By putting effectiveness before efficiency, newspapers grow top-line revenue

As newspapers strive to protect their bottom lines, I hear a lot of talk about efficiency. Should we centralize our operations? Can we outsource call center operations at a lower cost than we can handle it in-house? Should we send our work overseas? Yet I believe we should focus on growing top-line revenue—on effectiveness instead of efficiency.

Let me give you a few examples.

Call abandon rates versus top-line revenue
For newspaper classified call centers everywhere, the call abandon rate is a key measure. However, it is too efficiency-minded to manage the call abandon rate with head count alone.

A better approach is to examine call center effectiveness by asking what the call center can do to grow top-line revenue. Find out how many outbound calls your people are making in their extra time. In my experience working with classified departments across the country, the problem is that reps often cherry pick instead of calling all current prospects and advertisers. Nationwide, I see tremendous room for improvement in this regard.

Cost of winning new customers
At most newspapers, the number of subscribers who call in to quit each year represents at least 20 percent of circulation. That number climbs to 30 percent or more at some newspapers. At the same time, the industry saves only 17 percent of these subscribers from canceling. When it was cheaper to win a new customer than to keep an existing one, maybe these numbers were OK. Today we can and must do a better job retaining subscribers.

Significant improvement is well within reach for virtually any newspaper. After all, other subscription-based industries achieve 50-percent and even 60-percent saves rates regularly. And by focusing on effectiveness instead of efficiency, top-performing newspapers are earning 40-percent saves rates.

Say you have a circulation of 300,000 and receive 100,000 cancellation calls in your call center each year, and that you save the industry average of 17 percent of these calls. The efficiency-based measure would be talk time, and our work has shown that it takes an extra 30 seconds on the phone have a quality saves attempt.

Yes, spending 30 seconds more costs the paper around 50 cents. However, the extra effort will drive your saves rate up by 23 points. This means 23,000 fewer subscribers you will need to replace at $40 or more apiece, adding up to almost a million dollars per year. It’s a great example of how effectiveness beats efficiency hands down.

Online advertising expertise
Here is another example. Most newspapers have only a handful of online advertising experts. The sales force relies heavily on these experts to help them sell online ads. This is an efficient way to handle it, but is it the most effective? To answer that question, look at the amount of online revenue you receive today from existing advertisers. If it is not as much as it should be, maybe the efficiency model is not working well for you. To boost effectiveness, train all your sales reps to sell online ads effectively so you can maximize this revenue source.

When market conditions present challenges such as circulation decline and technological changes, the natural result is pressure to be more efficient. But in my experience in the newspaper industry, organizations that resist the pressure and focus instead on effectiveness see dramatic improvement in customer service, customer retention and sales. The return far exceeds the investment.