Paul Miller

Paul Miller out at UBM Tech. UBM Tech rolled into UBM America

What does this mean? With the DesignWest/EmbeddedSystems/EELive (or whatever it called this week) conference in decline along with all the other high-end, electronic focused conferences UBM sponsors, we can probably expect the publishing arms of the organization focused more and more on the consumer side of the business. Marketing and advertising budgets continue to shrink and large corporations are investing more of those srhinking budgets into being their own publishers. They aren't doing it very well, but they are investing in it.

Yesterday I saw the announcement that UBM completed their annual reorganization and about three hours later got an email from Paul Miller that he was shown the door.  


Miller was the CEO of the UBM Tech division that has been around for a couple of cycles at the ever-morphing British corporation, and has been a senior executive all the way back to the CMP days.  He survived several putsches and has been central in redefining the organization from a "publishing" company to a "marketing" organization.  That brought a great deal of derision his way but he is to be credited in at least keeping the journalism part of the organization alive even as it shrunk in importance to the UBM bottom line (the last I say, print and online advertising represented just 7 percent of the company revenues).


Under his direction, the division saw increased profitability and was beginning to coalesce into something that might be easily defined.  This new reorganization throws all that definition into a cocked hat.  UBM Tech, UBM Medica, UBM Canon (explaining why Rich Nass left for Open Systems Media), UBM Mexico and UBM Connect (the division that covered everything NOT tech) have been merged and will soon be joined by UBM Brazil as a single entity.  That means another CEO is about to go.  That would be Jean-François Quentin who was named CEO just in March.  Sally Shankland, the CEO of UBM Connect replaces them all.


What does this mean? With the DesignWest/EmbeddedSystems/EELive (or whatever it called this week) conference in decline along with all the other high-end, electronic focused conferences UBM sponsors, we can probably expect the publishing arms of the organization focused more and more on the consumer side of the business.  Marketing and advertising budgets continue to shrink and large corporations are investing more of those srhinking budgets into being their own publishers.  They aren't doing it very well, but they are investing in it.


I'll have more later. but this is a very interesting evolution.


Engagement is where you find it.

I love it when great minds think a like.  First Brian Solis sets up the segue from low-level to high-level engagement, and then Dan Holden talks about what the most important influencers might be.  so today I can talk about where you find the highest-level engagement in your social media program

As a recap, since it was almost a week ago, the first level of engagement is made up of people that agree with you and give you kudos.  You know, the really intelligent readers ;).  The second level are the people who disagree with you and can include competitors.  these are people that can help you make course adjustments by giving you a reality check.  You don't have to accept what they say, but looking into the criticism can often make what you share so much better.

The most valuable of all engagement, however, is the expansion level -- the people that take your ideas and concepts to different levels.  It may start as either agreement or disagreement but goes deep into the issue and becomes a virtual partnership.  These are the people that link to what you have to say and send it out among their own networks.  These are the people to find and cultivate because they help you to understand yourself better.

Over the past few years, I've found a lot of these people.  Like Brian Fuller now back at EE Times and his boss Paul Miller; like the aforementioned Solis and Holden; like someone who may read this and give his own two cents to the concept.  Because of this interaction I have been able to better define my philosophy ad business model to the point that I can now get it across in a matter of minutes with very little Q&A.  Doesn't help with short budgets, but I know I can fit what I do into almost any budget around.  These relationships have also helped me escape the small orbit of the semiconductor world and explore new technologies, countries and cultures.  I've even entered the political arena in some areas.

But here's the thing, while there are tools that can help you quantify this kind of interaction, you can't really qualify it with tools.  You have to go out and find it.  Luckily, that's not as hard or time consuming as it may seem.

Hashtags, retweets are probably the most common ways of finding some of these third level influencers, but most of what you will find are second level followers -- the people that agree with you.  What is most helpful is linking multiple platforms.  I currently write five blogs on widely different subject to widely different audiences.  i also maintain 3 presences on Facebook, three on Twitter, one on Linked in (with participation in 2 dozen groups), one on Plaxo and about a half dozen other more obscure social networks.  Now if I was actually maintaining each of these individually, I would have no life and no home.  But all social networks make it possible to link to other networks and other social media platforms.  All of my presences on the social web are linked to each other, so when I post something in one place, it pops it in multiple places, like Facebook, Plaxo, and Networked Blogs.  

My readers pick them up there and, amazingly enough, begin conversations there.  Those of you reading this on the State of the Media site may wonder if I get much engagement here and, in fact, I don't.  I get about two or three comments a month here (which is actually more than a lot of blogs), but what you may not see are the conversations and comments going on about these posts in other platforms.  The most prolific area is actually Networked Blogs, followed closely by Facebook and then Twitter.  As it is, the 6,000 members of my worldwide network are pretty chatty and I get some great feedback from them.

This kind of following and feedback didn't happen overnight, however.  This network has been growing organically for about 6 years, when I really tarted getting into the social media scene.  I do very little promotion because I like to see how it can develop naturally.  If I put more promotion into it, I would imagine it might grow much larger, but right now I can handle it on my own.  What could you do with it if you had some staff to help?  What could you learn? And who exactly would be participating in the conversation?

That will be the subject of part three.

What the "new" EE Times means to venture capitalists

I concluded a great week with a sit-down with Paul Miller, CEO of EE Times Group for United Business Media, regarding what the new format and philosophy for the venerable publication will mean for entrepreneurialism and investment in the electronics world. To me, everything looks to be moving up and to the right.  This interview was sponsored by Magma Design and Vpype.



Watch video live on Vpype Live Broadcaster

SCDSource follows the trend. Goes away.

SCDSource, a grand experiment launched in reaction to the layoff of Richard Goering at EETimes, closed operations officially today.  The site was launched shortly after I launched New Tech Press a couple of year ago at an EDAC meeting where Paul Miller of EETimes explained why the magazine was de-emphasizing EDA coverage.  Paul took a lot of heat at that meeting, but his reasoning proved to be prophetic.  The industry was just not interested in supporting coverage in any form.  The publication was supported by some advertising and catalog revenue, but mostly by private investment from very hopeful people.

New Tech Press, BTW, is still around, still producing content, but still not focused on EDA alone.

Paul Miller looks at the 21st century media

It's been a while since I did a podcast ... at least on this site.  Been doing a ton of video for New Tech Press the past couple of months.  But this is one I've been waiting to get done for some time.

Paul Miller at TechInsights sat down with me just before the Christmas break and talked frankly about the state of B2B media, where it's going, how it's going to affect his own company and EE Times specifically, and endorsing the use of content from sponsored-media sites like New Tech Press in its website and maybe even pages.  For those wondering when media was going to come back to the way it used to be, get ready for disappointment.  But according to Paul, the future is getting clearer and brighter. 

Clearing the air and getting a view of the future

Brian Fuller today provides a bit more clarity in the decision process for the layoffs at Techinsights that included Rich Wallace, Loring Wirbel and most of the event staff.  Brian, talking with Techinsights CEO Paul Miller, said the reason behind the move is not because the company isn't profitable, which is is, but because 2009 looks really awful.  Most of the time layoffs follow really bad quarters.  Now we're laying off people because the future doesn't look all that great.  Talk about a pessimistic world view.

But there is good news out there.  Last week Hearst Business announced an increase in their distribution - a big increase of 35,000 - in 2008.  So I looked at the ABC Publisher’s Statement and thought I saw something hinky.  Earlier this year Hearst offered a bunch of people digital subscriptions (pdf, not print) and according to the audit, 35,000 people were chosen for such market coverage copies, including me.  But none of those subscribers were considered as the traditional “qualified” terminology.

“Qualified” means the subscriber filled out the survey that shows how important they are to the industry as relates to their buying power.  Magazines that give away subscriptions use that information to base their decision of who gets the subscription, but more importantly to prove to advertisers how many important buyers get the pub and, therefore, justify the advertising rates.


So since the 35,000 new subscribers weren't “qualified”, why were they important?  So I contacted Barry Green, VP of Circulation.  Barry says I was absolutely correct.  In the old paradigm, these weren't important numbers.  But they are - under a new paradigm and conceptually different definitions.


"As we headed into 2008," Barry wrote back, "we realized that there is almost a finite number of design engineers that can reasonably and economically be incorporated into qualified circulation totals in print or digital/electronic format.  However, knowing that we have tens of thousands of users of our EE websites' informational resources and they have furnished their demographic qualifications to be allowed to acces such valuable data, we decided to offer special targeted digital copies to those users who specify electronic products that are manufactured by our advertisers who are looking to reach them with their messages.  We demographically selected qualified members of the EP/HEG audience database in order to cover the market for the sponsor, but since they are specially selected each issue by specified, varying demographics, we could not include them in the month by month figures as being “qualified” because of the revolving nature of these records and strict audit rules.

 

"For 2008, we have been distributing over 158,000 copies of EP in the combination of EP printed issues and digital copies.  We can definitely state that we certainly "know who is reading the publication" and can actually furnish the demographics of all of our recipients but felt it would be overkill to have an extra crosscount on the back of the statement.”


To put all that in simple terms, the 35,000 new readers were qualified directly by the advertisers.  The readers are the very people the advertisers wanted to reach.


This is the very thing we established New Tech Press for.  Mass media is, by definition, communication with masses of people.  But in the high tech world, there are very small audiences for each company.  Maybe 5000, maybe 500.  And those companies know exactly who it is they want to reach.  So it really doesn't matter how large an audience a magazine gets to as long as it reaches the right audience.


I'm glad Hearst has figured this out.  It gives me hope for the future.