local media insider

Why broadcast sells more mobile: A conversation with Sandy Martin

Posted

Sandy Martin, Mobile Director at Schurz Communications, has a birds-eye view of why television sites sell more mobile advertising than newspaper sites do. Her company owns both newspapers and television sites, and has a plan for each to have five apps by the end of 2013. 

LMI: I’m always surprised to see how much more television station are selling in mobile products that newspapers. You've pointed out  that 89% of mobile sales at Schurz are being made by broadcast reps. Why do you think this is?

Martin: it has a lot to do with the sales organization. Our team in Springfield, MO that leads the company in mobile revenue has four digital-only sales reps who don’t sell any television. This team has also been in place longer than any of the other stations.

Marketing is also a big issue – TV stations can promote apps on television all day long to a wider audience and target spots during different times of day to reach desired demographics.

LMI: Do you think broadcast clients are more likely to migrate to mobile?

Martin: That’s certainly part of it. Advertisers on television have larger budgets, and if they allocate just one percent to mobile, that is a larger budget to play with than that of most newspaper clients.

LMI: Broadcast seems to have moved faster into the app marketplace – is there something about selling the browser-based mobile site that is less compelling?

Martin: Ads on the app have a greater prominence. They stay on the top of the screen and rotate every 15 seconds. Typically on the browser, the ad appears at the top of the page and disappears as you scroll down.

LMI: I’ve heard it said that the revenue share model most newspapers have for their mobile platforms depresses sales because newspapers don’t have enough skin in the game to give it the attention and push that it needs.

Martin: Newspapers are reluctant to sell anything when they have to give up 25% or more to a vendor. They just hate it. So it’s sold last. It's how media works.

This doesn’t account for the sheer numbers - broadcast sites are making significantly higher revenues. But it does keep the newspaper sites from getting off the ground. They are comfortable with the fact they have app, and there is no urgency because there are no upfront costs to recoup.

LMI: Tell me more about how you choose whether to develop or use app software that is already available?

Martin: it’s a really tough decision to make when you look at development versus leasing. Developing includes costs and time from a lot of people – there are five people involved in what it should look like and how it functions plus an independent contractor, if you don’t have your own iOS and Java developers. When you include the time, you’re likely to accrue expenses of at least $25,000 to get a custom app off the ground.

Vendors cost less up front, and you can release a product faster by using a vendor, but you lose out in a big way with features. You don’t have any competitive advantages because they are offering the same thing to other companies. Then you pay $300 to $2500 a month, year after year.

In media, we’re use to amortizing equipment. A press is a known quantity, if you want to buy a new press, management understands what kind of maintenance is required and what sorts of advantages the new equipment brings. If we pay up front for an app platform, we don’t know how much additional development is going to be required year after year. Experience online has taught us that we often lack the technical expertise and budgets to develop highly competitive digital products. So we go back to the vendor. It’s a vicious cycle. I don’t think anyone has the answer.

LMI: Do you think prices will come down on leases?

Martin: The industry is at a crossroads. Mobile start-ups that provide us with technology deserve to make a profit on their work, but that is at odds with media companies who are concerned about the degree to which leasing is eating up their own margins. Vendors will have to drop prices or media companies will find another way. My hope for the development side of the future is that framework programs such as Appcelerator and PhoneGap will become more flexible and robust and allow us to leverage our own technical skills in a way that is scalable.

LMI: What would that mean for an organization with programmers on board?

Martin: If you use a framework like the ones available at Appcelerator and PhoneGap that can translate one language into many, you can develop once in JavaScript and the platform will compile that work to create products in native code for Apple and Android. Most media companies have people on board who have the skills to do this. It’s a middle ground. I can’t do it but there are ten people in the company who can.

LMI: Can you make apps unique enough to gain Apple’s approval with these platforms?

I think a lot of us have found out the hard way from Apple that the apps cannot be glorified websites. We come from a web mentality, with large audiences online, and we want to put the best of our websites into our apps to keep those readers happy. Apple is requiring that we go beyond that to integrate features that are native to the device. Some of these features include geo-location, integration with iCal, accessing the phone’s storage, using the app to take a photo, and so on. These platforms give developers the opportunity to do these things. Not all digital managers get this memo from Apple.

Ask the tech team for access to the iOS Developer account. Inside the account, look for “App Store Review Guidelines.” This document contains all of the information you need to know before you conceive of any mobile product. Apple updates this document from time to time, so I recommend that digital managers read it at least once a quarter.

Note from LMI: A copy of the 3/28/2012 version is here.