JAMIE CREDLAND - TURNING DATA INTO CONTENT, FOLLOWERS, AND PRESS COVERAGE

Editor's Notes

• #3: So this is the raw materials we had to start with, back in 1843… The first ever issue of The Economist... Our ‘minimal viable product’ or beta I guess you’d say now... Important to note the headline story is about trade deals between London and Brazil... Which wouldn’t seem that out of place now. [CLICK] And obviously we evolved that core product over the years, to develop into colour, into digital apps, etc... But the core product didn’t change. It’s still a weekly package, of the same content for broadly the same audience... Innovation was moving us forward, but was it enough. Let’s take a step back now and think about the media world our audience lives in.
• #4: Indeed, the number of people relying on social media as their MAIN source of news is growing rapidly. In Greece, this number is 27% - higher than print and TV combined!! So why would you even bother being a publisher? Are publishers still adding any value to this equation? But there’s a problem with this…
• #5: Trust in the news is low across Europe… and this is particularly the case with under-35s. So what does this mean for publishers? Are we now no longer needed, replaced by the alogrithm of Facebook? And are millennials really not interested in ‘serious’ journalism? Is this next generatino going to lose interest in premium publishing products?We commissioned some research into the millennial audience globally to find out. – you can find the research online, but we gathered a whole range of quanititate data, and then added in in-depth interviews with influential millennials all over the world
• #6: First thing that became clear is that millennials are seriously misunderstood. There are extremely negative generalizations about them. And of course, no demographic group should really be thrown together – there are huge variations within the demographic. But the data shows that:They consume more new media online every day than many other demographics They are more likely to comment on and engage with online news sources They are extremely aware of the differences between various media sources, and the likelihood of hoaxes/scams etc.
• #7: How did you find out about the Charlie Hebdo attack? All Gen-narrators first picked up on the story via social media. But they immediately went to traditional sources to confirm it was really happening, and to get the extra depth behind the story. So established media still has a role to play in the new media landscape…. What does this mean for The Economist? How did we decide to tackle product innovation?
• #8: In fact, the election of Trump was a landmark for us. Because ti was the first time our social platform presence was driving more engagement with our content off-domain than on domain. 55% of articles views came from off-platofrm Traffic on Apple News was 7x what it normally is But don’t think this means that our core product isn’t doing well. Trumps inauguration was also our most successful day ever for new subscription starts (1,500) – 2.7x higher than normal and we grow our subscriptions by 21% according to ABC in JJ18 Th largest social media following
• #9: Every time there is a major event or controversy, our print or online editions seem to have a little boost. So why would we bother innovating the product set at all?
• #10: Trust in the news is low across Europe… and this is particularly the case with under-35s. So what does this mean for publishers? Are we now no longer needed, replaced by the alogrithm of Facebook? And are millennials really not interested in ‘serious’ journalism? Is this next generatino going to lose interest in premium publishing products?We commissioned some research into the millennial audience globally to find out. – you can find the research online, but we gathered a whole range of quanititate data, and then added in in-depth interviews with influential millennials all over the world
• #11: How do you evolve while staying true to what makes you great?
• #14: In the changing landscape, we had to understand what it is that we still stand for. Our mission statement, in 1843, was to take part in a ‘severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress’ And our editorila voice is completely indepdentn – for strucutral reasons to do with reporting (our editor does not report to the CEO) We commissioned internal review to understand exactly what it is that we do for our readers. This thought triggered a large internal piece of work analysing our brand, understanding what it is we do and exactly what value readers get from us.  This gave us these 5 qualities that The Economist stands for. ●Smart guide to the forces that shape the future ●Trusted, finishable filter on world affairs ●Advocate for progress A global perspective Quality content & Premium Pricing  Now of course what these are for different publishers will vary. But the big breakthrough for us was (after 172 years…) reaching a clear understanding of what we offer our readers that is completely platform agnostic Nothing in those values mentions print, or mentions a weekly frequency.  Hence it freed us to think more clearly about how to respond to some of the challenges in the outside world. - what happens if we challenge some of those assumptions?
• #15: Cross-Functional it’s not the job of the commercial team, or the editoril team, or heaven forbid the ‘strategy team’. You need cross-functional consensus and debate.
• #16: Small teams work better The Ringelmann Effect Most people are not familiar with the Ringelmann Effect which is the tendency for individual members to become less productive as the size of a group increases. This concept was named after Maximilien Ringelmann a French professor of agricultural engineering who passed away in 1931. In one of his experiments he asked volunteers to perform a very simple task, to pull on a rope. He found that when only one person is pulling on the rope they give 100% of their effort, however, as more people are added the individual effort goes down. Social Loafing This experiment was recreated in the 1970's by Alan Ingham who came up with the concept of "social loafing" which helps us understand why the individual effort decreases as the team size increases. So why does this happen? Because it becomes harder to extract the individual contributions and performance of each person. So the individual rationale is "I don't really need to pull as hard because other people are contributing and nobody will really know how hard I'm pulling anyway." The same concept explains why many people don't vote, why bystanders don't take action when needed, or why some people within teams slack off.
• #18: So what is it? 5 stories a day, Monday-Saturday 1m+ downloads 200,000 weekly reach 85% existing subscribers High levels of engagement Development process was key – it took 6 months to build, for the first 3 months nota single line of code was written – editors focused on translating Economist style into new, shorter articles, and a daily publishing rhythm (from New York, London and Hong Kong) ‘The Economist is already valued by its readers as the antidote to information overload. Espresso does exactly the same thing, but on a daily rather than a weekly basis. Read this, and you’re ready for the day’ - Tom Standage
• #19: We then applied a similar process to the idea of film – what would the Economist look like in film? Still forward looking, still a trusted filter, but now in film… Again, the key was shifting the editorail process – We hired world renowned film producers and direcotrs, then had an Econmist editor pair up with them for each film subject – so The economist’s extertise was filtered through a film makers lens. Now available online, on Apple TV< on Android TV, Microsoft Xbox…. The Economist will change the perception of web videos, by creating film-production level documentary films: Economist Films. Films are our editorial product and will not feature traditional advertising however each series will be available for sponsoring. Designed for the digital age, these mini movies will: Examine global issues of interest to an intellectually curious, progressive audience; Utilize the latest advancements in in documentary film-making; Be only 10 minutes in length – ideal for digital viewing no matter the device;
• #21: So about a year ago, Snapchat approached us about joining Snapchat Discover. And of course it was interesting to us – huge reach, amongst a new audience, and a great revenue opportunity. But it was dificult to undestand exactly what it would mean to operate in this space. How could we translate the quality of The Economist into this new medium?So again we started with editorail, had a dedicated Snapchat Editor work with the team at Snapchat for almost 4 months, focused on translating our proposition into the Snapchat formula. SO we woulnd’t recreate print articles. And we wouldn’t’ dumb down. But we would be more bisual. 150 million daily reach 41% of US 18-34 year olds