Penton Reorganizes Aud. Dev. Groups ... what do you think?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kerry Smith on November 27, 2008 at 8:44am

This is the latest sign of the movement from circulation management (which is mostly a passive function of maintaining rate base and complying with audits for print publications) to audience development (which is a more active function that includes circulation management as one piece of a larger role). As magazines transform into media brands, "audience" takes on new importance. It's not just about getting subscribers anymore. Today's media companies need that, but also attendees at their events, buyers for their products/services, traffic for their websites, and more. This new role requires a skillset that is new for many traditional circ people.

Penton's description of how they're viewing their audience development needs is spot on. If you're a circ person and you don't know about SEO, lead generation strategies, online publishing, database marketing, and event marketing, then now is the time to start cramming. All you have to do is look at the growing list of media companies that are outsourcing their traditional circ functions to understand that traditional circ is considered a back-office function more now than ever.

So, circ people have a choice: hang on and resist change and stay on defense; or go on offense and get excited at the prospect of evolving your role into one that is more strategic. Circ people have a huge opportunity to take ownership of "audience development". Look at the Penton article in FOLIO and you'll see that in their world, they see "circ" falling under sales & marketing. That makes sense to me, because more and more our businesses will rely not only on building and maintaining an audience, but what we do with our audiences, and that requires proactive bigger-picture thinking and collaboration -- both of which may be uncharted territory for circ professionals.

On the same day the Penton article was published, I had a friend at a media company email me saying that they were looking to make a change in their audience development group because their circ director of 10 years "just wasn't getting it" anymore. What kind of person was he looking for? Someone who understands marketing, events, and database marketing.

My opinion is that we are going to see more of this, and especially so given the challenging economy which is going to spur companies to act quickly to make the changes required to create better results.

Circ professionals are in the best position to "own" audience development, but only if they get proactive and take the steps required for personal and professional development.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John W. Rockwell on December 6, 2008 at 10:07am

It's just funny that Okabe is now used as the example of these changes. I've been doing all you describe (just came back from our Dubai event where we beat attendee and revenue budgets by WIDE margins) for 6 years now and it was OKABE who gave me the skills and the space to learn it all.

We at Access Intelligence made the changes you outline more than 2 years ago and we did it with traditional "circulators". Somehow all us old-school circulators made the transition.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sylvia Sierra on December 9, 2008 at 2:55pm

I think it is quite interesting how the discussion about the changing role of the circulator as a developer of audience has not addressed one key component: Management's view of the ability of staff to learn and retool. At Access Intelligence we transformed the role and have been quite successful at it, but at the heart of the change is our CEO, Don Pazour. I often say that I am quite lucky to have a CEO that has faith on my ability to learn. He lets me fly I can let my staff fly as well. Not all colleagues in this space have received the same benefit.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Barry Green on December 10, 2008 at 3:13pm

The idea that a circulator is not an audience developer simply because that is what he or she is "titled" is ridiculous. The JOB is what needs to get done in the context of the publication(s) and brands being worked on by the person in charge of communicating, explaining, cajoling, selecting, combining, comingling, detailing, confirming, qualifying, acknowledging, enticing, and serving THE AUDIENCE - be it "circulation recipients" and/or online visitors/users of the information provided by the media brand overall. There are some "disciplines" that can be argued/debated as to whether they should fall under the Circ/Aud Dev group, but to just report that the Penton "(dis)arrangement" is a smart move without basing it on the acutal people involved and the history of the organization is a dumb statement. Every organization has to determine how they are 'organized' and who is in charge of what operations - but when it comes to one of the premiere circulation/audience developers who has been involved in marketing numerous brands being shoved aside, it should be seen as nothing more than desperately trying to save money (which can't be blamed in these tough economic times), BUT CALL IT WHAT IT IS. There are many many instances of "circulation" personnel morphing into the brand marketer, including all aspects of print, digital and online endeavors. To make a story about Jerry's situation to be exemplifying a trend is ludicrous. A general statement of the need to be versed in multiple aspects of Circulation/Audience Development would be more accurate and worthwhile for people's time reading it. If Penton's strategy works, I will be shocked because I believe it is the "tail wagging the dog".

And, since when is Circulation Management a "mostly passive function"?? Funny thing, when the publication was called Circulation Management it was filled with proactive functions galore. Good circ people try to break down the walls of the siloes that are set up in organizations and involve the entire operation as an entire entity, looking for the mix of procedures and personnel that will help the company grow and prosper.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gloria Adams on December 10, 2008 at 5:19pm

I really am offended by the comment that Circulation Management is a "mostly passive function of maintaining rate base and complying with audits". Maybe in the consumer world, but certainly not in any B-to-B publishing company that I know of. I can't remember the last time that was all we were concerned about. Yes, maintaining our TQ with proper demographics (not always an easy thing) and making sure we pass audits is an important part of our jobs, but how we go about doing this - on almost zero budgets - takes strong marketing talent and an extremely inquisitive mind that is always searching for new and better ways to do our jobs. Working with the web group is critical to doing our jobs. And, it is critical for the web groups to work with Audience Development to make sure webcast and white paper promotions go to the "right" people. And for the show and conference people to work with us to make sure show promotions go to the right people. And, if e-newsletters are a part of the audience development group who are they going to? And how are the names being gathered? And, what information is the sales group using to sell these? Many of the digital media people don't understand list tracking, promotion analysis, and the myriad of analysis we do to make sure our money and efforts are spent in the most effective way.

Whether we're called "circulation" or "audience development" doesn't really matter. The fact is we are involved in every aspect of our multiple audiences. And, anybody that thinks circulation managers aren't, hasn't spent much time talking with any of us.

My group has the official title of audience development, and we are involved in so many things more than just a print magazine. But we are not unique. This is "standard operating procedure" for every publishing company I know.

If management doesn't realize this, or digital media is on a power/control high, then there will be problems regardless of what the department is called.

Having worked at Penton back when I was a small child, I can't imagine this new scenario working, but I hope for the sake of all their good "circulators" that is does. If it doesn't, then they are going to have a mess on their hands.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kerry Smith on December 13, 2008 at 8:55am

John, I agree with your and Sylvia's position that the best outcome requires a commitment from the top levels of the company to create and articulate a vision for audience development, and then support the circ/audience people with the time and resources to execute it. Access is a great example of a company that "gets it". The challenge for many companies is that this evolution requires integration and collaboration, agreement and alignment across circ, web, marketing, events, and publishing -- which can be a tough haul if not supported from the top. While it looks like I struck a nerve with my initial response, my point was not to paint circ people or the circ function as "yesterday's news" or to cast anyone in a negative light. On the contrary, the point is that circ people are uniquely positioned to ascend to a new level of importance within their companies and "own" a more strategic, challenging, and exciting place.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John W. Rockwell on December 13, 2008 at 10:18am

I agree with your comments above. That is why it's so funny that Okabe is used as the example here*. Now, I won't speak for Sylvia and the others, but as a mentor and a driver of this type of change within myself, Jerry was a key component of that change.

* and, this extends to many people at Penton as well. Right now, Dave Reik of their music group is doing all you describe above and more. Check out MIX Books and Audio Insider to see how it's done and done right.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Glenn Laudenslager on December 10, 2008 at 11:08pm

When I was at Penton, most of Audience Marketing were "traditional circ people" and circulation management was very much a passive function -- Kerry's comments are right on. This reorg should be a good thing. And it's not just about making sure enewsletters go to the right people, or having a good relationship with the online team, or understanding the brand -- it's about being able to develop a media-neutral acquisition and management strategy for customers, and having the skills to do whatever needs to be done as part of that. Use SEO as strategically as direct mail, create a plan to manage email volume, understand and create social media applications (like this very forum) to let customers find you instead of you spending your money to hunt them down. Those things were NOT at Penton during my time there in the Audience Marketing function. The reorganization sets them up to let those things happen.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Gregory on December 11, 2008 at 12:22am

I was at Prism as it was known before the merger for a short time, and I was trying to figure out why their online sign up forms were 8 pages long and a verbatim copy of the print sub form. I think the answer is they were operating like an old school operation.

I am all for knowing as much as possible about my online audience, but the more email subscribers, the better. If they open the email, don't opt out- they are indicating as strong an interest in the topic as if they filled out a print qual card.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Barry Green on December 15, 2008 at 9:58am

Keith's comments are actually worthy of a lucid and insightful response - neither of which I have the time for right now heading into a meeting. But, I can comment that what he has stated is part of the problem of not being able to see what the story really is and making uninformed negativity towards what can be done correctly only if top management is on board and directs these things properly. None of us can see what is done somewhere else and make assumptions as to who or what has caused that to occur.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Cowart on December 17, 2008 at 5:57pm

Where do I begin? So many of you make valid points, and I truly respect those of you I personally know or have met during the past ten years as mentor-like to me (Gloria, Barry, Sylvia, John, I've seen you at many circ presentations and/or either worked directly with you while here at Penton Media or while I was at BPA). Jerry was in the past and in the future will always remain a mentor to me--even if he no longer works here at Penton Media.

Like John said, Jerry Okabe understood the need for audience marketing to work in various areas of audience development besides "traditional" circ responsibilities years before this restructure took place. In many ways, contrary to what Keith says with his one example of an online circ form, the department at Primedia and Prism has long functioned in such capacity under Jerry's leadership before we turned into Penton Media, even though it wasn't officially structured that way to the general public and publishing community. And like Gloria said, I do personally take offense to my job being a "passive function of maintaining rate base and complying with audits." At best, that's maybe 1% of my job responsibilities, so to even say it in a blog, even if it's just to make a point, just perpetuates a myth as being factual. Doing so is a disservice to anyone who considers their work in this industry as being a career, and it only helps encourage senior mgmt in the publishing industry that maybe, just maybe, our department and resource is expendable without taking careful consideration as to how a weak audience marketing development component would be adverse to its bottom-line.

None of 6+ publishers I've worked with in the past 5 years ever considered me to be a "passive" player in determining goals for our properties in their respective markets, but maybe that's part of the reason why the properties I have worked on have been more successful than many of their publishing competitors.

Anyway, I'm in the awkward and unusual position of working for Penton Media, so I cannot speak too much regarding any possible reorganization until it actually is fully implemented. However, I suspect it will be more effective than it is being credited as long as two things occur. 1. Increases in staffing resources must be provided to actually make it a success. Shuffling current managers to new properties like our bi-annual floor moves does little to improve our effectiveness. If anything, it just annoys us. 2. Circulation knowledge and procedures must NOT be thrown out and ignored when rolling out initiatives in SEO, online development and other new areas. Doing so, which is a lurking possibility, is a recipe for disaster! We would surely have a mess on our hands if we hire staff without any circulation knowledge helping guide decisions of who to add in new market segments, etc..

Having said that, the restructure itself, the very concept of further breaking down silos between depts such as online and production depts, is still a step in the right direction, even if one or more mistakes may have taken place in its initial, gradual implementation and roll-out.

▶ Reply to This