Industry Reacts With Cautious Optimism Over Independent Move
The media industry has cautiously welcomed the Mirror Group’s sale of its share in the Independent titles to Tony O’Reilly’s Independent Newspapers (see yesterday’s Independent Gets New Owner).
Christine Tulloch, media director of Faulds, summed up the general feeling when she told Newsline that she felt the move was “reasonably positive” though she did believe that there was something of an unknown quantity in the paper’s new owner, Tony O’Reilly.
Tulloch pointed to the way the Barclay Brothers had approached their takeovers of the Scotsman and, more recently, the European as a good example of how a newspaper takeover should be handled: a big cash injection along with a return to the newspaper’s core values. She also said that there was a general willingness in the industry for the title to succeed and wished its new owners well.
There was a question mark raised over the reappointment of Andrew Marr as editor. Tulloch queried whether his revamp of the paper last Autumn had provided enough of an incentive to stick with the new style in the long-run. While she praised the radical way in which he had approached the paper she suggested that maybe his style was “ahead of its time.”
There was also a sigh of relief, especially among agencies, that the paper had finally found a single owner – rather than being stuck between two differing organisations which did not always see eye to eye. This stability is seen as attractive to advertisers.
Dan Matthews, a planner at Western International Media, commented that the paper now has “a chance for some well-earned stability and the chance to concentrate on actually building both the brand and the circulation.” Richard Beaven, from Leo Burnett, warned however the the paper has “always been a great brand and now needs to deliver against that promise.”
He went on to say that Marr and Rosie Boycott, editor in chief of both Independent titles, would be the dream partnership, welding together Marr’s passion and commitment to Boycott’s “commercial edge and character.”
Duff Borer, of Lowe Howard-Spink, also believed that the titles had been “neglected” while other newspapers, such as the Times and Telegraph, had moved on in terms of pricing strategies and the launch of new supplements. He also pointed out that the title needs to go through a “radical shake-up” in its approach to making it a viable choice on the media-planner’s schedule – “marketing the title must be a top priority and this won’t come cheap.”
It is rumoured however that Independent Newspapers is looking to invest slightly less money in marketing the title than the Mirror Group did – a promotional budget of around £10m per annum compared to the Mirror’s £11m.
Philip Talbot, a managing partner at Optimedia, also raised the issue of investment – especially in the “editorial product”. He believes that content, rather than expensive redesigns, is the key to any newspaper’s success and investment in resources will be vitally important.
The long-term problems of the titles are still causing agencies concern however. As Colin Robinson, head of press at BBJ Media Services, points out: “In spite of investing substantial sums in re-designs, changes of editor and promotion, sales of both Independent titles have failed to change course from their long-term downward trend.” He maintains however that advertisers will probably regard the retention of both useful niche targeting opportunities in the quality broadsheet market as very positive.