my 2 cents

"Get me on Oprah"

Susan Young, writing at p.r. newsletter Ragan.com last week, lists ten things clients say that scare public relations people.   It's a good list with some client comments and requests that will seem all too familiar to many of us in the agency world.

I have a running joke with my contact at one of my clients, echoing the CEO's frequent request to get him on Oprah.  And what do you think is the #1 item on Susan's list?  Yes, it is "I want to be on Oprah."

Few media personalities seem to have the clout with the public that Oprah has.  Years ago, a p.r. person would have been lamenting the phrase "Get me on Carson," referring to late-night king Johnny Carson's Tonight Show.  These days, though, the late-night audience is split into small pieces between Letterman, Conan, Nightline, Seinfeld reruns, quality first-run shows on cable and what are probably the vast majority who are online, texting or tweeting.

Yes, it's a very different media world today.  But it doesn't stop clients from making outlandish or unrealistic demands.

Beyond "Get me on Oprah," here are a few I've heard...

*  Let's make a video that will go viral on YouTube

*  Put me on Twitter (or Facebook) and get me as many followers (or friends) as Ashton Kutcher

*  Get me on the cover of (fill in the blank -- any major magazine will do)

*  Lie about the numbers.  No one will know.

Part of an agency person's job is managing expectations.  There's a lot we can do, especially in this fast-changing media marketplace.  But there are still some things we simply can't accomplish, and some we simply shouldn't even try to do because they're not ethical. 

Setting the level of expectations at a realistic and honest level is an important part of client relations and if it's done as soon as the first offbeat request is made, chances are you will be a lot happier.  Maybe not as rich, because some clients don't want to be told no and they'll fire you.  But in the long run, you'll survive and -- most important of all -- you'll be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

B-to-B Books: Still sliding, but more slowly

Editor & Publisher gets last-minute breath of life...maybe

Despite the disheartening news this week of Nielsen's plans to shutter the 108-year-old newspaper industry trade bible Editor & Publisher, the news on the b-to-b publishing front may be slightly less bleak than it's been the past two years.

In 2009 (so far, at least), 120 trade publications have been closed down.  Many are continuing in digital form, and others have been merged into other related books.  Out of literally thousands of business trade titles, 120 may not seem disastrous, unless you happen to have been working at one of those titles.

What is perhaps a bit encouraging in these numbers is that they may represent a slowdown in the downward trend.  According to Crain's b to b, about 140 trade mags closed in 2007 and 120 shut down a year ago.

Some publishers have been wisely, I think, using their trade titles in print and/or online as a lead into the often profitable businesses of trade expos, trade seminars and online webinars. The publication can provide both a potential audience and needed credibility.  In some cases, the back end of the expos and seminars may end up as the real moneymaker that helps keep the publication -- in print or online -- going.

And then I read this morning in Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog that Editor & Publisher may yet have a bit of life in it. Here's their story...

Daily 'Dog - December 17, 2009 Hope Remains for Editor & Publisher: Although Nielsen Media Pulled the Plug Last Week, Mag's Readers and Advertisers Demand January Issue

Nielsen Business Media shuttered Editor & Publisher last week, and sold off eight other titles, but due to overwhelming reader and advertiser demand, E&P gets an issue's worth of life support as the title will indeed publish a January issue — and offers hope for the hallmark publication's readers and staff that somehow, some way, the magazine might rise from the dead. That seems unlikely just now, but mag staffers are taking it one issue at a time. An outpouring of support for E&P from within and outside the newspaper industry, and from readers and advertisers alike, led to a decision by staffers to go forward with the January issue, and continuing to post stories at E&P Online until Jan. 1 when, under current plans, the end of the line will arrive, Editor & Publisher reports.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

And, despite the gloomy business climate, some people just keep trying, thankfully.  About 80 new b-to-b titles launched this year. 

Good news for journalism

A shield law that protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources was passed yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a key step toward the bill becoming Federal law.  A report by Broadcasting & Cable said the bill now must go before the full Senate before it gets reconciled with a version passed by the House.

There is still likely to be some discussion on the Senate floor regarding what are called "carveouts" that would exclude from Federal protection information relating to certain types of crimes and issues like national security, bodily harm and sensitive personal and business information.  And there has been -- and will continue to be -- discussion about who is actually a journalist.  Bloggers and freelancers are still in question as to whether they are journalists who merit protection under shield laws.

Once passed, law enforcement will have the burden of showing proof that the source of information gathered by a report falls under the umbrella of national security or the other areas that are specified.  It would then be up to the courts to determine whether or not a reporter must give up names.

There have been, and will continue to be, some abuses of this privilege afforded journalists.  But overall, I feel it is important to maintaining a free and independent media in this country. 

Tiger & Me

I just heard that Tiger's latest count is now at 15. I don't know if they all can be called affairs.  Maybe dalliances is a better word.

Whatever!

We're breaking news here at my 2 cents.  I am now admitting that I slept with Tiger too.

Want more details?  Calls will be accepted from the National Enquirer and TMZ.  Just be sure to call with checkbooks open and ready.

Note to Tiger's management:  Hush money will be accepted.  Call with an offer before the media gets to me.

Losing the News

A review of Losing the News, by Alex Jones

Readers of this blog know I’m a newspaper junkie.

When I travel, I just have to pick up a copy of the paper in every town I stop in. There’s nothing like browsing through the paper over a morning cup of coffee. Reading the news on Kindle on the train just doesn’t cut it for me.

But I know I’m in the minority and that most Americans get their news from TV and, increasingly, from various online sources including newspaper websites. I know the newspaper business is in deep trouble and struggling for its very survival.

Alex Jones, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist (eight years covering media for The New York Times, and currently director of Harvard's the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy) has a new book out that discusses the troubling state we’re in regarding newspapers and the role they play in a free and open society. He laments the decline of good journalism, and while he recognizes the place for citizen journalism, he feels it cannot adequately take the place of trained professional journalists. Citizen journalists can supplement, he writes, but should not replace pros.

In Losing the News, Jones gives some historical perspective of newspapers, in an engaging and fast-reading manner.   He draws parallels to the changing media marketplace newspapers find themselves struggling to adjust to, recalling the fear newspapers had as TV began reporting the news.  Although today’s fragmented news marketplace is unlike anything we’ve seen before,  Jones advises papers to find their own voice and stick with it.  Yes, enhance stories with blogs and online video where it makes sense.  But newspapers shouldn’t try to become Google news.  If newspapers, he says, do well what they do best – in-depth reporting and relevant analysis, written clearly and well -- there will be a place for them in tomorrow’s world. They can’t compete with the immediacy of the web or CNN.  We no longer need newspapers to be first to tell us what’s happening – that’s now become the realm of the internet and, lately,Twitter. But to get the meat behind the 140-character news bytes… that can remain the function of a professional team of journalists at a newspaper.

Jones lays out some possible options for newspapers to consider if they are to survive – which he believes will be the case.   And he thinks publishers will figure out ways to stay in the newspaper business and still make a decent profit.

I hope he’s right.

Losing the News is worth a read.

Losing the News, by Alex Jones     Oxford University Press, 2009  $24.95 (US)

Enough, already!

Here we go again -- a media pile-on over a celebrity's private life.

Why was Tiger Woods leaving his house in a rush at 2 a.m.?  Had he just had a fight with his wife?  Was it over another woman or, perhaps, another "other woman?" 

WHO CARES?!!

Tiger Woods is a phenomenon on the golf course.  Off the course, he's involved in charitable work and makes tons of money from endorsements.  If news broke that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs or that he had surreptitiously moved a ball from the rough to a foot from the cup to win a tournament,that would be news.  What he chooses to do in his personal life is not news -- or it shouldn't be news.

Tiger injured himself in a car crash and will be out of action for a while, including missing a tournament he hosts.  That's really all we need to know.  All the other stuff doesn't concern us and is not our business.

I fully understand, though, the need-to-know mentality of many people.  I suppose some people get off on seeing the rich and famous stumble.  And yes, being in the public eye comes with a price.

But should the media -- other than the gossip rags and the entertainment news shows -- get involved and thus spur the obsession with Woods and other celebs?  There's a market for this sort of news (or in many cases, allegations and misinformation would be better words to use).  I understand that the papers and TV shows need to build their audience, so if this is what the public wants, then give it to them  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the NY Post had a jump in its newsstand sales yesterday, with its cover photo of Rachel whatever-her-name is, under the headline "Tiger & Me." 

But what troubles me about the pile-on with stories like this is the rush to get something juicy at any price. 

"Juicy" may not necessarily be true.  In this scenario, for example, we're hearing allegations from "friends" of the "other women."  ("Friends like that, willing to sell me out, are hardly friends.)  Or we're hearing from disgruntled former employees, possibly with an axe to grind, as in the case of National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who's accused of a deal with Woods' people to keep quiet about an alleged affair in exchange  for getting Tiger for a cover shoot for sister publication Men's Fitness. It just gets more and more seedy.

"At any price" is another problem for me.  We have questionable sources getting paid to tell their stories, or the stories of their friends and acquaintances.  $25,000 or $150,000 can be pretty convincing for someone to say what they think a reporter wants to hear.  And stick a camera in their face and the money might be almost secondary to their getting 15 minutes in the national spitlight.

So I see two problems here, at least.  1)  Paying for information.  2)  Taking and using information from sources with questionable credentials or questionable motives.

I'm not surpised when I see this type of "journalism" in the gossip magazines.  That's their stock and trade, and most of us look at them more as entertainment than as factual news.  But when all the other media, from The NY Post to FOX 5's "Good Day New York" morning show and The Today Show jump in, the story takes on a life of its own.  When that happens, it can too easily careen beyond the bounds of careful reporting, since everyone is out to scoop the competition.

Another sorry result of this type of journalism is what it does to the real news of the day.  Today's NY Post had more than 2/3 of its front page devoted to a picture of one of "Tiger's birdies," with the Obama speech on Afghanistan stuck off to the left side.  Both stories got 2 full pages inside.  

I suppose I'm not in the majority on this, but I don't need to know about Tiger's supposed daliances.  That's between him and his wife -- not me.  I didn't need to know every last detail of the OJ crime as it unfolded in Judge Ito's courtroom,w hich rivaled "People's Court."  And I could care less about lowlifes like Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafucco.

But that's me.  I guess I'm being a grumpy stick-in-the-mud for not jumping onto the latest gossip bandwagon.  I may be a bore at the water cooler, but I'm too busy keeping up with the real news of the day. 

Ad Tracking -- Yes or No?

Several weeks ago, a study came out, followed by a flurry of articles in the trades, talking about consumer resistance to online behavioral targeting.  Sixty percent of adults surveyed by researchers at the Universities of California and Pennsylvania said they don't want to be shown ads based on their interests.

That number climbed to nearly 80 percent when the researchers explained how ads are targeted, ie., using information garnered from our actions online.  An invasion of privacy, most felt once they learned about behavioral marketing.

Yet advertising and online marketing experts say behavioral marketing will become more commonly used, as marketers with tight budgets try ever harder to rifle-target their ads to hit the most likely prospects.

Some consumer groups have been pressuring Congress to pass legislation that limits online tracking and especially behavioral marketing.  Right now there are no laws preventing the sale of online data. 

At the same time, other reports show consumers prefer to see ads online that are targeted to their interests.

Can we have it both ways?

Possibly we can, if consumers can be given an easy way to opt out from having their online actions tracked and then used for behavioral targeting.  It could be like the no-call option to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls.

Certainly there will be lots more discussion on this subject, probably after some major abuse of online data gets exposed.  It's bound to happen eventually.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

Not only on Thanksgiving, but every day I give thanks for all that I have.

I don't have Donald Trump's riches and I don't drive a sparkling new luxury car.  But I know that what I have is of much greater value.

I'm fortunate to have love -- the love of my family and my wife and best friend of 38 years Roz.  I have two fantastic  children, Jennifer and Michael, and two grandchildren, Jack (named in my father's memory) and Gabriel.  I still have my mother to keep me on the straight and narrow.  I have the memories of those who came before me.

I have many friends and a smaller number of really close friends -- the kind that, even if you haven't seen them for months or more, you can pick up the conversation comfortably, as if you'd just spoken the afternoon before.

I'm fortunate that I love my work.  I love where I live, right next to the greatest city in the world. 

I am thankful for the gift of music, especially jazz.  It never gets boring.  It inspires, soothes and moves me.

All of these things -- and so much more -- make me cherish each day that I am fortunate enough to wake up.  For it all, I always give thanks, every day.

Other Voices: Rush to Technology Outpaces Need to Use Intelligence

Other Voices

This guest post is by Kenneth J. Weiss, director of e-commerce for Hoover.  Ken has a new book out titled Slightware -- The Next Great Threat to Brands.  You can download the first chapter free at www.slightware.com.

.....

Companies are turning up the use of technology for marketing and operations.  Unfortunately, the rush to do it is outpacing the need to do it intelligently.  Last month, the brand hits kept on coming and, remarkably, companies thought they could shrug off brand damage with a carefully constructed press release.  Some examples...

App Absurdity

A few months ago, Apple took a huge PR hit when it released a "Shake the Baby" game in its App Store.  When the animated baby started to cry, the user needed to shake the iPhone until the baby stopped.  After a huge backlash, Apple simply removed the app and offered the typical "Sorry" press release.  Not to be outdone as the leading classless iPhone app, Pepsi launched one in October to help users "Score with women."  Enter the type of woman in question and the app would offer ways to make her feel bubbly.  The app got plenty of coverage, but nearly all of it was negative.

PhotoSchlock

The fashion industry has been hammered repeatedly for settinn impossible standards of "thinness" for women.  So how does Ralph Lauren respond?  By Photoshopping a model to non-human, stick-thin proportions and then firing her when she complained.  The story broke in mid-October when Fillipa Hamilton was fired for being overweight.  Ironically, the Photoshopped ad showing Fillipa was supposedly approved by Ralph Lauren himself.  The company claims the ad was only intended to run in Japan.  Somehow, an internationally known model and brand would be immune to the dynamics of the "World Wide Web," right?

Lose Data - Lose Customers

T-Mobile and Facebook are supposed to be brands that are good with technology.  Well... both suffered massive data problems last month.  T-Mobile experienced a glitch that compromised personal data and information for thousands of users.  The company eventually came clean and said "most" of the data had been recovered.  "Most?"  How well is the company perceived if you are one of the people not part of "most?"

Facebook took a page from the corner-crack-dealer playbook.  First it gets people addicted to checking their Facebook page with relentless emails, and then it blocks 150,000 people for nearl;y a week.  How bad do they want it now?  Some want it more and others have happily decided to go cold-turkey.

Banks You Can Trust - Technology You Can't

No industry has more trouble with consumer trust than banking.  October started with Rocky Mountain Bank attempting to explain why it sent confidential information of more than 1,000 customers to an unauthorized Gmail account.  Next, TD Bank, which bills itself as "the most convenient bank in America," had a technical problem that prevented deposits from showing up in people's accounts.  Convenience quickly turned to panic when paychecks were vaporized.  Bank of America followed with a glitch that stopped people from making ATM withdrawals.  The problem then expanded to drive-ins and tellers.  In all instances, competitive banks reported an increase in new customers.

The drive to do business faster and cheaper will continue to fuel the rush to technology, and mistakes are likely to continue.  Brands need to realize that an apology may make the brand people feel better, but the consumer will feel differently once they've been burned by the brand.

A note from David Reich:  Ken's piece points up the need to think things through carefully by trying to put yourself into the mind of customers and non-customers.  Had that been done, it's hard to imagine the examples of Ken's "App Absurdity" section would have advanced beyond the brainstorming session.

Embrace new technology, for sure.  But don't forget to use good old common sense as well.

Even good news is bad news for newspapers

A Scarborough Research report flies in the face of headlines we've been seeing about the decline in newspaper readership and demise of newspapers.

The good news is 74% of American adults -- 171 million of us -- still read daily newspapers.  The demographics skew toward better-educated, white-collar folks with above-average household incomes.  The survey shows 84% of newspaper readers are college grads and 82% are in homes with HH income of $100,000 or more.

So this sounds like great news for the newspaper industry, right?  Why, then, are we still hearing about papers losing circulation and ad revenues, as they decimate their newsroom staffing to try to slow the flood of red ink.

The good news is part of a double-edged sword, it seems, with the two edges being print and online.Print readership continues to decline, although not as steeply as the gloom & doom forecasts would indicate.  In print, newspapers still reach tens of millions of people every day -- much more than the average prime time network show.

But print advertising in most markets continues to decline, fueled by the tough retail economy.  And printing and delivery costs are rising, exacerbating the financial squeeze on publishers. Ad revenues for the year to date  are down 29% from a year ago.  Even online ad revenues, which make up only 10% of the total, have dropped.

The bright side -- from a readership perspective -- is the tremendous growth in online newspaper readership.  Nielsen says nearly 72 million people visit newspaper websites every month -- more than three times the combined print circulation of the 125 biggest dailies.

But... newspapers are still downing in red ink and, as mentioned above, even online ad revenues have dropped.

Part of the problem is that newspapers still haven't figured out how to make real money from all those online readers.  Online ads sell for a fraction of what a print display ad can fetch. 

It's a real Catch-22 situation.  Newspapers are rich in content that people want -- news, information, analysis, advice, entertainment.  Historically, though, it's been given away free, and it's hard to get people to pony up for what they've always had for free.

But let's compare it to cable of 30 years ago.  Why would anyone pay for TV when it was free for the taking, as long as you had an antenna?  But cable gradually added value -- an amazing menu of program options, perfect signal quality, and finally, quality programming that equals or often exceeds what's on free TV.    

For newspapers, the solution may not be unlike what happened with cable.  Using available technology, tools and apps, or possibly awaiting the introduction of new ones we don't yet know, newspapers may be able to charge and receive subscription fees for offering a wider array of content that's available in very targeted or individualized packages.  It might be in the form of a delivery method we haven't yet imagined.  Or it might be organized in a way that makes it easy and fun to get exactly the news and information that you deem is important to yourself.

Publishers need to be creative and embrace new technologies.  What will the answer be?  Time will tell.  Hopefully, for the survival of newspapers and the important role they play in a free society, it won't take too much time.

Press Release -- Dead or Alive?

A research brief from MediaPost this week brings up, yet again, the issue of the press release -- is it a dying dinosaur?  Nearly half -- 49% -- of the professional communicators polled said releases are "as useful as ever."  

I've said it before and I'm saying it again: the news release is not dying.  It should not be the full extent of an organization's relations with the media, but it remains a useful public relations tool that supports other p.r. tools and tactics.  What is changing, though, is how the news release is used.

For the most part, the days of the mass-distributed news release are waning, and for good reason.  For too long, p.r. departments and many p.r. agencies populated by inexperienced people who don't know better have been blasting out news releases indiscriminately.  I suppose the attitude is if you throw enough stuff out there, some of it will stick.  Email has made it easier and less costly to blanket the world digitally with news releases.

Media people get frustrated, understandably, when they continually find their mail boxes overflowing with news releases, and we hear many of them complain loudly and frequently about the deluge.  It's not that they never get ideas and information that they use from releases.  The problem is that so many releases are not properly targeted and, to make things worse, they are poorly written.

P.R. people need to understand the importance of targeting, which should be easier than ever with all the online directories and other tools now available.  They just need to take the time to do some research, instead of taking the easy and lazy way.  It's our job, as p.r. professionals, to know the media and understand what they want and what they don't want.  And today, "media" includes blogs and other social media.

We must practice good journalistic writing.  A release should flow so the most important information is near the top, with further details and amplification down below.  A release doesn't have to be dull.  It can be written with creativity and flair, but don't make a reporter or producer or blogger read through three paragraphs of fluff or "cute" copy before you get to the meat.  And always put a date on a release, so the person receiving it knows it's current.  (It's PR-101, but I'm amazed at how many poorly written and undated releases I see.)

The news release still serves an important function, but it's not like "the good old days" when you could expect to see your news release picked up verbatim by the media.  Today a news release is a tool that conveys information and helps a reporter tell a story.  Even when I'm talking to an online reporter or a blogger in whose space I'd like to get attention, if my pitch sparks some interest they inevitably ask me to send them a release.  If it's properly prepared, the release gives the information they need in a way that's easy to understand and follow and, if appropriate, easy to use to develop a story by taking sentences or paragraphs or more that convey the information the way the client would like it explained.

So I think, despite the naysayers, that the news release will continue to be an important communications tool.  In cases where it's not a good tool, it's probably because lazy or amateurish p.r. people are simply not doing their job.

Long live the news release -- as long as it's properly written and used.