my 2 cents

Journalists and the Web

It should come as no surprise that journalists are using the internet more frequently in their reporting.

Bulldog Reporter, a public relations newsletter, recently released the results of their annual survey of journalists and media relations practices.

The biggest change the survey found is that reporters regularly go online to research corporate information and other background for stories.  Ninety-seven percent said they check company websites for background or to get company contact information.  Many complain, though, that too many sites don't easily provide access to company contacts or even a company phone number.  I recently encountered that problem myself with Delta Airlines, which doesn't even have a main phone number for their headquarters on their site.  Click here to buy tickets or get flight info, but don't try to contact them with a suggestion or, heaven forbid, a complaint. That's the message they give by making it hard to contact them, and that's what a lot of reporters don't like about many company websites.

More journalists are including blogs in their reading to follow what's happening in fields they cover.  Three-quarters of those responding said they use social media in their research, up from 67 percent a year ago. 

How do reporters prefer to be contacted with pitches or news releases?  Overwhelmingly (75 percent), they prefer email.  A very distant second is via the commercial newswires like PR Newswire and BusinessWire.  Snail mail comes in at just over 2 percent, and faxes barely register at 0.8 percent.

The survey also asked reporters what they think of public relations people and how they reach out to journalists.  It's disheartening to see the most common response was that "PR people interrupt me and waste my time." 

There's a simple common-sense way to avoid that rap.  We in public relations must be considerate.  If you call a reporter, be aware of deadlines and don't call on or near deadline unless it's urgent.  (And I mean urgent to the reporter, not to you.)  When a reporter picks up the phone, don't just launch into your pitch.  Ask if he or she has a moment to talk now, or if there's a better time for you to call.  It's a small courtesy, but it goes a long way in getting better attention and a better response.  And of course, pitch ideas or send releases that are relevant to what the reporter covers, so you're not wasting their time. 

If more of us in public relations would use just a bit of common sense and courtesy, journalists might think more highly of us.

It's never too late to start doing things right.

My 2nd blogiversary

It's hard to believe today marks the second anniversary of my blog.  In some ways, it seems like only a few weeks ago when my pal CK pushed me -- screaming and kicking -- into the blogosphere.  On the other hand, it seems like I've been doing this forever.

I've learned a lot in these two years.  I realize that I do have something to say and that some people actually listen and respect my two cents.  I've learned to take the pressure off myself -- I don't have to post something every day or every other day.  I'd rather let the space sit idle for a few days, instead of putting up any nonsense just to fill the space.  It makes life easier for me, and I think my readers appreciate it as well.

I've learned some new ideas and viewpoints, thanks to the ongoing conversation.

I've made some great friends through blogging.  I remember the first meet-up, after I'd been online only about a month.  But when Toby from Atlanta and Mark from Montreal and Valeria from Italy (via Philadelphia) and Christine from New Jersey came into that bar and we -- strangers all -- hugged and kissed and were genuinely excited to meet each other, I knew I was onto something special.  Blogger Social last April just magnified that feeling.  It's nice to know I have friends I can call on and count on throughout the U.S. and Canada and around the world.

So I'll keep on blogging as long as I have something to say and something to learn. 

Thanks for listening.

The next bailout?

As newspapers continue their struggle to cling to life, might they turn to philanthropic sources for much-needed capital?  I’ve been writing for a while, probably with misplaced optimism, about the future of newspapers, but this might be a solution.

A recent article in Online Journalism Review tells how newspapers and local broadcasters may soon seek support from non-profit foundations and private donors as a way to partially fund their news-gathering operations.

This is not a new concept.  Some non-profits, as well as some businesses, already provide funding for news and analysis programs on PBS and National Public Radio and their local affiliates.  Newspapers, however, are businesses who, for the most part until recently, have returned handsome profits to the owners and/or shareholders.  So how might they accept funding and at what risk to the independent way newspapers have traditionally reported the news?

There already are precedents.  A variety of grant programs from organizations provide funding to enable reporters  to work on special projects.  The granting organization stipulates subject areas they’d like a reporter to cover in order to receive the stipend.  Other grants are open-ended.  In most cases, the stipend goes to the reporter and not to the newspaper or other news organization.

If newspapers were to accept funding, it could raise the possibility of censorship or the pushing of certain  subjects or points of view to be covered.  Certainly there have been cases of big advertisers trying to exert influence over news content.  We sometimes hear of an advertiser pulling its ads from a paper or a network when they’ve disagreed with the content or tone of a story or an editorial.

In most cases, media have not caved in to that sort of pressure, putting a high premium on the integrity of their news content.  I think they would strive to maintain those same standards when dealing with financial supporters.

Charlotte Hall, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and editor of The Orlando Sentinel, sees potential benefit in having foundations offer grants to newspapers, to bolster their reporting capabilities.  She expresses some concern over the possibility of those foundations seeking to exert influence over how news is reported.  She also thinks the process of seeking grants can put an added burden on newspaper staffs already stretched thin.

It can work, though.  The Knight Foundation recently awarded 21 grants totaling $5 million to civic foundations to help fund local news organizations such as local cable and local online news sites. ASNE’s Hall says she was impressed by the range of projects that mostly helped fill unmet local news needs.  To my knowledge, none of the Knight grant money went directly to any newspapers.  

I think newspapers can and should go after non-profit funding to help support or expand their reporting. If a non-profit has as its mission the broadening of understanding and appreciation of science, for example, why shouldn’t they offer grants to newspapers to expand their science reporting?   It’s a win-win situation, as the paper gets funding which can free up resources for other aspects of its  news-gathering, while easing its financial pressure.  And readers get better coverage of the news, including a better knowledge of local happenings including watchdog reporting on local government.

The only possible sticking point I see is for newspapers to maintain independence.   I don’t think it will be a significant issue, since, as I noted above, it hasn’t hindered good, independent coverage and analysis on public TV and radio.

Now let me throw another idea into the mix, which I know will seem impractical right now as we struggle with mass layoffs, stimulus packages and government bailouts,

We should establish a Federal News Fund.  $500 million – a pittance in these times of multi-billion dollar bailouts – could support and expand news-gathering and investigative journalism (newspapers’ historic strong suits) at a majority of the nation’s daily papers.   For smaller papers, an annual infusion of $150,000 - $200,000 would pay a few reporters’ salaries and help the paper’s bottom line.  Larger papers might get a bigger amount.

I won’t get into the details of who gets how much, how the money is monitored to be sure it is spent on news, and how government censorship is prevented.  I’ll leave those details for people a lot smarter than I am.

But I think government assistance, along with funding from philanthropies, can help keep newspapers – in print and online – alive and healthy so they can continue to do what they do best – inform, analyze and question happenings around the world, throughout the nation and down the street in our own communities.  If some of our tax dollars can help keep newspapers filling that important role,  I’d say it’s money well spent.

This post appears today at MarketingtProfs Daily Fix, so click over there if you'd like to join in the discussion.  Or leave a comment below.

Blogging Secrets

 

 

 

Stephane Grenier sent me an email about two months ago, asking if I'd like to see a copy of his new book, Blog Blazers: 40 Top Bloggers Share Their Secrets.  "Sounds interesting.  I'll take a look, " I replied.

The book went unopened as the holidays came, year-end business got in the way, and then trying to get all in order before a 2-1/2 week vacation.  I threw the book into my laptop case as I headed for the airport several days ago, and finally had a chance to read the book on the L.A. - Honolulu leg of a long flight.

I have to admit -- the first thing I did when I got the book was to check the table of contents to see who Stephane's Top 40 bloggers are and how many of them I read or know.

I was surprised to see only five out of the 40 that I look at -- only two that I read regularly.  Two are on my blogroll - David Armano's Logic & Emotion and Ben Yaskovitz' Instigator Blog.  I've met Armano, as well as Rohit Bhargava at the Blogger Social, and I know Seth Godin from some 20 years ago when he was a neighbor.  Most of the Top 40 are unknown to me, which makes me realize how narrow my range of blog-reading is.  My blog world is limited mostly to those that cover marketing, media journalism or public relations.  I don't do much exploring beyond that; I just barely have enough time to read those on my own blogroll.  And it's unlikely I'd ever look at blogs about shoes (Manolo Blahnik), or being overweight, or parenting, which are topics of some of the other Top 40 blogs covered in the book.

But Stephane has done an interesting thing in his book -- asking each of his Top 40 a series of questions about how they became successful bloggers, and what tips they would offer to others.  He asks how they market their blogs, what are common mistakes new bloggers make, what turns them off when they visit a blog, how do they make money from their blogs, and what books and sites do they recommend to new bloggers.

It's worth a read.

I didn't see any major surprises here, but the book reinforces some things I believe, including:

*  It's not about how much or how often you post.  It's about content -- what you have to say and how well you say it.  Good writing is important.

*  Pick an area to write about and try to stick to it.

*  Making money from a blog is possible and acceptable.  (One of these days, I'll jump into those waters, carefully, as long as I can keep it tasteful and relevant.)

*  Market your blog.  I've done some of this with my 2 cents, but I need to do more.  I'm on some feeds, but I need to get with Stumble, Digg, etc.

Stephane's book is available for $16.95 from Levac Publishing.

In a future post, I may give my own answers to the questions Stephane posed.  Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.  

Making Online Pay -- Publishers' Ongoing Challenge

There's talk that The New York Times may try again with charging online readers for content, as it had done until about two years ago with its TimesSelect subscription access.  According to Editor & Publisher, The Times made about $10 million a year from TimesSelect subscription fees, but Times management thought dropping subscription fees would boost online readership and, in turn, bring added online revenue.

But online advertising still generates much smaller revenues than print, even though online readership may potentially reach much larger audiences.

In the face of a 4th quarter drop in online ad revenue, The Times is reportedly looking at ways to charge for online access to some content.  Possibilities include charging for a full-access online subscription, charging a few cents each time an online reader clicks on a page, or charging for downloads to readers like Kindle.

 

Some publishers are moving from print to online subsciptions -- most notably The Christian Science Monitor and US News & World Report.

 

But Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time Magazine, writing in that publication this week, points out that even as newspapers are dyingt in print, they have more readers than ever when you figure in online readership.  The problem is, he says, the online readers are paying nothing for the privilege.

 

Isaacson reminds us of the traditional newspaper/magazine business model that has three revenue sources -- newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising.  The new business model relies only on advertising.  He says it makes for a wobbly stool, even when one leg (advertising) is strong.  But when it weakens, the stool can't possibly stand. 

Hopefully, the content of The New York Times will find enough readers willing to pay for it so the stool doesn't tip over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the beach

Posts here have been sporadic the past several days, as I've hit the beach with my family.

I'll be putting new stuff up, but on an irregular basis until I return Feb. 15th.  The warm breezes and beautiful beaches on Kaua'i have made me lazy.

See you soon.

Aloha.