Al Ries and his Crazy, Crazy Pills

In a recent Ad Age article, the woefully wrong Al Ries laid out on Playboy for extending its line of nekid products into the digital realm.

"Playboy is digitizing its entire archive. All 636 issues of the magazine will be rendered page-by-page on six disks, one for each decade. Price: $100 per disk.

What a mistake. Every time a new medium arrives, older media players think, "What an opportunity to extend our franchise." So magazines and newspapers and radio and TV outlets are jumping all over themselves to digitize their brands."

That's where my attitude went from, "hey cool! An Al Ries article!" to "Are you fucking kidding me?"

He goes on to explain how Playboy shares are half what they were when the company went public in 1971, and how the 2.9 billion dollar company still lost 75 million last year.

Right. It isn't a branding problem. It isn't a relevancy problem. It isn't a conservatism issue. Nor does it have anything to do with Hefner's oddities or bad press. Not the creepiness of an elderly man dating seven twenty-something blondes. Nope. It's because they're moving along down the digital highway. Ideological curmudgeonism? Check.

And Ries continues,"Every print publication thinks it needs to expand into the internet to be successful. It's exactly the opposite. Stay where you are and launch a new brand on the web."

What the? Are you? Can he? Did he?

Well, give him points for shock value, I guess. And he goes on to failures that other companies have had in crossing on from one medium to another. He did get it right that those failures generally happen when those shifts are mishandled, but that hardly means that it shouldn't happen.

It's never a winning strategy to allow your brand to become irrelevant. No way would it make sense for the New York Times to waste away only on paper rather than remaining relevant to a class of people like myself who no longer reads the back of dead trees. I love the NY Times, but I haven't picked up any kind of paper in more than a year.

Yet Ries says, "Putting a magazine on radio or TV never worked either. Literally dozens of publications tried to take their successful print formula into the radio and TV arena. They all failed." An argument based solely in deception, as if the the printed word in print and internet form is the same as a magazine taken to newscast.

More than that, the idea that brands can't crossover from one medium to another is bullshit. Would that argument also follow to NBC or CBS? Should they have just stayed in radio? Or ABC, should they have just stayed in TV and not gone to radio?

Now, I agree, many of these traditional media sites have had a serious learning curve, but I'd still be the first to tip my cap to them for working hard and spending millions to stay relevant to a new generation of people only willing to accept traditional media in an adaptive form. To argue them back into their shells, away from change, is insane, idiotic and plainly wrong.

*Update: I'm dumb and spelled Ries wrong in the title. Fixed now. (thank ya, ma'am.)

*Update 2: Peter Kim also didn't agree with the article. He cracked me up with the line, "I guess the worst thing you can be is in the middle - it's refreshing to hear a voice that's consistently wrong." Kudos for that one...

*Update 3: I'm dumb and also spelled Ries wrong in the body. Fixed now.

*Update 4: The lovely Laura Ries showed up in the comments to explain her pops' comments further. She pointed to this post in her blog where she said this:

"Newspaper brands never made it big on radio. Radio brands never made it big on broadcast television. Broadcast TV brands never made it big on cable. Cable brands never made it big with magazines. And newspaper, magazine, radio, and television brands never made it big on the Internet."

My response is down in the comments (here).

*Update 5: High fives to me for spelling Laura's last name right!

*Update 6: And, yes, I realize I'm inflammatory, so stop emailing me. I still think she's awesome.

Comments

[CK]

Yo...do you mean to say "Reis" or "Ries"? It's different in the title and throughout, FYI. And since you labeled ABC, "the Absolute Bullshit Co.", like a minute ago, then yes, maybe they should have stayed in radio ;-).

I need to read this article before I further weigh-in. Let me check out all this fun drama (cuz it's gotta be better than what the networks are airing).

[CK]

"Every print publication thinks it needs to expand into the internet to be successful. It's exactly the opposite. Stay where you are and launch a new brand on the web."

I do have my skepticism from these content providers, like the examples he gives (Lifetime Network, ESPN, CondeNast)becoming such high-generating multi-media properties. I think about the brands on the Web, and in Web 2.0, that I like best...it's not the NBC social networks, it's the indiv. Sci-Fi sites. It's not MSN search engine, it's google. Now I do read CNN's content online--but I prefer it as a Cable Network. And I still prefer books to eBooks and magazines to e-zines.

I guess I'm not working to "argue these co's back in their shells" but I like the idea of new brands and new companies--it's not like these old co's can't be a driving force in investing in them (like the IBMs et. al. did back in the 90s).

That said, I'm on the darn fence with the iPhone (Ries has been vocal about that one). I just see it as so novel and cool that I have a hard time believing it won't go anywhere...oh wait, that's a different debate.

I'll nudge Al and Laura to get their debate on over here -- how fun, yes?

[Mack Collier]

I haven't read the article, but if Al's main thrust is that it won't work because Playboy is wanting to charge $100 for a decade's worth of Playboy, I'll agree. Anyone that wants to spend $100 for that will probably just buy a few pornos on DVD first.

[Laura Ries]

The point of Al's article is that a new medium will have new leaders. So the way for old media to compete is to launch new brands. The big successes on the Internet have all been new brands not line extensions of other brands. Amazon, eBay, My Space, You Tube, Monster, Yahoo, etc.

For more, check out this post on my blog which discusses the issue more:

http://ries.typepad.com/ries_blog/2007/04/new_medium_new_.html

[CK]

Gosh you debaters get me to read a lot. I just read Laura's post where she writes:

"Why can’t the kings of yesterday’s technology reign supreme in a new kingdom?

Because, a new brand has greater authenticity and the freedom to adapt itself better to suit the new medium."

Besides her saying authenticity (which I'm a total advocate and a pushover for) I must say, in looking at celeb garbage sites last night I was FAR more pleased with PerezHilton.com, PrettyOnTheOutside.com and wwtdd.typepad.com than I am with EOnline and InTouch. They are simply not suited to this medium.

Even CNN and NYT blogs are not on my tops list, ya know? I gotta say, I fancy the new with new mediums...it's growth. The old still have their place (and their place is at the top of the media they dominate).

Psst: you have "Reis" spelled like that all throughout the post (not just the title). But it's cute so keep it ;-).

[Cam Beck]

Laura - I wanted to leave a comment on your blog, but they've been closed off.

You said:

"Newspaper brands never made it big on radio. Radio brands never made it big on broadcast television. Broadcast TV brands never made it big on cable. Cable brands never made it big with magazines. And newspaper, magazine, radio, and television brands never made it big on the Internet."

The problem with "never" is that you need only find one exception to break the theory. Fox has done a fair job in Broadcast TV, Cable, and Movies. I don't know what this means in terms of profits, but Fox News, CBS, NBC, etc. all have radio affiliates to distribute syndicated content.

Also, there are other factors affecting the dichotomy of success between Amazon and Barnes & Noble. It's not as easy to say that it can't or shouldn't be done. It can be done, and it can be done well. It will be difficult -- no doubt, whether the competitor is a B&M store like B&N, or if it will require a startup called "Redforest.com" or something.

What remains to be seen at this point is if Barnes & Noble is suited to do it.

[Paul McEnany]

Oh my god, Laura, you just made my head explode. First, I apologize for the misspellings. Fixed now!

But, the statement Cam referenced is just completely and utterly false.

"Newspaper brands never made it big on radio. Radio brands never made it big on broadcast television. Broadcast TV brands never made it big on cable. Cable brands never made it big with magazines. And newspaper, magazine, radio, and television brands never made it big on the Internet."

Frankly, I don't know if newspaper brands ever made it on the radio, but I do know that NBC and CBS did extremely well on television. And FOX News and MSNBC seem to be doing pretty damn well on cable. The whole statement is simply a half-truth at best.

And to compare these newspaper or magazine sites across industries isn't necessarily honest, either. When you want news on the web, you go to NYTimes.com, your local news sites, CNN.com, FOXnews.com, MSNBC.com, all the big boys in news are run by traditional mass media. Sure, blogs are big, but not the size of the traditional players.

Now granted, Google and Yahoo both have news, but only as aggregators of traditional news services such as AP and other old-school news sites.

Obviously there are failures, but brands simply cannot remain static and relevant, it's just not possible, and it would be complete insanity for these brands to lose their brand equity by not translating from one medium to the next, especially in an industry that lends itself to multiple forms so seamlessly.

[Sean Howard]

LOL! You actually added the trophy to your sideroll!!!!

(giggling like a school girl)!!

[CK]

"Obviously there are failures, but brands simply cannot remain static and relevant, it's just not possible, and it would be complete insanity for these brands to lose their brand equity by not translating from one medium to the next, especially in an industry that lends itself to multiple forms so seamlessly."

Paul, I hear you on not remaining static. But the thing is, we make fun, I make fun--and you make fun, too--of so many that are doing just that. You hate Viacom (wait, Clown Corp?), you rightfully take NBC.com to task and we look to you to tell us of so many big dogs that just don't hunt.

So I think Al's got a great point on a lot of marketing medium mishaps. But it seems to be far from black/white. I don't want to be a fence-sitter as many of the branding lessons from Ries I agree with...but in transitioning to new mediums, I find there to be a lot of gray. Cam is right in never saying never.

I use CNN.com (but prefer it on TV when able) and I'd read it on my PDA when needed. I'll use MSoft software but I want use their search engine. But I don't want Lifetime network to become all things to all women across all media. Dig?

[Stephen Denny]

I found throughout the RiesCorp Episode on The Daily Fix Book Club that a whole lot of generalities get presented as absolute facts. Divergence always beats convergence, etc.

Generalities are almost always wrong. Every time a wild generalization gets thrown out by these guys, there are always a handful of pesky examples that animate the opposite.

A stronger focus on providing interesting insights would be a better read than pushing half-thought-out sound bytes. I won't hold my breath, though.

[ouija repairman]

I gotta appreciate the qualification in "Generalities are almost always wrong.

[Clay Parker Jones]

Is that a generality about generalities?

[El Gaffney]

all generalities aside, on the movement to from print to internet i'm definitely going to use the "i no longer reads the back of dead trees". amazing. i'll cite you for a bit.

[Paul McEnany]

CK- I totally talk a ton of shit to these old media companies trying to act new, but that doesn't mean I want them to fail. I want them to get better!

Stephen- With you, brother...

And I have to say, I'd rather you guys didn't always generalize your feelings about generalizing generalities. :)

Gaffney- Do it!

[Paul MacArthur]

You wrote:

"Frankly, I don't know if newspaper brands ever made it on the radio, but I do know that NBC and CBS did extremely well on television."

Yes, ABC, CBS, and NBC were successful radio networks before they became television networks.

BUT ... it is important to note:

1) While they did successfully extend their brands into television, they ended up destroying their radio network brands in the process. Those radio brand names, while still used today, don't have nearly the cache they once did. In the case of NBC, CBS, and ABC, the radio brands were damaged by both the line extensions AND the companies focusing more on TV than their radio operations.

2) There are a number of technological and regulatory issues that allowed NBC, ABC, and CBS were able to capitalize on the new medium of television in ways that most competitors could not. Those aren't issues today. So, there was no real competitive issue for ABC, CBS, NBC as they were the only TV games in town. (It's important to note that DuMont failed because of technological issues (UHF) and regulatory issues related to its affiliation with Paramount so by 1955 we have just three players.) Thus, when the oligopoly consists of three line extended companies, well, of course the line extended companies will do well.

3) The 40s and 50s were much different than today. Branding ... and keeping your brand name distinctive is FAR more important today than it was when TV exploded in the 50s.

"And FOX News and MSNBC seem to be doing pretty damn well on cable. The whole statement is simply a half-truth at best."

NBC and FOX two of the top 4 broadcast networks. Yet, in terms of subscribers, neither FOXNews nor MSNBC is in the Top Ten. The most successful cable networks, interestingly enough, have been entities like ESPN (magazine by the way isn't as successful as SI), HBO, Discovery, etc. Companies that identified themselves as Cable Nets first, not broadcast networks.

Yes, FOXNews has been successful, but it could have been even stronger with a different name. Then conservative views/commentary of FOXNews wouldn't be compromised by the programming on FOX. Likewise, the people who are turned off by FOXNews wouldn't feel like they are supporting a political ideology they dislike when watching American Idol.

As for MSNBC, it's success is overstated.