that successful subscription models are not dependent on the type of content. Consumers will pay for online journalism and news, he says, but the model has to be simple. “The main driver is the way the business models are managed. Netflix works because of Netflix. It has a wonderful service and a simple model.”

One of the reasons the Times‘s model may be confusing is that it works to meet multiple — and potentially conflicting — goals. For instance, the publication allows readers to access 20 articles for free to keep website traffic robust and garner referrals from sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google News. Meanwhile, a digital subscription to the Times can be more expensive than a print version. This multifaceted model creates some strange outcomes. For instance, a Times subscription for the web, smartphone and tablet apps cost more a year than the print subscription — $455 for digital vs. $384.80 for print — despite the fact that the company doesn’t have to pay for paper or fuel to deliver the newspaper. “It’s cheaper to get the newspaper and throw it away than to get the digital media subscription,” says Fader.

“This is all a big experiment to see what makes money,” says Wharton management professor Saikat Chaudhuri. “I don’t think anyone has settled on a model.” He notes that the Times, News Corp. and others can tweak subscription packages once they find out what people will pay for, adding that companies need to give online content subscriptions at least a year to bear fruit.

“Many people have written off the newspaper in the era of the Internet, but before it is written off completely, let’s find out what people will and will not pay for,” says Chaudhuri. “I applaud the move to experiment.”

Fader agrees and recommends that companies like Times and News Corp. keep trying. “But there will be a lot of tension and short-term losses until the right model emerges.”

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment