Fulcrum Blog

Received your copy of Golf for Women lately? How about Stuff or FHM? Domino?

You won’t be seeing these titles in your mailbox any time soon. It was reported by MediaFinder.com that in 2008 more than 525 US magazines went out of business, and 40 had ceased publication in 2009 at the time of their report. I found a nifty web site, aptly named The Magazine Death Pool and appropriately written by “the Reaper” that’s been keeping track of the blackouts, as well as predicts which ones are next. Today I read in the New York Times online that Conde Nast closed the doors on its hyped business magazine, Portfolio.

An obvious contributor to Conde Nast’s decision was that the magazine’s advertising pages were down 60.9 percent in the first quarter of ‘09 compared with Q1 ’08. This seems to be the kicker for many of the failed magazines. In the midst of a recession, that certainly isn’t surprising. But the increase in online news consumption in a “want it now” society, coupled with the decreased costs of publishing online, have played an important role as well. Some magazines that haven’t folded altogether have moved to online only publication, like PC Magazine. Others are trying to stay alive in other ways.

My husband and I recently started receiving a monthly copy of Latina Magazine and Black Enterprise. We’re not paying for either subscription, and while the content of both magazines can still be applicable to us, we’re as Caucasian as they come. If magazines are struggling, is throwing darts into thin air with a blindfold on really their best attempt at survival? While I’m sure there is some rhyme or reason to our receipt of these magazines, possibly a better investment of their dollars would have been some deeper demographical and psychographical research to find a dedicated following.

We also receive two copies of Men’s Journal each month. One is in my husband’s name and I’m sure the one year subscription we paid for has expired. The other is in the name of someone we do not know. And it is not the name of the previous owner of our home. We’ve been living there three years and who knows how long the people before us were there. So why, then, is Men’s Journal still sending a magazine to this man if he hasn’t lived at the address, or presumably paid for the magazine, in at least five years?

Other magazines we’ve subscribed to in the past also seem to continue coming, even if we haven’t re-upped for another year. We now receive monthly pleas from them to re-subscribe, at a lower rate each time. Some of the rates are so low it’s amazing how they could even cover their costs. This makes them seem desperate and raises the question of whether they’re creating their own slippery slope by de-valuing themselves (if I can get it for free, or hold out for a really cheap subscription, why pay the regular rate?).

I love being able to get news online, but in spite of that, the Kindle, and the otherwise saturated news market, I feel like the magazine will always have a place in my life. It’s nice to have something for guests or bathroom dwellers to flip through; I like the option of reading lighter, shorter stories than picking up a book all the time; and I don’t ever plan on replacing the pretty photos and layouts I get to look at while lounging poolside with any sort of electronic device. I also enjoy seeing a fresh copy of Elle Décor or Redbook when I get the mail as opposed to a bill or another piece of junk mail.

The question is… if there is still a market for magazines with households like mine, how can they save themselves from all out demise? I don’t know that there is a straightforward answer, or a simple solution, particularly during these strained economic times. But I think a good start would be some focus. They should stop spending money fishing for new subscribers that don’t fit their demographic, sending magazines to people who are no longer paying, or begging for subscribers at next-to-nothing rates. Magazines should find their core who are willing to pay a reasonable rate for a subscription, and then cater to them to keep them reading. In some cases, this will mean sacrificing quantity for quality and explaining that to their advertisers. But in the end, wouldn’t they be more inclined to continue advertising if they trust they’re reaching the right audience, and they are seeing results?

What else do you think magazines can do to stay afloat?

In the last few days, the viral potential of social media struck again, and resulted in a major public relations crisis for a worldwide brand. When two Domino’s employees filmed a video while at work and posted it on YouTube, it spread like wildfire.

The video showed sandwich preparation that made Domino’s appear a bit less than appetizing, or sanitary, through the creative use of snot, nasal crevices and gas. Apparently, the employees thought it was a pretty funny joke. And 930,000 people took notice online (the video is no longer available due to a copyright claim from one of the employees).

When I first heard about the video, my reaction was to get the heebie jeebies thinking of any food prepared outside of my house, as opposed to swearing off Domino’s. (But maybe that’s because I couldn’t tell you the last time I had Domino’s.) Hopefully other people also recognized that this isn’t evidence of common practice at any one particular fast food chain; but regardless, Domino’s had to take it very seriously. And that’s exactly what they did.

You can now find this video on YouTube, and it’s the first result returned when you search for Domino’s.

In my opinion, the PR team that managed this crisis followed some key principles to a tee:

• The CEO was chosen as spokesperson to demonstrate the highest level of commitment to the issue.
• The CEO’s message was crafted to very genuinely show concern, disgust, shock and disappointment.
• They didn’t waste any time. The plan was enacted, messages were crafted, the video was filmed and it was posted in a very timely manner.
• They responded using appropriate media by focusing on YouTube, the “scene of the crime” so to speak, and Twitter, in an attempt to reach the same audience that would have seen the initial video.
• They apologized and vowed to make things right, while being able to immediately reference the actions they took to do so…. Firing the employees, having them arrested, temporarily closing and sanitizing the store, and evaluating hiring procedures.
• They kept it short and stuck to the main points, driving home their most important message, “nothing is more important or sacred to us than our customers’ trust.”
• They were transparent and didn’t try to lie, deny, hide or ignore.
• They maintained control of the situation by being proactive and responding on their own terms.

The unfortunate reality of this situation is that so far only 66,000 people have seen the CEO’s video (as of the time I published this post), a mere 7% of the audience for the negative video. And for the most part, we can presume the mainstream media won’t cover Domino’s response to the extent they covered the more ratings-favorable initial video, if they even cover it at all. But the point is that Domino’s has modeled how to respond to a crisis.

In all likelihood, Domino’s had a comprehensive crisis communication plan that was immediately accessible for this situation. It helped guide them through their response, remain calm and act quickly. Chances are, the plan wasn’t specific to employees defaming the company, and I’d be willing to bet it wasn’t focused on responding to a “new” kind of social media crisis like this. But it worked.

Domino’s had a general roadmap for protecting its reputation no matter what the obstacle, as we all should. Regardless of how big or small your company is, whether you’re in the public eye or not, there is always the potential for crisis. If you aren’t prepared, then you should be prepared to stumble.