So, we together as two brands can go on a bit of a research sprint to figure out some potential solutions and figure out a marketing campaign around it,” Tomich says. “This is where we look at problems that brands are facing that The New York Times might also be facing. This process involves co-writing pitches and a lot “problem-identification”, or “problem-matching”, where the title’s advertiser solutions unit looks at how it along with its team embedded in The New York Times newsroom, can work with advertisers to identify solutions. We’re much more collaborative and we bring agencies into the building to figure out how we can customize something specifically to them.” He adds: “Those models don’t necessarily work any more. It goes beyond approaching marketers and pitching a set roster of products, or bespoke creative ideas particular to that brand, according to Tomich.
“We’re touting the resurgence of brands and how it’s important for marketers to partner with established and culturally relevant brands, and The Times has a moment right now.”Īll these developments demonstrate how the New York Times has become a creative business in its own respect, an emblem of the shifting dynamic between the traditional media buyer and seller, and one that is more akin to a meeting of equals. “It was very much a conscious decision, and I think there are elements of it that are renewed by elements of the brand safety conversation,” he adds.
Reports since the campaign kicked off earlier this year are that it has had a positive effect on subscriber growth (although he is unable to report exact numbers) as well as advertisers, says Tomich. It was this rationale that helped form the core narrative of this year’s NewFronts messaging.
0 kommentar(er)
