Brands in the News

The New York Times Finally Invests

28 Feb , 2017  

Last week The New York Times launched a bold new marketing campaign featuring print ads, outdoor ads and television spots, including an ad that ran on the Oscar’s on Sunday. You can read more about it here.

I have three thoughts about the new effort.

It is about time.

The Times last ran television ads in 2010. It last supported a branding campaign a decade ago. This is astonishing. A major media organization cuts all the advertising? Really?

The publication hasn’t exactly been thriving over the past decade. Circulation is down, ad revenue is down even more, and the company has gone through a series of layoffs. The stock has been disappointing.

When a business is struggling, marketing is more important than ever. How else are you going to reverse the trends? The New York Times should have been investing in its business every year.

As they say about trees, the best time to plant one was twenty years ago. The next best time is today. So too with a branding effort.

The strategy makes a lot of sense.

They have a promising strategy. Many people in the U.S. are concerned about political developments and want quality journalism, especially in an era with “alternative facts.” This makes an independent press particularly important. People forget, however, that a media organization can only exist if there is revenue to support it. All too many folks who value newspapers no longer subscribe to them. This is a problem.

The new campaign is clearly trying to remind people that journalism is expensive and warrants support. The Times is looking for new subscribers and for people to sponsor a subscription for someone else.

The execution is cluttered.

With a good strategy one might assume that the execution would be strong, too. Unfortunately, that is not the case. You can watch it here. The TV execution—the heart of the campaign—is a confusing series of statements. What do these all mean, anyway?

In a bid to be creative, the Times seems to have lost a bit of the plot. I wonder if a more direct sell would have a greater impact. “The New York Times gives you the real news, not alternative facts. It costs a lot of money for us to do this. Subscribe now.”

Great brands require support; you have to constantly reinforce the core proposition. It is good to see the New York Times investing in its brand, even if the campaign could be stronger.


The next session of the Kellogg on Branding executive education course is May 7 to 12. Sign up to learn more about building great brands in the digital world. Here is the link.



Archives

Conversation Across the Site

  • Thom Disch { There are similar taste tests done with vodka, where the best vodka is supposed to be the one with the least taste (flavored vodkas excepted)... } – Beer and the Power of Branding
  • emitahill { Fascinating. So it's all about branding, and ultimately all about marketing, and behind the marketing, money, whether it's beer or politicians. He who pays the... } – Beer and the Power of Branding
  • Stephen Calkins { Embarrassing that a Kellogg beer club would hold a taste test among light beers which, almost by definition, have no taste! And I know it's... } – Beer and the Power of Branding
  • Emma Stockdale { I'm curious how much of this resulted as a byproduct of broader company culture / official protocol (why did they board the plane if they... } – United’s Branding Disaster
  • emitahill { Really bad. I waited 10 hours in an airport Saturday. Problem was that the airline had not grounded planes and canceled flights in really bad... } – United’s Branding Disaster
  • Alain Weber { Indeed Tim, this is a rough day for United. This brutal action was certainly unexpected. But, upon reflecting on general airlines' attitude toward passengers, I... } – United’s Branding Disaster
  • Read more Comments »

Collaborate with Tim

Tim helps companies around the world build great brands. To schedule a program or event click here. To learn more about Tim’s books, click here.