Mike’s Points

I consider myself very fortunate to have worked — professionally — in both journalism and public relations/marketing communications. And, I still do both as I’m a periodic stringer for a couple area newspapers. (Yes, I am careful of conflict of interest and have passed on newspaper stories because of that potential.)

Being on both sides gives me great perspective — and frustration when I see supposed pros on both sides make it difficult for the other to do their job. Like it or not, media relations/PR people need journalists…AND journalists really can do their job better with assistance from media relations/PR pros. Journalists don’t NEED PR pros but do benefit greatly from good ones.

I know.

Because I’m on both sides.

In doing some recent newspaper work, I ran into some, um, issues by companies that do not make it easy for them to receive media coverage. So, let me offer three simple PR tips to help you get better coverage.

If you’re rushed, let me sum up the below quickly:

Do not make it hard for the media to contact you & talk with you for a story. If you make it difficult for the media to talk to you, the reporter more often than not can easily move on to another source. And, he/she will. I did.

Do not make the media jump through hoops to get a few comments or bits of information. Especially in this day in age, “media” can take any form. And, most of it can help you. No, you don’t have to talk to all media representatives but at least don’t make it hard to find out what they want. Example: One company required me to fax or email my request on newspaper letterhead (I’m a freelancer — I don’t have letterhead) to the marketing person who then will present it to the company president when they meet next.

Even if you have a PR agency/vendor, do have someone at the company who can take media calls. This is especially helpful if the reporter is on deadline and can’t wait to contact Mr. or Ms. PR Person first — knowing that the person you will eventually talk with is at the company. Fortunately, I had time to wait in this instance. Trust me, I understand the reasons to out-source PR (and appreciate when companies do to me!). However, there are times when the agency does get in the way. Companies should have a process for those in communications and those who answer the telephone to determine when media inquiries should be handled directly, and when they should be referred to the PR agency.

Do include media contact information on your site — don’t need no stinking forms. Corporate Websites are one of the first places journalists turn to for information, including contact information. On corporate Websites (social media ones, too!), PR contacts MUST include their email address and telephone number. That is their mobile telephone number. In this day and age, PR contacts must be accessible 24-7. It’s just the way it is. Accept it or get out of the business.

-Mike

I’m fascinated by human nature, how and why people interact, and the processes of how successful results come to be.

If you’ve done any social media outreach — and been successful — then I assume you’ve also been involved in traditional, offline media relations — and been successful.

While there are many similarities, I’ve found that there are enough differences in the process of suggesting stories to media contacts — whether offline or online.

The similarities should go without saying, like:

• Know the media outlet and person(s) you want to contact. Know what topics are covered, who the audience is, how the people like to receive story suggestions/ideas, etc.
• Know that — no matter if you’re talking to your client or employer about “hits” or “getting placements” — you are still dealing with people.
• While you have some level of influence — you do not have anywhere near the final say as to if a story idea is published. After all, it ain’t an ad you’re suggesting — it’s much more valuable.

But the differences are subtle.

Generally speaking, when dealing with offline media, you’re dealing with a professional. Someone at his/her job. Someone getting paid.

When you are dealing with social media — I’m mostly talking bloggers here — you’re dealing with people with a passion about a topic. While more and more bloggers seem to be making a career out of it, there are still very much elements of dealing with an every-day person who is blogging more out of passion than profession.

The subtly comes in how you contact the two types of media outlets.

Assuming personal preferences don’t dictate otherwise, it seems:

With offline, traditional media, you give them the materials that will make it easier for them to write a story about your suggestion. Materials like sending images or links to images; sending a well-written, AP-Style news release; and coordinating an interview between a reporter and your client/employer.You’re definitely not writing the story for them, but you are doing as much of the leg work as possible.

With online, social media, you are providing access to information, images and people. You direct bloggers where to get the information, and what you can provide (like contact information for a company official, and information that you can’t link to).

While the decision whether or not your story idea is published is ultimately up to the reporter or blogger, it seems more important that the blogger maintains an air of independence and separation from the subject than the reporter. It’s not a huge separation, but because it is the job of reporters to get information, there’s a closer relationship between professional media and PR/media relations personnel.

With bloggers, generally speaking, they didn’t start blogging because they wanted to inform. So, my feeling is that PR/media relations personnel need bloggers way much more than bloggers need PR/media relations personnel.

I definitely don’t mean to impune the objectivity and independence of professional media, but it seems there is a stronger need and desire by bloggers to remain untarnished by PR/media relations professionals.

Thoughts?

-Mike

No matter how effective a particular tactic is, if it doesn’t reach a large enough audience, how effective is it really?

From MarketingCharts:

Print newspapers ads reach people at all stages of the buying cycle - inspiring web research at the beginning and prompting in-store/web purchase at the end, said the Newspaper Association of America (NAA), citing a Google study.

Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo conducted the study for Google.

“Newspaper advertisements drive readers to the web, where they search, find and obtain products,” said Spencer Spinnell, head of the Google Print Ads program.

On the other hand, according to Editor & Publisher, the Newspaper Association of America (same group involved with the above), reported its “worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.“

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 — the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950….

As newspaper Web sites generate more advertising revenue, the growth rate naturally slows.

The NAA reported that online revenue now represents 7.0%* of total newspaper ad revenue in 2007 compared to 5.7% in 2006.

*The NAA originally reported in the release that online revenue represented 7.5%.

I’m not poo-pooing newspapers. My original love is journalism. And, I’ve repeatedly posted that newspapers need to capitalize on their online presence and their local news-gathering resources — resources few other media can compete with. The point about newspapers being one of the best go-to sites is backed by another NAA report.
But, it does seem that the NAA and others involved in the print newspaper ad effectiveness survey forgot that advertising revenues are dropping.
-Mike

. . . and other digital image altering tools.

If you’re not in the Toledo, Ohio-area or don’t have eye tuned into journalism, then you might have missed the stories about veteran Blade photographer Allan Detrich saying he mistakenly submitted a photograph that he altered. And, that image wound up in print.

Of course, manipulating an image to change history — even if only for aesthetics — is a sin in journalism. The Blade’s review of other photos Detrich submitted turned up many other images that he doctored. (For a good column on the subject, including Detrich’s comments after the Blade review, see here.)

I bring up the incident to raise a question: For those of us in media relations (including social media relations): What ethical guidelines should — or must? — we follow regarding photography we provide to media?

I’ve never had a reporter question the legitimacy and honesty of any image I’ve supplied. I assume that’s because there is a level of trust that reporters assume when they receive images from PR pros.

For the most part, the images I’ve supplied to the media have had little touching up. For the most part, the retouching has dealt with improving the contrast, lighting, and other work to make the image better looking; of a higher quality. For the most part, I believe I followed the guidelines of what Washington State U. has in its WSUWiki. (It’s a site I found within the last week, courtesy of a ToledoTalk.com member.)

I say, “for the most part” because I know I’ve never had total control over all of the images I’ve used before I used them. Sometimes they were used in ads. Sometimes in direct mail or on the Web. Before using any images, should I have checked for any altering before submitting them to the media?

Ultimately, as stated above, what ethical guidelines should the PR profession follow in submitting images to the media? What about our duty to clients or our employer to represent them as best we should?

In a black-and-white world, I know where I stand. Realistically, however, I’m a bit wobbly.

Thoughts?

– Mike

Image of The Serpent, by Guy Rowe

That seems to be the point of Jim Cramer in a RealMoney.com column (”Lack of Financial Acumen Burns Newspapers“).

“All of these companies seem to be run, frankly, by jokers or dreamers who had no idea how to deploy capital. The only explanation I can think of is that they were run by people who are up from the newspaper side or are heirs to the founders and had no idea what they were doing financially.”

That may be, but I’m sure there are other reasons. One could be:

Publishers and owners of newspapers should think of themselves of being in the business of informing the public. The Fourth Estate. The delivery of the information should not matter. So, I simply see the majority of newspaper publishers as being myopic. Narrow minded. Even arrogant that print has been king so long, so why not even longer?

Up until recently, has running a newspaper really been that easy? I mean, how could newspapers have been so successful so long?

It is because the media industry has had relatively little change. Newspapers. Magazines. Radio. Television. All definitely different media, though with the same audience, different enough in purpose.

Not so today. The Internet provides nearly unlimited opportunity. And, we are still just testing the waters to see what can be done. The Internet and how it can connect people is evolving.

And, as is typical with evolution, if you don’t mutate (that is, adapt in a positive way), you’ll be extinct.

Newspapers are in the information-gathering business. They should be leading the Information Age. Instead, they’re dying a slow, painful death.

Mike