[AdWeek banner tackles famous WSJ feature; see arrow]
The ad is part of USA Today's new campaign focused on potential advertisers, one that emphasizes the paper's populist position in the market. The paper's line: USAT's more general readership isn't so taken with inside-baseball accounts of, in this case, the stock market. "What's heard on the street doesn't matter," the ad says. "What they really want is Money."That, of course, is USA Today's Money section, which emphasizes personal finance, consumer technology and well-known retail brands: the public face of U.S. business.
The USAT campaign isn't risk-free. In distancing itself from harder-edge coverage like "Heard on the Street," the paper may draw unwanted attention to its reputation in some quarters for being too lightweight. That could backfire among potential advertisers seeking better-educated, more affluent readers. The Gannett paper's ad revenue remains under pressure, so this campaign's success ultimately depends on whether is spurs more sales.
It's no surprise that USAT is gunning for the WSJ. Under new owner Rupert Murdoch, the paper snatched the No. 1 circulation title last year, bolstered by its hundreds of thousands of paid online subscriptions. The Gannett paper is left promoting itself as No. 1 in print, an awkward sell when online is where the action lies.
Now, the Journal is beefing up its sports reporting, too, a key franchise for USAT. This week, The New York Observer reported that the Journal's sports reporters are getting on-the-road credentials to cover New York area pro sports teams like the Mets, aiming for human-interest features beyond game scores, a hallmark of USA Today's well-regarded sports reporting.
USA Today's campaign also comes as another national rival, The New York Times, is similarly engaged in a full-bore trade marketing effort of its own, also targeted at the WSJ.
[Image: today's WSJ, Newseum]
The battle is engaged. I've been waiting for the fight to erupt between the WSJ, USAToday and the NYT, since each has a national straegy. But who wrote that ad? It's stupid and ignorant. Readers now have 401Ks and are intersted in Wall Street even if they don't otherwise invest. It just points out how weak Money is on Wall Street trends and developments.
ReplyDeleteGreat reporting on this, Jim. Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteBig mistake. Never mention your competitor. Personalizing it makes you look weak and defensive.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, the ad never says, "Wall Street Journal." But the use of Heard on the Street, and in the same typeface used by the Journal, makes clear who's being targeted.
ReplyDeleteYou should all take a look at the very direct punches that WSJ already threw at USAT. The lack of response by Gannett was deafening.
ReplyDeleteThis campaign is energetic, creative, speaks back directly to USAT's strength over WSJ -- that is, much stronger audience among regular Joes (affluent, but not Wall Street denizens) -- and capitalizes on readers' desire for information presented in a way that makes sense in their daily lives, rather than stock market minutia.
Anyone who doesn't understand the word-play between WSJ's "Heard on the Street" feature and USAT's "Money" section also probably doesn't understand what readers want, how readers perceive the two pubs, or how advertising customers view the two. Of course, lack of knowledge generally does not get in the way of many posters on Gannett Blog.
For 11:16....If you don't like the blog, then don't read it. Not everyone is a marketing maven. I have to say, though, that I'll take the WSJ anytime over USAT.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the NEW WSJ. It's simply a good read.
@11:55, you're right. Personally, I think the WSJ is a good read, too.
ReplyDeleteBut I was not referring to the reading preferences or perceptions of news-industry insiders. I was referring to the larger audiences and business customers (current and potential) of the two pubs. And, from both those points of view, the campaign is spot-on.
Have a nice day!
I like seeing USA Today fighting back, and trust this campaign isn't a one-shot deal. I'm also looking forward to reading more ads about what's good about USAT vs. what's bad about the competition.
ReplyDeleteUSAT and the WSJ have this much in common: Reader comments on stories -- especially about politics -- can be so crude, it's a wonder any advertiser would go near the papers.
ReplyDeleteComments on Gannett Blog get rough, but I've never seen anything like this, on a blog covering Sarah Palin campaigning today for John McCain; a reader with the screen name NowSwimBack wrote the following, 16 minutes ago: "Campainging for the open-borders liberal against the conservative. We now see Palin's true colors. Just another tool for the Jews."
Jim, is the print competition on the newsstands or in subscriptions between USAT and WSJ? Just curious. I received a free WSJ print subscription about six months ago to use up some airline miles and now I am re-upping with a paid subscription. I would miss it if it stopped. Its reporting and writing are excellent and there's simply no comparison with the limp feel of USAT. I could hardly stand to read USAT even when I got it for free as a Gannett employee. WSJ coverage of the Olympics was very creative and readable, too. I just try to avoid the WSJ editorial page, but at least there is some clarity unlike the blah USAT opinion section or whatever it is.
ReplyDeleteRegarding: USA Today has just launched a new branding campaign with this tagline: "What America Wants." Notably, it references its "unpretentious reporting." What's pretentious reporting, and which newspapers are guilty of that?
ReplyDeleteThe above are just more nonsense and inflamatory statements by USA Today CMO Susan Lavington to the media. They really should keep her away from ever speaking on behalf of USA Today.
USA Today should concentrate more on returning to being a reliable source for good journalism, enterprise and interesting visuals. Just one person's opinion, but I don't see the quality or quantity of content in that publication (print or online) that I did several years ago. Seems USA Today has more to worry about from within than anything the WSJ or NYT can throw at it.
ReplyDelete