 |
| LHJ's 1949 cover |
In all such ventures, the trick is to differentiate from the competition, and avoid coming across as just another lookalike. With that in mind, following are the major subject headings USAT and five other publishers list on their homepages. The others: Good Housekeeping; Ladies' Home Journal; O, The Oprah Magazine; Redbook, and Woman's Day. (Note: I've removed subject headings that include the publication's actual name.)
Which one of these subject lists is from USAT's Your Life site?
No 1.
Recipes
Home
Lifestyle
Health
Style
No 2.
Style
Health
Relationships
Food
Community
Games
Video
No 3.
Recipes & Entertaining
House & Home
Diet & Health
Style & Beauty
Family & Pets
Saving Money
Best Products
No 4.
Sex & Love
Mind & Body
Beauty & Fashion
Mom & Kids
Food & Home
Money & Career
Fun & Games
Video
No 5.
Spirit
Health
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Books
Food
Entertainment
No 6.
Health
Fitness & Food
Family & Parenting
Sex & Relationships
Mind & Soul
Your Look
Blogs
Earlier: USAT launches Your Life digital vertical
[Image: Wikipedia]
After posting this, I had to consult my notes to remember which one of these six is USAT's Your Life.
ReplyDelete6. The others are magazines and so don't offer blogs.
ReplyDelete1:14 p.m. As near as I can tell, all but one of them publishes blogs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI go with number 6.
ReplyDeleteDoes Gannett expect folks to stumble upon these things by accident and then expect growth only from word-of-mouth advertising or will there actually be multiple forms of media used to promote this venture?
ReplyDeleteLooks to me as if they are going after the cougars as readers -- middle aged divorcees and other losers fretting about their looks and determined to try and reduce poundage.
ReplyDeleteUSATers can't even put out a high-level newspaper or website anymore. Why does management add crap like this onto the pile of money-losing ventures? Every time these things fail, there comes another round of layoffs or furloughs. And the layoffs are getting more cold and heavy-handed with each round. Not a good situation to be in in pricey northern Va. What a ridiculous place. Can't see why anyone would want to work there, particularly if they are moving from another area of the country where life is bound to be simpler and cheaper.
ReplyDelete8:01 Yes, but the startups continue on in life, as is the case of Moms and Metromix, which are shadows but still operating. It makes it look like they are doing things, when they are not. They seem to have a very short attention span, and lose interest quickly when the buckets of new revenues they projected fail to roll in. So let's try something else. Let's appeal to the cougars and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteBTW, as I understand Hunke's plan for USA Today, they are going to need a whole bunch of evergreens if they are going to publish a newspaper. They will just have one edition with an early deadline because it is cheaper. Anyone wanting late sports scores or other up-to-date information will have to turn to the Web site to get it. They are already getting complaints because the paper isn't publishing late scores.
This plan for USA Today is very radical
I had hoped that the new Your Life vertical would be good, but am sad to see that this was obviously rushed through with no real investment into the product. The home page looks promising because it has a slightly different look from the rest of the site, but once you click into a story not only do you lose the navigation back to the main Your Life front, but it is also painfully obvious that the stories are just automated feeds. There is no personality, no perspective, nothing that distinguishes Your Life in the slightest. It feels thin, empty and half-hearted. Maybe it will improve with time but I'm not encouraged by what I see so far.
ReplyDeleteThe USAT verticals won't work for a multitude of reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirst, no one thinks of the USAT brand outside of a newspaper and a website. Ever.
Next, USAT never invests a nickel to learn a business segment before jumping in. Somehow they believe their brand will make people act irrationally and buy a shiny magazine because it has a USAT logo. (Didnt Moon try this stuff with the Open Air and the Tech magazine, all for naught?)
Next, USAT does not truly understand their readers or its advertiser behavior. Lots of poor sampling and weak leadership has led to disarray in even knowing who readers are and what they really like.
Really, these verticals will cost USAT way, way more than they will ever earn.
Months and months later, this is what Your Life general manager Heather Frank finally crawls out with? Just see all that revenue come pouring in. For such mediocre and irrelevant drivel she gets Dave hunke to reward her with a promotion to Vice President of Verticals. All USA Today Life comrades are all rolling their eyes.
ReplyDeleteGosh I kinda like it. It's different but interesting. Give it time
ReplyDeleteBoy there are some real hatred here. What's wrong with you lemmings? You NEVER have anything positive to say about anything. It must be depressing to be you. Talk about Trolls.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, 10:38. I was there on the ground floor with the "exciting new venture into magazine publishing" that was going to "transform Gannett" that was Open Air. My, GCI really stuck through its commitment to that venture, didn't it? As is the GCI way, they insisted on cutting corners whenever possible, and when instant double-digit profit didn't materialize within, oh, two or three issues, GCI brass got bored and pulled the plug.
ReplyDeleteNevermind that it's a given in the magazine industry that it takes more than three issues to gain traction to turn a profit. GCI managers aren't interested in the investment of time -- not when they're measured by the quarter on their bonuses. And that's the mentality that's driving this company right into the dirt.
10:38, it has been like this since the start. I doubt many of these people had solutions when they were still part of Gannett.
ReplyDeleteCraig Moon liked non-newspaper periodicals. In Little Rick, he had us competing with the phone company when we started publishing our own yellow page books. As I recall, we published two before pulling the plug.
ReplyDeleteGive us something positive to crow about, and you will hear plaudits, 10:38. But a novel and breakthrough Web site that offers recipes? Wow. How come no one ever thought of doing that before?
ReplyDelete"A BMI calculator and calorie-counting advice." How trendy.
I was prepared to give it a couple of weeks before saying anything, but you provoked this response. And that is if this vertical is as boring and as much a retread as detailed in the opening day memo, it has no hope. And I'm not a hater.
That was a Gannett fad. Yellow Pages. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteSure, 10:38, yeah true, its really very depressing... to see such incompetence and half-assed attempts at fixing what ails USAT.
ReplyDeleteTalking all nice and pretty is not going to fix real business problems, period. And BTW, this is not about hate, its about speaking the truth. Did it occur to you that maybe the people who voice this "hate" actually care the most about USAT's true fate? Didnt think so.
Everyone, at every level, should have the gumption to question and challenge the party line, and if USAT had the guts, that would be happening all around the place without fear of reprisal. This is not a complicated idea, in fact, its what makes good companies great. Heard anyone speak openly lately? Me neither.
Back to verticals: There are too many unanswered questions and trickled communications around the verticals -- and it makes the idea seem half-hearted and bound for market failure. Sorry, but thats what it looks like from the outside, too. Just talk them up with your friends, your family, even some potential advertisers, and see how unexcited they get. Zzz.
Actually, the only real dialogue about these topics happen here, on this blog. Its sure not happening in the hallowed halls of USAT or anywhere else.
So, sleep tight in your sweet, positive world where everything goes unchallenged, where nothing is wrong, and flowers bloom in the concrete... and please excuuuse us "Lemming Trolls" for sharing our dissent, frustration, and anguish at the mistaken notions of USAT's leadership.
Lemming Trolls! I love it. I now pronounce all you naysayers as "lemming Trolls" sounds like a dessert at the Cheesecake Factory!
ReplyDeleteToday's edition looks like a handful of USAT-produced evergreen stories (How to Safely Get Rid of Prescription Medicine) and wire copy. Ho-hum. Your Life feels more like a content aggregator than anything else. Honestly, it seems like we're all heading that way.
ReplyDeleteOmigod! I just checked this site out, as I was not familiar with it. What a mess. Huffington has been doing this for more than a year, and doing it well. The graphics on the TODAY site are pitiful and the choices meager. There is not an ounce of pizzazz on the home page. Surely the company does not believe people are going to spend any time on this site after the first visit. Given the visual and content competition on the Web, this site is doomed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHere's the cold hard reality of the Your Life vertical. USAT readership is 80% male. If the company doesn't give this concept time to work, it will be a failure before it starts. With alll the competition for the female reader, USAT can't expect that 80/20 number to change overnight. Not even close. If you're commited, then there's a chance. If not, then good night.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete12:49 I agree with your analysis, but I just don't see women flocking to the news stands to pick up their daily USA Today. They are no longer printing late scores of games so they can wedge this garbage in the paper, and readers are savvy enough to spot this. So if we end up with a situation where the male readers are pissed off at the cuts of things they want to read, and the women aren't picking it up, then where are we?
ReplyDeleteThe response from USA Today is going to be that we are now printing the late scores online. But they are not watching where their readers are reading the newspaper. They are reading it over breakfast in the hotel restaurant or the fast food joint nearby, and they are not carrying their computer with them.
How can USAT possibly build an audience for Your Life when the home page links to a story on how to get rid of prescription meds? Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't read this one before? What a joke. It amazes me that the people running the joint seem to have no respect for readers' intelligence.
ReplyDeleteStories you've read before have a long, long shelf life. That's why they come back around. Build up enough of these, and you have a website costing relatively little to maintain. The New York Times does this with health news, too. That's also the business model driving content farms.
ReplyDeleteThe generic stories also help the click rates. People wonder if its ok to flush old drugs down the john, so Google a question and up pops a response from USA Today. I read something recently that our old friends Demand Media (providing timeless copy for USA Today's Travel) are writing answers for all possible questions for this reason.
ReplyDeleteAs Denise Brodey said in her note to readers, "It's just not possible to be a sane dieter, a savvy shopper, a short-order family cook, an energetic co-worker and a supportive partner 24/7." Not much time to squeeze USA Today in, especially if there are bland stories on recipes, dieting, etc. Somehow, I think this effort to attract women to USA Today is not going to work and will be another loss of time and effort. What a disaster.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me about this vertical is how "New York" is this concept. I don't think the metrosexual thing sells in other parts of the country, especially the west. If the idea is to take on the national edition of the New York Times, then this might make some sense. But I have always felt our audience was a "not the New York Times" audience, and this new Life section has little appealing to them.
ReplyDeleteJim: 5:50 here. Your point on stories with a long shelf life is taken. But don't you think that when you start an enterprise such as Your Life, you would want new and enterprising pieces to attract and keep readers and then build the site with the old chestnuts? When I'm sampling sites, the ones that grab my attention are the ones that tell me something new, not the ones that regurgitate the same old stuff.
ReplyDelete12:13 p.m.: Agreed, absolutely. What any site needs -- this one included -- is to publish exclusive news with big, broad impact. Nothing drives traffic more than that.
ReplyDeletePut another way, I had a great editor who would test a concept such as this by asking: Is it highly original or novel? If it's similar to an existing concept, how does it significantly advance what's already been done?
ReplyDeleteIf a project failed by that measure, he wouldn't invest resources in it.