What do Private Eye, The Economist and Men’s Health have in common?

Reading the interview with Private Eye Deputy Editor Francis Wheen in the latest (print) issue of Press Gazette to mark the Eye’s 50^th birthday, I was reminded of how much it’s one of those black swans of publishing – which succeed despite going against all the conventional wisdom.
It’s layout and typography looks amateurish (that’s part of the charm), its website declines to give away all their content (not that unusual now, but very much off-trend before) and there are lots of in-jokes without explanation new readers may not get.
So why is it still the biggest-selling news and current affairs title in the UK - with an average fortnightly circulation of 206,266, including 113,000 subscribers?
For a lot of the same reasons that The Economist is still growing both here and worldwide (UK +7.7% year-on-year to 240,895, worldwide +3% year-on-year to 1,486,838) and Men’s Health is still the leader in its sector, although down on numbers in the most recent stats.
What do they all share?

1.     A strong, distinctive brand built on…

2.     Absolute authority in their field. Imitators exist, but none match them, IMHO.

3.     The trust of their readers, partly built on…

4.     Humility – being prepared to admit that the people producing them are human and are sometimes wrong, or at least prepared to debate a point openly. I.e. proper CRM in action.

5.     A real sense of humour. Most surprising in the latter two, but more funny when they do crack a witticism or tell a funny story.

6.     Knowing their readers c.f. In Search Of Excellence.

7.     A moderate drive to improve – evolution, not revolution, so no faddy innovation driven by a desire to copycat the latest trend. Which is driven by…

8.     Long-term thinking based on proper strategy and in-depth knowledge of their readers (although I doubt Private Eye has ever held focus groups!).

9.     A cultural commitment to excellence. Which leads to…

10.  Extremely loyal readers.

Getting to their position isn’t easy – many have tried and failed – but if you properly apply the marketing-based approach to business (find out what people want and give it to them) you can do it to, whatever field you’re in.
Happy birthday Lord Gnome!

The Open Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/09/the-guardian-newslists-opening-up?CMP=twt_fd
So, The Guardian, is (for a trial period) opening up (part) of its news list so the public can help it develop (some) of its stories.
The parentheses say it all.
Radical transparency it isn’t, but, as Dan Roberts explains, there are several good reasons why they can’t and shouldn’t publish everything.
So what’s this about? Increased interactivity.
Why? As the headline says: “so you can help us make news”.
So it’s about crowdsourcing some of the research for some of their stories, so they can be better by making sure they include the best and most relevant background. Which is good in terms of engaging readers and making them feel involved. And helping the inexorably-declining staff on newspapers keep the quality up and produce more per head.
But I can straight away think of some potential pitfalls to avoid:

• Allowing the self-selecting group that are people who contact the mainstream media to skew things to whatever their agenda is.
• Being swamped by so many leads and tips that you spend more time on research and checking out leads than before.
• Being swamped by PRs keen to promote related client messages.

I have a strong feeling they’ve thought this all through. But there are bound to be some unforeseen issues – there always are.
Whatever, it’s good to see such a forward-thinking paper leading in innovation again. I’ll be interested to see how it works out.