I was recently asked for my thoughts regarding the reasons for InTech’s (advertising) struggles and how we might improve the advertising market share of the magazine.

I would say that what went wrong with InTech is Web 2.0.  The Internet is revolutionizing the way information is delivered and how people organize themselves; the two core value propositions of ISA.  Few to realize this, including organizations as large and successful as the Boston Globe and Conde Nast.   Here are my thoughts on the past, which are not meant as criticism but analysis on how external trends are affecting InTech:

• The fundamental challenge for InTech is the plummeting value of information. The product quite simply isn’t worth what it used to be. Many people immediately think of Google, but there are actually a few reasons:
  • Search engines (Google, Bing, etc.) are the obvious reason information is becoming devalued; it is much, much easier to find.
  • Vendors are providing more and more value-added information to their customers. They are realizing the benefits of giving away information and solutions in order to increase sales of their products. Rockwell has been doing this for years, but Emerson is really becoming a content generating force. They get it.
  • Web 2.0 is turning traditional content consumers into producers. While automation professionals are probably slower to adopt than others, this is what I call the “silent killer.”  The root cause here is the cost of bandwidth and storage approaching zero. This trend will continue as more and more specialists in the automation profession will become their own publishers. Greg McMillan, for example, could be a very successful professional blogger and speaker right now if he had the inclination.
• It is no great surprise to say that the print medium is becoming less and less popular.  ISA is dangerously behind the times with regard to all things digital, but I am seeing glimmers of hope from leadership that this is changing (as recently as emails I received this afternoon).
• Advertising in all forms (magazine, web, television) is changing. The traditional, interruptive model is becoming less effective every single day. People are getting better at ignoring those sorts of advertising and effective advertising in the future will be permission-based, inbound marketing. The problem with that approach is that it requires an organizational shift that will be extremely difficult to pull off.
• Due to the exploding availability of information, people are shifting from fewer, longer articles to more, shorter articles. I have ready many statements from leadership about the “world class” content of InTech, and I am not saying that it is or is not.  My point is that it doesn’t matter whether or not the content is world class if nobody is reading it.   The articles are too long and too poorly marketed right now, in my view.   I know this is heretical to say, and many engineers will take violent exception to this statement.
• Another effect of Web 2.0 is the immediacy of information. The process and delivery mechanism for InTech is too bogged down to respond to quickly developing situations.   By the time an editorial calendar is adopted, articles are submitted, reviewed, accepted, edited, printed and read, people frequently don’t care anymore or ISA has missed an opportunity to be part of a conversation.
• ISA has killed the golden goose by overwhelming its members with low value, un-targeted, interruptive marketing.   As a result, they have unsubscribed from our emails and generally tuned out ISA.   That will make everything we do from now on that much harder.

Don't confuse Web 2.0 with social media - they are related but not the same thing.

So those are my thoughts on what went “wrong” and the forces that are influencing publishing in general. Here’s what I think we need to do:

• First and foremost, abandon the traditional paradigms which include viewing InTech as a source of revenue. It needs to be transitioned to a (hopefully) break-even content generation engine that serves a higher calling (e.g. inbound marketing, member engagement, community building).  Again, I understand this is heresy and will be very controversial.
• The deal with Automation.com should be undone as soon as possible.  This was dilution of the InTech brand and in a Web 2.0 world, the opt-in email list is the most valuable asset any publisher has.   Sharing this with Automation.com greatly diminishes its value.
• InTech should formulate a strategy for migrating its focus from print to blog. Many people will misunderstand what I’m saying here.  I am not saying abandon print – done properly this can actually become a very high margin product. I am not saying we do this overnight – it needs to be a transition that takes place over a two to four year period.   The end result must be a more nimble, online blog that publishes shorter, timelier content from a wider variety of members.   The InTech magazine will then become, as Seth Godin calls it, a “souvenir” that people will want to buy because it contains enhanced and embellished versions of the online content.   It should be available as an online, downloadable e-book as well as an on-demand (that is, not subscription) purchase.
• InTech needs to abandon traditional concepts of advertising and look at online affiliate advertising, sponsored content, and selling products.  And the term “product” needs to be defined as well. Currently, this would encompass books, standards, and training but it remains to be seen whether this remains the case.   As an example, a blog article on cybersecurity needs to (automatically) include include links to “Click here to download ISA99,” or “Buy ‘Industrial Network Security’ now,” or “Attend a security webinar.”
• The concept of an editorial calendar is antiquated and needs to be reconsidered. While it was once a necessary tool, it seems to me that it is now an encumbrance.   As I’ve said, InTech needs to be a more nimble, crowd-sourced publication platform that can address the most pressing and current issues that are of interest to our members.
• We need to educate our members on how to be better content producers.   This does not mean what it used to mean.  The skills required to author a five thousand word text article for a print magazine are much different from the skills required to write a shorter (thousand word), more concise, compelling multimedia article (or video).
• If we reclaim sovereignty over the InTech newsletter, it needs to be revived as an instrument to deliver value to our members – not to sell more stuff.  This is CRITICAL.
• ISA staff and leaders need to be trained to adopt a “content” mindset, which means thinking about turning every bit of work product (like this email, for example) into content and distributing it through multiple channels.  I describe this approach in more detail on my blog.

You’ll notice I have not made a single mention of social media. The reason is that social media is a means to deliver remarkable content to people and then talk about it. Without the content, social media will simply be an empty, uninteresting echo chamber. However, the level of coordination and scope/degree of change required for this transformation make it a tall task to say the least.

Popularity: 20%