Media brand extensions are heading for dodgy territory

For years media brands have experimented and profited from brand extensions – but as markets evolve, Dominic Mills asks if some are straying too far…

It’s always tempting to pour cold water on brands that seek to capitalise on their fame or standing in one area by moving into another.

“It’s a stretch too far, outside their core competencies” might be one objection; “it’s a completely different market,” might be another; “the brand values don’t translate,” is a third. And the real pessimists will bang on about reputational risk if the whole thing goes wrong.

In my time I’ve been dismissive of Virgin’s move into banking (so what do I know?), although it’s worth pointing out that not everything it has tried has worked – Virgin Cola, Virgin Vodka – even when the logic seemed stronger and the jump more manageable.

There’s no doubt that this is an area media brands are eagerly exploring. They certainly need to, as traditional models implode and the pressure to create alternative revenue streams increases.

While it matters more now, they’ve actually been up to this sort of thing for years. I was persuaded back in the 90s by a former NatMags boss that Cosmopolitan could easily stick its name on duvets and bed linen, but his idea of yoghurt seemed, well, just potty.

Earlier this year the Guardian opened a coffee shop in Shoreditch – where else? – which was sort of interesting in a nerdy way, but really only a promotional gimmick and not something that will change the paper’s fortunes in any meaningful way.

Across the Atlantic, we’ve seen the New York Times and the Washington Post package up dinners and lectures with senior journalists to sell to readers/subscribers. The last few weeks have seen a number of different media brands try different things.

First up is the BBC, adding a print extension to that day-time TV staple, Antiques Roadshow via a licensing deal. It’s very straightforward, pretty low-risk, and therefore a no-brainer.

The addition of a fabric line to the long list of stuff Downton Abbey fanatics can buy also seems obvious, and a Downton etiquette training course for nouveau Russian and Kazakhstan oligarchs can’t be far away.

But perhaps no media sector needs to do this more – or has a wider canvas on which to paint – than the national newspapers. It’s good timing with MediaTel’s conference on the future of national newspapers to be held this Friday.

But what do we make of the Times and Sunday Times getting into education via an entirely new product called Times Tutorials? It’s miles away from the usual travel, tickets, books and branded festivals they traditionally rely on.

In a nutshell, according the Times/Sunday Times, it’s a low-cost alternative – and it’s completely upfront about the competitive pricing levels – to private tutoring of five-16-year-old kids.

The scheme offers online tutorials in maths, science and English (other subjects to come later) linked to the National Curriculum and monitored by qualified teachers (although just because they’re qualified doesn’t mean they’re any good).

This is a big market – about £6 billion a year is spent on private tutoring, according to the Times – and one loaded with parental emotion and angst.

Let’s look at two key tests of a brand extension: one, is it right for the target market? Yes, you can be pretty sure most Times/Sunday Times readers with kids agonise about getting the best education they can for their children – although no more than their competitors. Assuming that a decent proportion of the readers have kids in the right age bracket, there’s a sizeable target to aim for.

The second is whether it’s on-brand. Both papers are more populist than they used to be, but they are seen as high-minded enough to have credibility in the provision of educational resources.

The offer is certainly competitively priced at £96 for a year’s subscription to all three subjects (with a time-limited discount to £60 to Times+ members). That compares with a minimum of £20 per hour from private tutors – and an average spend on tutoring by parents of £2,750 a year – according to the Times.

An additional advantage is that the tuition is available via mobile or tablet, so little Charlie and Chloe can do their homework while they’re being ferried around in the back of a Chelsea Tractor from one extra-curricular activity to another.

All of which is good. But one of the key questions is whether this is a genuine brand extension – in other words a long-term bet, with a proper business plan and its own P&L account – or a promotion.

It’s hard to figure out. One reason is the pricing, which seems just a bit cheap to me. Education – like luxury goods – is one of those areas where the more you pay, the more confident you are of the product quality.

The Times will say that Times Tutorials is an online, scalable business and, after the set-up costs, cheap to run. Which I wouldn’t argue with. Or it may have white-labelled an existing online tuition service, allowing it to offer the service more cheaply.

However, while you may pay a lot more money for private tuition, you can at least look the tutor in the eye find out face-to-face why young Charlie finds algebra so hard and take action accordingly – or fire them.

The same level of parental interaction with teachers – and what parent doesn’t regard that as critical? – just isn’t possible with Times Tutorials.

The net effect of these nagging doubts is to make me wonder whether this isn’t just a highly sophisticated promotional device designed to pull more people into the subs package, and suck in a lot more data about families and their lifestyles.

The final issue is one of reputation. If, heaven forbid, Charlie and Chloe don’t get the right grades or into the right school, how do you then regard the Times/Sunday Times? What affect does the performance of Times Tutorials have on the papers?

But for all the little holes you can poke in Times Tutorials, I bet its broadsheet rivals have a niggling fear that this may be a winner.

The press has always been a massive user of quasi brand extensions designed as promotions and offers, but this feels like something very different and much more like a proper brand extension.

Of course it has risks attached to it, but then if – as I believe it is essential for media brands, especially the national press, to do in this environment – expand, develop and innovate, then that is unavoidable.

Everything else is just messing around at the edges, and however much we might like to sniff about Times Tutorials, it’s bold, different and a possible game-changer.