my 2 cents

Withholding News

 

Joe Mandese, editor in chief at MediaPost, poses some interesting questions that news people face in the wake of tragic events like yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon.  His headline asks a pointed question -- How will our nation change?

He notes that terrorists and other crazies who shoot schoolchildren or people in theaters or who blow up buildings often want to see their names out there, and also want to publicize whatever cause they are championing.  Joe asks if the news media should withhold the names of these perpetrators, and not make public their grievances and causes they want to advance.

We, the public, want to know every detail.  But this is not an OJ Simpson trial, taking place in a court of law.  This is about random mass killings and hurting lots of innocent and unsuspecting people.  Perhaps we shouldn't know the bomber's name or what organization, if any, he is affiliated with.  Why give air to a crazy person's viewpoints?  Doesn't the media attention simply encourage others to use terrorist tactics to get their 15 minutes of fame?

There's a precedent for withholding information.  News media, for the most part, respect a rape victim's privacy by not using her name or showing her picture.  Minor children are usually afforded the same treatment.

We want to know details.  We have a right to have details.  But perhaps there are times when we must let it go, as a way to blunt the impact and effectiveness of terrorist acts.

It's a good question you raise, Joe.  It's a tricky decision for journalists to make. 

 

I just don't get it

Sickening politics waters down gun legislation

 

It's really pathetic how fearful politicians are of the National Rifle Association. I guess, though, when you think of how much money the gun lobby controls, it's understandable.  But where are the politicians' balls when it comes to making real progress on an issue that brought the nation to its knees only a few months ago with the senseless shootings in quiet, little Newtown, Conn.

The President spoke about finally getting tough, and most of us cheered. 

Our leaders in Congress were moved to tears when they met with families of victims from Connecticut... and Colorado and Arizona and so many other places where guns (I know, I should say people with guns) shot and killed innocent people just going about their everyday lives in movie theaters and shopping malls and walking down the streets.  So how, then, did we get to where we are now, with such toothless, watered-down legislation being brought to the table for our lawmakers to consider?

Some more background checks.  OK, that's good.  But what happened to legislation that would make it illegal -- or at least more difficult -- for citizens to get things like assault weapons and clips that hold multiple rounds of ammunition?  Do hunters really need military-style weapons to kill deer and ducks?  Who needs to be able to shoot dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds?  Certainly not hunters.  That sort of equipment is for trained police, soldiers and security personnel, but not for our next-door neighbors.

I'm generally anti-gun, but I've tried to be understanding of those who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  But I just don't get why some people -- led by the NRA -- feel they need such high-powered killing machines. 

And I just don't get why our elected officials are acting like scared followers instead of the leaders we elected them to be.

I just don't get it, and I just don't like it.

  

 

 

Sponsored News

A story on Page One of The New York Times business section today discusses sponsored news, or branded content or native advertising, as it's now being called.

Tanzina Vega writes how a growing number of well-known online media like Huffington Post, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed and even the online edition of The Washington Post are now including forms of branded content.  Often, it's written by the outlet's regular news staffers. But it's clearly sponsored by a company or a brand.

The article explains that this is happening as media are struggling to monetize their sites in ways that bring in more money than simple banner ads, which are often ignored by readers.

Sponsored content is not new.  Even newspapers as old-school as The New York Times have, for years, carried special sponsor-supported supplements and sections, often tied to an event like the Auto Show or the U.S. Tennis Open.  Or from time to time, we'll see a few pages in The Times business section promoting business in a particul;ar country, clearly spomsored by that nation's trade mission and some local banks and other businesses.  But these sponsored sections are always clearly identified as sponsored, and they usually are written by writers not on The Times' staff. 

I have no problem with sponsored articles, but with these caveats..

Sponsored articles should always be clearly labeled as such.

Sponsored articles should not simply be puff pieces and should be balanced

I want newsrooms to survive.  A democracy needs independent and unfiltered news.  So if sponsored articles will help keep newsrooms alive, I'm for it. 

But, for me at least, when I see a sponsored article, I won't read it with quite the same level of trust as I would an unsponsored article. Nagging in the back of my mind will be the question of what information was not included or played down to keep the sponsor happy. 

That's not a question I really want to be wondering about when I read what is supposed to be news.

 

 

Magazine Launches Drop by Half

27 titles began, while 9 closed in 1st Qtr of 2013

 

Media Daily News reports that new magazine launches were down nearly 50 percent from a year ago. 

Twenty-seven  magazines began publication during the first quarter of 2013, while nine titles shut down.   

Among those that closed was one of the pioneering free alternative weeklies -- The Boston Phoenix, which had been published for 47 years.  An edition of The Phoenix serving coastal New Hampshire and Maine -- particularly Portland, where there's a big music and bar scene -- will continue.

A year ago, 52 magazines launched and a dozen closed.

Media Daily News says for the full year of 2012, 227 titles began and 82 closed.  Total ad pages dropped by 8.2 percent last year, continuing a decline that totals 39 percent over the six years since 2006.

Besides the drop in ad pages, more people rely on the web for news and features, resulting in fewer subscription and newsstand sales.

 

 

Other Voices: Why Your Marketing Plan May Not be Working

 

 

We open our pages periodically to others who want to add their voice to the blogosphere.

Our guest blogger is Aileen Galsim, a graphic and print design enthusiast in the U.K. who blogs for Showcase Creative, short run, high quality presentation folder and ring binder printing specialists. Aileen asks that you check out http://www.showcasecreative.com to see their range of products.

 

Many people believe that a great marketing plan is the most important part of getting your products or services out into the mainstream. After all, a company can have the best product in the world, but if nobody knows about it, then it’s a waste, right?

But a marketing plan can be completely useless to a company’s bottom line if its products or services are not up to industry standards.

If you have a budding business and feel like you are ready to take the next step by investing in a marketing plan, the first action that you should take—and it may be one that saves you money in the long run—is to make sure that your products and services are good enough to handle close scrutiny from the general public.

Being a small- or medium-sized business can often keep your products or services insulated from truthful advice or constructive criticism from customers. One of the smartest things a company can do before embarking on a large-scale marketing plan is to invest money into improving its products and services first.

There is no advertising campaign in the world that can cover up for a bad product or a company that provides poor service. Defects that may not have been an issue with hundreds of customers may become apparent when you have thousands of customers. And your customer service people may be stellar, but are they prepared to handle the sudden surge in sales?

If not, the consumer will catch on very quickly in these times of social media, and your company will lose sales, customers, and its overall reputation.

Start from the Bottom Up 

It's natural to want to start from the top and work down. The mindset of trying to get as many customers as possible first, and then focusing on your products or services, can bring a quick, short-term boost to your sales, but it could be little more than a mirage. Exposing your products to a large market prematurely can do more harm than good.

What can you do to ensure you’re providing earnest service?

• Conduct thorough product testing
• Re-train your service employees
• Make sure your customer service is scalable to your growth
• Use surveys and questionnaires to get feedback from current clients
• Speak with a lawyer about potential liabilities

Even after your marketing plan launches, you'll want to ensure you’re staying on top of what the customer is thinking. Newsletters and social media can provide ways to communicate with customers, to be sure you are addressing their needs and staying on top of any potential issues.

Word-of-mouth is still one of the most powerful marketing tools available. In fact, the internet has only made it stronger, since one person’s opinion can be heard by hundreds, if not thousands, through blogs and social media. Remember, you want long-term growth, not just a blip.

The key is to build a solid foundation by providing a great produce or service first, and then embark on a large-scale marketing plan later. Everything starts with your reputation, and once that is in place, your marketing, advertising, and sales will begin to take care of themselves.

 

The PR Person's Challenge -- Getting your Email Read

 

Lots has been written about how to get your emails opened.  A common bit of advice is to use a tempting subject line. But when you send an email can also make a difference in having it opened and getting a response, according to a survey reported by Lucia Moses, writing in ADWEEK.

Getting email read is an ongoing challenge for marketers, and it's a real challenge for those of us in PR who pitch stories to people in the media.  Email has become the preferred method of contact among reporters and producers, overtaking phone calls and even personal contact.  But therein lies our challenge, since an email pitch can get buried in the daily volume of emails, which has gone up by 5.4 percent from a year ago.

I get between 125 - 250 emails every weekday, and I've heard from media people I know who say their email volume can be easily two or three times that amount -- every day.

The survey reported by ADWEEK seems to show that sending an email at night -- after 8 p.m. -- gives you the best chance of having it opened and read within a day.  Emails also fare better on weekends when the overall volume is lower.  Possibly the worst time to send an email pitch is between 8 a.m. and noon, when 40 percent of all emails are sent.

There are exceptions, of course.  If you know the reporter well and he or she normally does repond to your emails, then send it whenever it's best for you.  I always try to be clear in my subject line what the message is about, which seems to help.

The internet, email and social media have made the idea of 9 - 5 work hours obsolete, and I'll often see emails from clients and media people sent in the early evening (between 6:30 and 9 p.m.) and on weekends.  

Of course, regardless of when you send a pitch, it's got to be succinct and on target.  That much hasn't changed, even since the days of telephone pitches and pitches made face-to-face over a lengthy lunch.

 

 

Passover

It's as sure a sign of spring as the first robin... Passover.  It's when Jews recall the days of slavery under the Pharoah in Egypt, and the seder, done at home followed by a meal, retells the story.

We can't eat bread for a week, but matzoh's not bad.  And matzoh is used in lots of traditional eastern European Jewish cooking, like chicken soup with matzoh balls and matzoh brei -- essentially a matzoh version of French toast.

So many of us will be at a seder tonight and tomorrow night. We won't be eating bread and many other foods, but we'll be chowing down on lots of other yummy "kosher for Passover" goodies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matzoh brei -- It tastes better than it looks... really.

 

 

 

 

.

Tonight in New York

 

It started as rumors, but it now looks fairly official that NBC will move Late Night Show host Jimmy Fallon into The Tonight Show spot next year, possibly as soon as April or May of 2014.  Jay Leno, host since 1997, will step down.

This time, NBC seems to be handling the change so much better than the debacle that ended up chasing Conan O'Brien off the network four years ago.  Both NBC and Leno looked pretty bad on that one.

Leno is still looking like a bad sport by badmouthing NBC in his monolgue the past few nights.  Fallon, meanwhile, comes off looking like the gentleman he seems to really be by, if you can believe press reports, calling Leno to discuss the changes with him and to show him due respect as an older statesman of late-night TV.

Howard Stern inserted himself into the picture for a few brief moments by making statements that he had been picked to be the new Tonight host.  Seems like Howard took a page from the Donald Trump book of PR -- say anything, even if it's not true, in order to get some headlines.

I'm very happy to read that NBC will be moving Tonight back to New York, where it started way back more than 40 years ago with Steve Allen and then Jack Paar.  It's good for business in New York, and the show should have plenty of interview-worthy people to pick from here. 

The move may give Jimmy Kimmel on ABC a bit of an edge, since he'll be the only 11:30 network show originating in L.A., where they can mine the pool of celebs and celeb-wannabees based out there.  It shoud be interesting to see who NBC brings in to replace Fallon on his 12:35 show. (Maybe NBC will move it out to L.A. to battle Craig Ferguson head-to-head.)

It all seems to be so calm this time... at least, so far.

 

.

They're coming to New York

 

People are coming to New York.  Tourists continue to arrive in record numbers, but it's not the travelers who are making news now.  Instead, it's those who stay...  which apparently is happening more frequently.

The latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in today's papers, shows more people are moving to New York City than leaving -- a first in more than 60 years.

The City's population has continued to swell, but over the last few decades that's come more from new births that offset the people who leave. And for years, there's been flight to the suburbs or away from the New York area altogether.  But that's changing.

There are now a record-setting 8.3 million New Yorkers -- up by 161,000 from two years ago.  As the Wall Street Journal story points out, that two-year increase is more than the entire population of Hartford.

The census numbers show New York has been losing fewer residents -- an estimated 140,000 people move away every year.  But more and more are coming here and staying -- 150,000 last year.  For young people, the lure is jobs and the excitement and energy of life here.  Many neighborhoods that had been quietly dying are now coming back to life as young people discover them -- at first for the lower rents, and then for the local nightlife scene, which often follows.

So, as the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.  And give us your young people looking to build a career, a family, a life.  We're New York, and we have room for you all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

It's all here in N Y C

 

 

 

Too big to fail?

 

Attorney General Eric Holder re-ignited the discussion about some banks being too big to fail with his comments last week. 

Andrew Ross Sorkin, writing in today's New York Times, seems to support the idea by pointing to some examples of business failures that had a substantial impact that went beyond a paper loss in the stock market.  He uses as an example the case of Arthur Andersen, the accounting giant that got caught up in the Enron debacle.  When the company was indicted and then went under, 28,000 people lost their jobs.

I can see Holder's point that some businesses might need to be immune to indictment or prosecution because of the overall economic impact that might ensue.  But if companies can't be prosecuted, then certainly people should be -- especially those whose greed or arrogance caused them to do things in a company's name that are illegal or unethical.

Big fines and penalties should be imposed on companies who behave badly, although perhaps not so stiff that they might knock the company out of business.  But the  people doing the bad things and those knowingly allowing them to happen -- even at the very highest management levels -- should be held accountable with the real theat of huge fines and real jail time.  Perhaps those threats will make businesspeople think carefully before treading close to or over the line of legality and ethics.

No individual should be too big to fail.