In my last post I referred to a second type of special report first published by Chain Store Age in 1990, one produced in partnership with an accounting/consulting firm. Here's the background of how I developed that transformational genre:
A short while after NCR signed to become the sponsor of a special report on technology (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-nrf-convention-memory-worth-noting.html), I received a call to meet with the head of Ernst & Young’s retail practice, Stephanie Shern, in her Park Avenue office 10 blocks south of but 30 stories higher than mine. When we met, she said she wanted to discuss partnering on a survey of retail technology trends.
At the time, each of our organizations conducted similar studies. I knew they were similar, extremely similar, because our tech editor had patterned our study on the E&Y model. The major differences centered on the size of each printed study and our distribution methods.
Chain Store Age would publish just four pages of data. We employed a classic push distribution strategy. All of our 35,000 readers received those four pages as part of our magazine’s regular 35,000 circulation.
On the other hand, Ernst & Young depended on a pull system. It waited for existing or perspective clients to ask for a copy of its 32-page report. It printed just 5,000 copies, and often had way too many leftovers sitting around when the next study came out in print. E&Y wanted to partner as a means of upping its profile with retailers.
On the spot I quickly agreed to work with E&Y, but equally as quick thought up a more elaborate and daring partnership. I proposed the following:
E&Y would be responsible for all editorial work in developing the survey, fielding it, analyzing the results and writing the copy. CSA would be responsible for the study’s design, layout, production and distribution. But instead of printing just 5,000 copies for E&Y, I said we would print 55,000 of the 32-page report and push it out as a freestanding section of our October issue. The 55,000 copies would include 35,000 for our normal circulation plus 5,000 for E&Y, 10,000 for distribution at various technology trade shows and 2,000 for a direct mail campaign to retail executives.
That last 2,000 was the linchpin of the whole idea, for the recipients would be chosen not by CSA or E&Y. Rather, they would be selected by a sponsor of the study (that would receive the final 3,000 copies of the production run).
For my plan to work, Ernst & Young would have to agree to do something no other accounting/ consulting company had ever done before. It would have to allow its proprietary work and expertise to appear in print next to an ad of another company.
I guaranteed we would print the 55,000 copies of the study even if we did not secure a sponsor. In return for assuming the risk of production, I said Chain Store Age would keep any and all sponsorship revenue.
As revolutionary as my idea appeared, it came at a propitious time. Accounting/consulting firms were embarking on a new era of marketing, of battling for name and service recognition.
For two or three days Stephanie's colleagues weighed the proposition. On the one hand, E&Y was committed to doing a study with or without CSA. On the other hand, pushing out 55,000 copies of the report would be a 1,000% increase in marketing exposure at no additional cost to E&Y.
It was too good an offer for the numbers crunchers to pass up.
Within days of agreeing to my proposal, our top salesman, Chris, secured a sponsor, GE Information Services, for $100,000 net. Thus, our October issue would carry two special reports, each priced at $100,000 net, one sponsored by NCR, the other by GE Information Services.
When the Ernst & Young study of retail technology trends appeared, three things happened. First, other accounting/consulting firms came a’calling. They, too, wanted to partner with us. Second, advertisers who had limited their spending with us suddenly found deep pockets to be associated with these high impact studies and reports. In short order we were partnering with all the major accounting/consulting companies on topics as diverse as loss prevention, logistics, payment systems and the state of the retail industry. It was a truly heady time juggling partners and study concepts.
The third result was an unintended consequence. We could do only one survey study a year for each topic. That meant other publications could seek partnerships with other accounting/consulting firms on the same topics. We were still the gold standard, and charged accordingly, but our competitors benefited from my concept, as well. As they say, a rising tide lifts all ships.
1990 was a watershed year for Chain Store Age, a year in which the topography of retail publishing changed because I listened and reacted quickly and creatively to the needs of the marketplace.
