Mike’s Points

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

There’s a been a bit of a big broohaha brewing in the media capital of Northwest Ohio this week. In case you’ve missed it, here’s a brief recap:

On Tuesday, Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and his spokesperson/assistant Brian Schwartz blocked WSPD Reporter and talk show host Kevin Milliken from attending an news conference. From reports, Scwartz put himself in the doorway to the news conference, right in front of Milliken.

On Wednesday, Milliken, WSPD morning show host Fred LeFebvre, afternoon host and program director Brian Wilson and others pushed their way into a news conference after the door was nearly shut. Shortly after the news conference was to start, Schwartz called it off, and allowed the media assembled to talk with the mayor one-on-one.

To the mayor’s credit (somewhat) he does like some WSPD reporters, and granted an interview to Nik Rajkovic.

What is the mayor’s reason for not allowing Milliken into the news conference?

Because the mayor doesn’t think Milliken is “objective.”

This feud between the Toledo mayor and WSPD started last summer. Though Wilson offered the mayor an olive branch, anyone can easily see the article was insincere.

Is this a precedent? Has any other elected official shut out a credentialed member of the media? This definitely has some serious First Amendment issues going on — and that are in violation. Former Lucas County Commissioner Maggie Thurber has a great post on that issue.

Ultimately, those issues and the penalties are for lawyers and a judge — if WSPD takes it that far — to decide.

I’m assuming that Schwartz is of the same mind as the mayor. If not, then he is selling his soul for a paycheck. Mayor Finkbeiner has a history of being strong willed (putting it nicely). If Schwartz is counseling the mayor not to take these actions, and the mayor is refusing his counsel, I would think Schwartz is having trouble sleeping at night. I know I would.

As the spokesperson and PR counselor for the mayor, what would you do? Is there any precedent or justification to bar a credentialed member of the media from a news conference?

The obvious right thing — and this is why I think this story is so troubling — is not to take on the media.

Even in Toledo, there are enough other media outlets to get your word out. If nothing else, the mayor should start a blog!

And, what about the potential impact for other members of the Toledo media? Would the mayor bar other reporters from news conferences? There hasn’t been any inkling of that, but precedent has been set.

The fact that an elected official doesn’t like the way a reporter, columnist or show host does his job doesn’t really matter. There are steps the official can take — from being totally open and willing to explain his/her position to that person to giving the reporter no more than the bare minimum media access allowed.

Just like bloggers need to have a thick skin — after all, we are more about opinion than news — governmental officials need to have a thick skin, and remember that they are serving the public. Not themselves nor their career.

Mike

In my newspaper reporter days, I was told to localize national stories and trends. Tell our readers how it affects them.

Here’s another example of what I said repeatedly last year — newspapers need to concentrate on reporting local news.

“I think intensely local, professionally gathered news is due for a comeback. It’s the one thing you can’t get anywhere else.”

Those sentences are from today’s column by Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times (”Local news can matter once more“).

And, unlike what Joel Stein thinks (thanks John), if newspapers can involve their readers in their revived local focus, newspapers will again become communities’ mainstay for news and information.

– Michael

(Thanks to Poynter’s Romenesko for the Westneat pointer.)

Yesterday, Robert Niles had a worth-reading post at Online Journalism Review (”The silliest, and most destructive, debate in journalism“).

Essentially, Niles said there should should be no MSV v citizen journalism. Anyone and all interested in journalism should work for better journalism.

For the most part, that is true, but like most things, the how is the problem.

First, I do disagree with one point:

“Journalism is journalism, no matter who does it, or where.”

Journalism to a professional reporter (traditional media experience) compared to journalism to Joe or Jane Reporter may not be the same. Without looking at the story, I trust the objectivity (or attempted objectivity) of the professional reporter more so than I do of the citizen reporter. But, in traditional media and CJs working together, that should not be an issue.

Back to the working together part . . .for traditional media and CJs to work together — and improve journalism — the media’s Web sites need to evolve. When a reporter wants assistance from his or her readers, why not post a call for help — like posting a query on ProfNet or ExpertSource.

Until traditional reporters can put out a blanket request for assistance — as Niles suggested in his Amazon pricing example — or even have a pool of CJ stringers, any real supporting research needed to improve a story will be up the individual reporters to obtain by his or her own means.

– Mike

One of Forbes’ Louis Hau’s 2007 media predictions (See The Bold Prediction) is what I’ve been saying all along about what newspapers need to. (Okay, not all along, but a couple or so times, anyways.)

“With the Web awash in up-to-the-minute wire stories, print editions of savvy newspapers will devote more space to local coverage.”

– Mike

(Pointer for story courtesy of Poynter’s Romenesko.)

Technorati tags: Journalism

UPDATED: 12/11/2006: 1:10 p.m. ET.

Okay, I forgot about — rather, I assumed it was a given — one more basic as part of our job: The ability to write a good news release (proper grammar, spelling, written to AP Style, etc.). But then, we all know what happens when one assumes. Thanks to Robert French for the reminder:

“The problem with releases today is, first of all, the writing of said releases.”

Original post:
As marketing, public relations and other communications professionals, we like to differentiate ourselves from the competition.

In doing so, we often develop niffty names for the various services we provide (i.e., brand or service names). Look at the agencies developing social media releases, for example: SHIFT’s original SMR. PRX Builder. Edelman/StoryCrafter. iStudio. I’m sure I’m missing others.

What’s the point of all this?

Isn’t it — ultimately — all part in doing our job? In public relations (meaning media relations), our job is to get our clients’/employer’s news out to our target audiences via the media in the format the media want. (I know you can also use search engines and other ways to reach the end-user; but primarily, our focus is on traditional and the growing social media outlets.)

Part of that role is:

• Counseling clients/employer on what really is news;
• Knowing what works best for our targeted media outlets and contacts. See an early post for examples.

However, there are some criticisms of the social media release attempts:

David Parmet: “In other words, if you want to get the attention of the media, the format is besides the point, just give them news.”

Brian Oberkirch: “The social media news release is an attempt by communication firms to ward off strategy decay.”

Let me repeat what I stated above: To best serve clients/employer, we need to know what is news and how best to deliver it. Both means are important.
So, despite some criticisms of the social media releases, they’re okay . . . as long as they work for the media they’re intended for. And, don’t think they’re a “one-size-fits-all” remedy for PR.

Believe it or not, some consumer media outlets still prefer to receive traditional news releases via mail.

– Mike

(UPDATED Nov. 15, approx. 9 a.m.: See end of post for a snippet of Jeff Jarvis’ take on Scheer’s idea and my $0.02.)

Peter Scheer had a thought-provoking and worth-considering article in the “San Francisco Chronicle” Sunday. You can also view it at the California First Amendment Coalition, where he is executive director. (Story courtesy of Poynter’s Romenesko.)

His idea is:

Newspapers and wire services need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period — say, 24 hours — after it is made available to paying customers. The point is not to remove content from the Internet, but to delay its free release in that venue.

Scheer makes a great point about the main advantage — information — that newspapers have. And, the problem they also face when it comes to news on the national and larger realms:

Despite this advantage for newspapers, individual papers generally cannot charge for their content online because similar content is available elsewhere on the Internet for free.

My thoughts? No, newspapers should not embargo their feeds to Internet resources. They should embrace the Internet — and take advantage of it, as I’ve said before.

Newspapers should focus on local and regional news. NEWS PEOPLE CANNOT GET ELSEWHERE! Yes, even from blogs. No media outlet gives as much in-depth coverage as newspapers. Not radio. Not TV. And, with the Internet, newspapers can compete with the real-time advantages of radio and TV. USE IT!

I will repeat and yell that from the highest mountain tops until the end of time. Or, until the bulk of newspapers get it.

Also, increase online advertising revenue rates. Geez oh petes! Newspaper sites are the most heavily-trafficked sites. Use that advantage.

And, don’t be afraid to charge for some of your more highly-coveted online content. Be like the “NYTs” with its TimesSelect. (Though, now the Times is offering free temporary access.)

Or, allow for only basic viewing of news, but charge for features or in-depth stuff. Strike a balance between generating ad revenue for heavy traffic pages of your site, and charging for access. (With giving print subscribers either a reduced rate for online content or not charging them at all.)

Newspapers shouldn’t fight the Internet and its real-time capabilities. Use the professional news-gathering force you have in place and take advantage of the Internet!

UPDATED: BuzzMachine’s Jeff Jarvis also commented about Scheer’s idea, and he agrees with me that it’s not a good idea. (Okay, Jarvis did make his post first, but I didn’t see it before I posted mine. Honest.)

Part of his response is:

Uh, counselor, you assume that you can still control the news. You can’t. That’s the whole point of the internet. Others can easily step into whatever void there is and report what you don’t report;

Newspapers and other media never assumed they controlled the news. That’s wrong to think that. While the media may make the news, they predominantly report it.

And, unlike what Jarvis and others seem to think, no one individual or entity can do a better job of reporting the news than newspapers. No one or entity has the news-gathering resources and relationships to report the news any better than newspapers.

Yes, as I’ve said, there are other sources for national and global news, but nothing that currently exists now can “scoop” the papers as the best information-reporting source.

Now, if the newspapers can only focus on local and regional news — and embrace the ‘net — they’d be better off.

– Mike