NewsBeat

March 2016 NewsBeat 5 Marketers still spending wildly on social but only 11.9% can prove ROI By RICHARD WHITMAN e all know that the entire marketing world consists of a bunch of lemmings who, despite any facts to the contrary, will follow each other off the proverbial cliff to certain death no matter how much data slaps them in the face. A recent CMO Survey from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, the AMA and Deloitte found social media spending accounts for 10.9% of marketing budgets and is expected to increase to 20.9% in five years. Just 5.6% of budget was allocated to social in 2009. Despite these predicted increases, the same study revealed that just 11.5% of marketers can prove positive ROI on their social efforts. Of this complete lack of ability to prove ROI, Fuqua Professor and Director of the CMO Survey Christine Moorman said, "If companies really want to get the biggest bang out of social, it has to be better connected with the rest of marketing. Social media should be aligned to support marketing and they should be linked back to social." Well, duh. But it continues to amaze how many brands and agencies still run wildly towards the likes of Snapchat, Periscope, Peach and whatever the hell comes along next without the slightest concern for how these platforms affect the bottom line. — Reprinted from MediaPost W By DAVID CHAVERN — President & CEO, NAA Department of Labor's overtime rules will unintentionally harm employees n June, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed increasing the salaries test used to determine if an employee is eligible for overtime from the current threshold of $23,660 to $50,440 annually. This means that employees – such as managers, supervisors and other professionals who are exempt under the Federal Labor Standards Act – would need their annual salaries elevated to $50,440 or be treated as hourly employees that are eligible for overtime. This proposal, which more than doubles the current standard, would set the salary threshold at a level that is nearly $10,000 and $15,000 higher than what is mandated by the state laws in California and New York – states where the cost- of-living is relatively high compared to the rest of the country. What works in New York City or San Francisco doesn't necessarily work in Rapid City, South Dakota or Ames, Iowa. Let me be clear, the current salaries test – which hasn't changed since 2004 – should be increased. But, addressing a decade of inaction with an immediate 102 percent increase in the salary threshold will result in unintended consequences that will ultimately hurt current employees. A recent survey of NAA member newspapers found that the newspaper industry would have to spend more than $130 million annually to raise the salaries of exempt employees. Such a drastic and sudden increase in the salary threshold also would significantly and unfavorably impact our local retail advertising customers. According to the National Retail Federation, retailers would experience a $745 million impact with more than two million employees affected. Given the well-documented financial challenges of our industry, many newspapers will not be able to meet the new standard. According to the NAA survey, most newspapers said that they would either have to replace full-time employees with those working part-time or convert current exempt employees to an hourly wage. The unintended consequence of the proposed rule is that employees would see a reduction in benefits and workplace flexibility and would be required to fill out timesheets. This is particularly challenging for journalists who need flexibility to cover news stories in their communities that are not constrained by timetables. No journalist wants to be pulled back from a story. The potential impact on local journalism is real. According to the aforementioned survey, 46 percent of the newspapers surveyed said that the proposed salary requirements would force cuts to newsroom staff. If this becomes a reality, it would reduce the journalistic resources needed to keep local communities informed. A change to current salary threshold is welcomed and supported if it can, in fact, sustainably meet the needs of both the employees and businesses. A rule that is reasonable will encourage businesses to raise salary levels. But a rule that goes too far, too fast, will simply force businesses to restructure operations to avoid unsustainable costs. This will hurt existing employees. Congress should encourage the Obama Administration to recalibrate this rule into one that is practicable, particularly in light of continued headwinds in our nation's economy. — Reprinted from Newspaper Association of American I

• Cover