How to shape a publishing future

Here is an idea that builds on the concepts I’ve talked about to shape our future.  Enjoy.

JE: Hi I’m Jim Ellis and I’m the Managing Editor of Business week. I’d like to welcome you to today’s podcast. This podcast is the fourth in a series of six where we showcase the most intriguing innovations from 2014.

I’m pleased to have on today’s show Frank Nedamyer, President of CenterICE.com. For listeners on our show CenterICE is the New Sports fan experience that has swept the National Hockey League over the last three years.
Welcome Frank I’m so glad you could be with us.

FN: I’m happy to be here.

JE: Frank when I called you in February to inform you that our innovation team had selected you and your organization as one of the winners of our “Most Intriguing Innovators Award” I was thinking about CenterICE. Yet just two weeks ago you made an announcement about the NFL. Can you tell us a little more about that?

FN: I’d love to Jim. We’ve just signed an agreement with the NFL to create a similar fan experience for their fans which we’re going to call CenterField. It’s a 10 year contract to work with the teams using our proprietary “Fan at the center” technology. We expect to complete the roll-out in August just prior to the start of the season.

We’re especially excited because the NFL is the premier sport enterprise in the world and will help us migrate this platform to every major sports franchise.

JE: How did this all get started? If I remember correctly you started this back in late 2011 correct?

Disruption

FN: Actually, Jim it was earlier than that. It began in early 2010 when I was working at corporate headquarters and was given the task of developing a customer focused innovation capability. At the time we had a number of different companies one of which was the Jersey Publishing Company with a number of broadsheet newspapers as our core properties.

As happened to all of us in the newsprint business it was a time of great disruption. Craigslist had substantially reduced the most profitable source of revenue – classified ads. Page advertisers were leaving to go to Google ads where they could key word and location target. Readers, especially the younger generation were using alternative source of information like blogs.

All of this disruption in a time of increasing costs.

At the time of course, we were on the web with an on-line offering. It was successful enough as it goes, comparable to others, but we couldn’t seem to crack the nut. Our trajectory was not one of sustainable high profit growth. And then to top it off, the iPad was launched guaranteeing that further disruptions were coming our way. As you can imagine it was not a fun period.

JE: Is that when you first started to innovate?

FN: Not exactly. We had developed a very robust internal innovation process back in 2001. We had been very successful with it in the ensuring years, at least in terms of internal efficiencies. However, it had never really yielded anything of any significance in terms of growing the top line. They were mostly expense based innovations. So we knew something wasn’t right and started in the spring of 2010 to inform ourselves of what capabilities were required to innovate on the top line.

JE: This sounds very interesting what did you learn?

FN: Of my gosh all kinds of things. Fundamentally it’s a mindset change in how you look at your business. But if I was to summarize this change, three things really stood out. First, to create a customer-focused, fast-growing, profitable innovation you need to disrupt. And right there, that word, disrupt, was a challenge. We don’t normally think about innovation as disruptive. But it is.

And by disruption I mean you need to put something into the market that allows a new behavior to emerge in your target population. Here’s an example. When you looked at what we, and every other publisher, were doing on-line, it was copying the paper experience over. Sure users could search, and print, and read some blogs. But basically, everything was very similar. So from a user standpoint there was nothing really new in what they could do.

Read the paper, or read it on-line, it’s all the same – passive interaction with content. That’s why those models never really attracted many users. And without users, advertisers won’t come.

JE: Very insightful. What else?

Business Model as Core Capabilitites

FN: The second big insight we had was how to look at our business. We learned to stop seeing the business as publishing but more from a capabilities standpoint.

Rather than framing all our conversations about innovation and top line growth from a publishing bias, we learned to frame it from a core capability perspective. For us, what we excelled at was gathering and assimilating information and turning it into stories and insights very rapidly. That was our core.

JE: Is that when you came up with the idea for CenterICE?

FN: Almost, there was one more piece left. Our last big learning was about motivations. Identifying a target group of people who have deep seated motivations to explore and express themselves in new ways. Then figure out what we now call the sweet spot.

Choose a target you have familiarity with including their motivations, and using your core capabilities aligned with creative use of technology, create an environment where they can do things they have never done before. Create an experience that they could never do before because your offering did not exist.

It’s like the phone. No-one ever knew they needed to be able to connect with people across town instantly until the phone arrived. Once it showed up people started behaving differently. They called instead of writing.

No-one knew they needed to make videos to share with their friends and family until YouTube arrived. Now 13 hours are uploaded every minute. That‘s the equivalent of 57,000 hours of Hollywood feature length films a week.

It goes all the way back to our heritage. No-one knew they needed fire until our ancestors figured out how to capture it a move it from place to place.

Take any significant innovation, from fire, to the printing press, to electricity, to the iPhone, to CenterICE, and it always follows the same pattern.

JE: So what was the thinking behind CenterICE?

FN: Well, when we looked at the business through this new disruptive lens a couple of targets immediately came to light: Sports fans and Political followers.

Both groups are passionate about their fields. We choose Sports fans because the risk was lower and they have lots of fanatics. Fanatics can’t get enough.

And because a large portion of fans are of younger age they would be open to new experiences. The key motivational factor was fans don’t want to just cheer. They want to coach! Go to any bar and the conversations are about what the coach should have done. So, that’s the experience we created for them.

We started in late 2011 with an on-line site where they could simultaneously watch the game and provide live analysis.

This was supported by our top sports columnists who were live analyzing the game as well. All the participants rated the views provided by both the pro journalists as well as the fans “scribes”. Overtime, the fan journalists who did well, as voted on by the group, achieved status rankings ranging all the way from Newbies up to Pro.

It really took off when we signed an agreement with the Philadelphia Flyers and they invited the “Pro” writers to interview the players. Fans went crazy trying to achieve the Pro status and volume on the site grew.

JE: How were you making money?

FN: Initially it was just advertising. In the beginning it was free for the fans. But, because we had their complete profiles we were able to charge premium rates to advertisers to have access to our site. After the Flyers joined we went into joint ventures on product placement etc.

Now, we’re ruining journalist boot camps on-line for wannabe sport journalists and we charge for that. Finally, to have access to the behind the scenes information we charge premium subscriptions to fans. All our “Pros” get that free. Those working up the ranking system, have to pay. It’s a multi-tiered monetization scheme.

The sports fans love it and the teams love it as we are delivering to them more dedicated fans. That’s why in 2014 we were able to negotiate with the NHL commissioner a league wide offering.

JE: So why did you start with hockey?

Risk Mitigation

FN: It was part of our risk mitigation. Look, the NFL is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. You don’t want to bring an idea to them that’s not been fully worked out. The NHL on the other hand is the weakest of the major franchises. That made them more open to our concept.

JE: Weren’t you worried about the other leagues stealing your idea once you got going.

FN: Once again our risk mitigation strategy kicked in. We created an unassailable patent wall around this offering. I can’t get into the particulars but it was a three year effort. Some leagues tried but soon found out it wasn’t possible to breach it.

JE: What about “Behind the Bench”?

FN: That was in 2013. By then we had 237 fans who had reached pro status. And boy, were they fast and good. With the instant feeds between them and a digital based collaboration site they could jointly analyze a game in real time.

Imagine, two hundred thirty-seven experts all working at the same time collaboratively. We started to recognize that they were seeing things that the coaches behind the bench couldn’t see. So we approached Peter Laviolette, the Flyers coach and ran a little pilot program. Five minutes before the end of the period a representative from the group would debrief someone from the coaching staff.

It was slick. They had video clips and diagrams and the whole lot. Then they would pass it on to the coach to use or not use as he saw fit.

Remember in April after the game when the Flyers made it into the play-offs and Peter mentioned that he owed a lot to the CenterICE team for their analysis between the second and third periods? After that endorsement our fan base jumped 30% in the three teams we had platforms for. As they say in hockey, sometimes the puck bounces your way.

JE: How about building it out. How difficult was that?

FN: We stumbled a bit in the beginning until we realized that you can’t take people who have a fulltime job in traditional publishing and expect them to work on an idea as different as this in their spare time. Not only is it too stressful to balance both, you inevitably put them into a conflict of interest. Do I work on sustaining the publishing business or work on this new business that might hurt the publishing business? That’s a trade-off you can’t ask people to make.

What we did was create semi-permanent innovation teams who reported in to head office and were tasked to take an idea from prototype to pilot very quickly on a (mostly) full-time basis. While the operating groups complained about taking their people away we were able to negotiate our way through this.

What was interesting in this process is how we found ourselves unlearning a lot about risk. Traditionally, we had applied traditional business risk principles to innovation. In particular, eliminate uncertainty. From a practical standpoint what that meant in the past was if the idea was bold, reduce the “boldness” of the idea so it reduces the uncertainty and hence the risk. That’s how you end up with an on-line offering that mirrors the paper version.

What we learned to do successfully was to keep the idea bold and therefore keep the uncertainty high. BUT, use other techniques to reduce the uncertainty.

All in all, customer-focused innovation is very different. And while we bolted the new system on to our tracking and creativity processes that we had in place, we learned that it takes a different mindset and structure to make it work.

JE: So what’s next for you?

FN: As you know we’ve started dialogues with NBA and MLB, and have had representatives from both the IOC and the FIFA World Cup approach us.

JE: Well on behalf of our listeners I’d like to thank you for joining today’s show and being one of the 2015 most innovative companies.

FN: My pleasure Jim. We hope to see you at the game and CenterICE.

I hope you enjoyed the story.

Thank you for visting www.ennova.ca

It’s been reported multiple times (here, here and here) that Pepsi will not be advertising in this year’s NFL Superbowl.

Pepsi had been a major advertiser during the Super Bowl. According to TNS, the company spent $142.8 million on the 10 Super Bowl ads from 1999 to 2008, second only to Anheuser-Busch, which spent $216 million.

The nation’s second-biggest soft drink maker is plowing marketing dollars into its “Pepsi Refresh Project” starting next month as its main vehicle for Pepsi. The project will pay at least $20 million for projects people create to “refresh” communities.  A Web site will go live Jan. 13 where people can list their projects, which could range from helping to feed people to teaching children to read. People can vote starting Feb. 1 to determine which projects receive money. (sports.espn.go.com)

Still, CBS said in November that it had sold about 90% of its advertising spots during the game. (CNNMoney.com)

There is more going on than the savings.   When you unpack this story you reveal a truth about differentiation and the power of value-disruption.

First, unpack advertising at the Superbowl.  It’s a premier event watched by millions world wide.  Your brand picks up prestige: success, top of the game, toughness, etc.  However, it remains a passive medium.  The consumer/viewer watches and may or may not assimilate the message.  Which is why so much is spent on execution.  You need to capture viewer’s attention.  But behaviorally, there really isn’t anything that different compared to other adverting, other than scale, scope and prestige.  They are all passive.  The viewer behaves the same way whether they see your message at the Superbowl, or on the latest show of Desperate Housewives.

Compare that to the new connection they are going to make.  Viewers are transformed into users.  They interact with the site.  They put in ideas. They make comments.  They vote on other’s ideas.  They are part of a system that helps others.  They engage.

In this case the consumer’s behavioral construct is deep, multifaceted, and more emotionally relevant.  Their relationship with Pepsi has changed from passive to active.

The result?  The second largest advertiser of the Superbowl has left the Superbowl.

Going Nowhere

Opps….. Superbowl advertising just became a commodity.  Not because someone came up with a bigger and better event.  No, because they were value-disrupted by a technology (web 2.0) and an associated interface (voting system)  that enabled a new behavior to emerge.

And that, my friends, is the key to how you differentiate.

You can learn more about value-disruption in earlier posts here and here.

Thank-you for visiting www.ennova.ca