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.



Leave a Reply

Archives

Conversation Across the Site

  • Stephen Calkins { Stunning turn-around to think that the once-iconic CocaCola is now a brand in serious trouble. Hard-hitting commentary that seems on the mark. } – Trouble at Coca-Cola
  • Thom Disch { Wow the most recognizable brand in the world is in trouble. I can see that. The cultural problems that will present for management will probably... } – Trouble at Coca-Cola
  • Sarah Kemple { Perhaps Coke should consider adopting Charity:Water as one of their community partnerships } – Trouble at Coca-Cola
  • emitahill { Troy Cracker Barrel has internet. I have brunch there with a friend 2-4 times/year coming and going from Hamburg. The display of merchandise is hilarious.... } – Brand of the Month: Cracker Barrel
  • Rod Taylor { It helps that they have a relatively large and high margin "country merchandise" section in the waiting area and that they get 14K visitors on... } – Brand of the Month: Cracker Barrel
  • Stephen Calkins { You were kind not to protest. For an argument that customer service is a key part of iPhone success, see story in today's New York... } – The High Cost of Poor Service
  • 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.