Empresas que no tienen puestos de trabajo fijos asignados a sus empleados. De hecho, tienen menos puestos de trabajo que empleados.
Teletrabajo extremo. No solo trabajar desde casa en ocasiones, sino tener empleados en otras ciudades o incluso en otros continentes.
Un tamaño pequeño (menos de 150 personas), elegido voluntariamente.
Empresas unipersonales, la reputación profesional como el mayor activo.
Uso de herramientas y recursos gratuitos o baratos. Elegir lo simple y práctico antes que lo perfecto y complejo.
Meritocracia frente a autoridad impuesta. Estructuras planas frente a jerarquías complejas.
El método de probar-medir-corregir frente a la planificación y el control de la ejecución.
El respeto al sentido común de los empleados frente a la imposición de procedimientos.
El cliente es más importante que el producto. Crear experiencias duraderas, no momentos de venta.
Hipercomunicación entre empleados, con clientes, con socios… usando múltiples tecnologías y en tiempo casi real.
Empresas abiertas, que comparten información y crean entornos en los que generan oportunidades de negocio para otros.
Hiperespecialización, empresas que hacen muy pocas cosas pero son excelentes haciéndolas.
Redes de cooperación entre empresas que se complementan o incluso pueden competir en un momento y cooperar en otro.
Micromultinacionales, empresas con empleados en varios países, con subcontratistas en varios continentes y con clientes en todo el mundo, formadas por un puñado de personas y con pocos recursos económicos.
Empresas flash, que se crean rápidamente y mueren rápidamente para aprovechar una oportunidad puntual.
Artesanía, ofertas personalizadas, creadas a medida de un cliente con preferencias muy particulares. Explotación de la long tail.
Empresas con sentido, ONGs con ánimo de lucro. La “responsabilidad social” no es una excrecencia añadida, sino que la propia empresa tiene clara su aportación a la sociedad en la propia manera de hacer negocio.
lunes, 30 de agosto de 2010
miércoles, 25 de agosto de 2010
sábado, 14 de agosto de 2010
viernes, 6 de agosto de 2010
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
de Newsonomics de Ken Doctor
Jim Moroney thinks he may be on to a new formula. It’s not as great — not nearly as profitable — as that old newspaper formula, but it’s one that may sustain his company into the future.
“The Dallas Morning News now gets 38 percent of its revenue from circulation, 54 percent from advertising, and 8 percent from contract printing plus,” the Morning News’ publisher tells me.
Those numbers are a far cry from the way it used to be for newspaper companies. They long used one of the many 80/20 rules out there: 80 percent of their revenue came from advertising, and 20% came from circulation.
Now, as ad revenue has been on a precipitous decline — down from almost $50 billion in 2000 to $24 billion in 2009, and still sliding a bit more — that old formula is out the window.
While the digital news world seems consumed with conversations about paywalls and memberships, it is old-fashioned print circulation revenue that is the gainer in the post-80/20 formulas. Sure, advertising’s ski slope decline has greatly altered the 80/20. So has, though, the significant up-pricing of both subscriptions and single copies over the past three years.
At the Morning News, Moroney — aided by research from consumer products company The Modellers — took monthly subscriptions from $18 to $30, in one fell swoop. Many other publishers have upped prices, though most have done it more gradually. Pick up a slim copy anywhere in your travels, and you see it now costs 75 cents or a buck; it used to be the “25-cent or 35-cent?” discussion that consumed executive committees.
The impact of the pricing moves is still uncertain. Short-term, they seemed to work. Though circulation continued to decline, circulation revenue was mildly up. The central notion: Get those with the newspaper habit to pay more of the freight, figuring that few would drop the newspaper because it cost two Grande Mochas more.
As we look at last quarter’s financial reports, we have to wonder how the up-pricing of circulation will work. As many companies showed a decline in circulation revenue in the second quarter as showed an increase.
A few of the numbers:
Gannett: down 5.9%
McClatchy: down 2.5%
Lee: down 4.4%
Gatehouse: down 2.5%
Moroney’s own company, A.H. Belo, of which he is an executive vice-president, reported a 6.6-percent increase. Additionally, The New York Times Company reported a 3.2-percent increase and Scripps a 4.5-percent increase (from 1st quarter data; 2nd not out until Aug. 9). Significantly, I think, each of those companies may have done a better job of minimizing newsroom cuts and reinvesting — at least a little — in that now higher-priced product.
While the jury is out on the stickiness of price increases, it’s clear the old 80/20 rule is gone.
Broadly, in research I conduct annually for Outsell, we track the global moves in ad, circulation and digital revenue. In 2009, circulation revenue was up more than a point over 2008 to 41 percent. Significantly, Japanese publishers continue to get a majority of their revenue from circulation, while much of Europe and UK see their percentages in 35-45 percent range.
ln the U.S., let’s just pull some data from the second-quarter reports. They show:
New York Times: Circ: 40%, Ads: 53%, Other: 7%
Scripps: Circ: 28%; Ads: 67%; Other: 5%
Gatehouse: Circ: 27% , Ads: 71%, Other 2%
Lee: Circ: 24%, Ads: 70%, Other: 6%
McClatchy: Circ: 20%; Ads: 76%, Other: 4%
Several factors will continue to push and pull the new ad/circ breakdown.
For one thing, we’re moving into an era of “reader revenue,” one that will roll up print subscriptions, single print copies, digital pay per view, digital subscriptions, all-access (across platform) subscriptions, memberships and more. For a next generation of reader revenue, tablet access is the big prize in the sights of publishers; witness, for instance, the likelihood of a News Corp. “iPad division.” Further, advertising will continue morph greatly, as digital marketing replaces some of that spend, enlarging and changing definitions.
Finally, don’t forget “other.” For A.H. Belo, it’s 8 percent now, but growing at at 35-percent clip. As news companies find “other” ways to make “other” revenue, we’ll see new formulas begin to make sense.
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
de Newsonomics de Ken Doctor
Jim Moroney thinks he may be on to a new formula. It’s not as great — not nearly as profitable — as that old newspaper formula, but it’s one that may sustain his company into the future.
“The Dallas Morning News now gets 38 percent of its revenue from circulation, 54 percent from advertising, and 8 percent from contract printing plus,” the Morning News’ publisher tells me.
Those numbers are a far cry from the way it used to be for newspaper companies. They long used one of the many 80/20 rules out there: 80 percent of their revenue came from advertising, and 20% came from circulation.
Now, as ad revenue has been on a precipitous decline — down from almost $50 billion in 2000 to $24 billion in 2009, and still sliding a bit more — that old formula is out the window.
While the digital news world seems consumed with conversations about paywalls and memberships, it is old-fashioned print circulation revenue that is the gainer in the post-80/20 formulas. Sure, advertising’s ski slope decline has greatly altered the 80/20. So has, though, the significant up-pricing of both subscriptions and single copies over the past three years.
At the Morning News, Moroney — aided by research from consumer products company The Modellers — took monthly subscriptions from $18 to $30, in one fell swoop. Many other publishers have upped prices, though most have done it more gradually. Pick up a slim copy anywhere in your travels, and you see it now costs 75 cents or a buck; it used to be the “25-cent or 35-cent?” discussion that consumed executive committees.
The impact of the pricing moves is still uncertain. Short-term, they seemed to work. Though circulation continued to decline, circulation revenue was mildly up. The central notion: Get those with the newspaper habit to pay more of the freight, figuring that few would drop the newspaper because it cost two Grande Mochas more.
As we look at last quarter’s financial reports, we have to wonder how the up-pricing of circulation will work. As many companies showed a decline in circulation revenue in the second quarter as showed an increase.
A few of the numbers:
Gannett: down 5.9%
McClatchy: down 2.5%
Lee: down 4.4%
Gatehouse: down 2.5%
Moroney’s own company, A.H. Belo, of which he is an executive vice-president, reported a 6.6-percent increase. Additionally, The New York Times Company reported a 3.2-percent increase and Scripps a 4.5-percent increase (from 1st quarter data; 2nd not out until Aug. 9). Significantly, I think, each of those companies may have done a better job of minimizing newsroom cuts and reinvesting — at least a little — in that now higher-priced product.
While the jury is out on the stickiness of price increases, it’s clear the old 80/20 rule is gone.
Broadly, in research I conduct annually for Outsell, we track the global moves in ad, circulation and digital revenue. In 2009, circulation revenue was up more than a point over 2008 to 41 percent. Significantly, Japanese publishers continue to get a majority of their revenue from circulation, while much of Europe and UK see their percentages in 35-45 percent range.
ln the U.S., let’s just pull some data from the second-quarter reports. They show:
New York Times: Circ: 40%, Ads: 53%, Other: 7%
Scripps: Circ: 28%; Ads: 67%; Other: 5%
Gatehouse: Circ: 27% , Ads: 71%, Other 2%
Lee: Circ: 24%, Ads: 70%, Other: 6%
McClatchy: Circ: 20%; Ads: 76%, Other: 4%
Several factors will continue to push and pull the new ad/circ breakdown.
For one thing, we’re moving into an era of “reader revenue,” one that will roll up print subscriptions, single print copies, digital pay per view, digital subscriptions, all-access (across platform) subscriptions, memberships and more. For a next generation of reader revenue, tablet access is the big prize in the sights of publishers; witness, for instance, the likelihood of a News Corp. “iPad division.” Further, advertising will continue morph greatly, as digital marketing replaces some of that spend, enlarging and changing definitions.
Finally, don’t forget “other.” For A.H. Belo, it’s 8 percent now, but growing at at 35-percent clip. As news companies find “other” ways to make “other” revenue, we’ll see new formulas begin to make sense.
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)