my 2 cents

PRedictions for 2010

In some ways, 2010 may turn out to be similar to 2009.

Before starting my look ahead, I took a look back to what I predicted for this year that's almost behind us. I said 2009 would be both good and bad for the public relations agency business, with smaller shops in a better position to do well during tough economic times.

I also said we'd see more journalists move into the p.r. field, as a result of media layoffs and the search for greener financial pastures.

And I expected to see more p.r. people getting into social media.

I think I was fairly on target with those predictions.  And I think we will see more of the same in this new year, while we're (hopefully) emerging from a recession.  But it won't be business as usual as the economy gathers back its strength.

2010 will be another challenging year.  Marketers will still be under pressure to get the most out of their budgets.  That could be good news for the p.r. agency business, since p.r. can be more cost-efficient than advertising.  But agencies will need to show measurable ROI, which is always a challenge and will become even tougher as more agencies add Social Media Management to their list of services.

Again in 2010, I think smaller agencies with lower overhead will be in a position to do well, while the large agencies may still be in a cost-cutting mode in order to make their bottom line look acceptable.

We will see more "virtual agencies," where there is not a large fixed staff, but instead a loose affiliation of p.r. pros who work together on business as the need arises.  My agency is, in fact, built on that premise with minimal payroll and experienced p.r. pros who are brought in on an as-needed basis, depending on a particular client's needs.  It's worked pretty well, since we don't have to try to fudge to make staff experience fit a client's needs and hope for the best.  Instead, we bring in the best people who have experience and skills that best respond to what the client's program calls for.  I'm seeing a few other small agencies working this way, and there will be more in the coming year.

Social media will be part of the agency menu.  Some p.r. people have been dabbling in social media -- blogging or active on Facebook and Twitter.  As more clients recognize the potential of direct contact with customers and prospects through social media, they are turning to the agencies -- advertising, public relations, SEO or the new crop of social media specialist shops.  Since, in the end, it's more about content than the technology, p.r. agencies should be in the best position to add social media management to their menu of services offered.  2010 and beyond will see more p.r. shops move in that direction.

Traditional media relations is not going away.  Despite constant talk of shrinking traditional media on one hand and chatter about the death of the news release on the other, media relations -- publicity -- will continue to be a large part of what p.r. agencies do for clients.  And traditional media will still play a major role, even as we pay more attention to online and social media.  It's still publicity, but with a larger and more complex playing field.  Targeting, rather than mass mailings and email blasts, will still win out in terms of bringing best results.

Writing will remain a key skill for young people entering the p.r. field.  A working familiarity with social media will be a skill that is assumed.  But above all, the better p.r agencies and p.r. departments will still want young people who can write well and who can learn to think like editors, so they will understand what the media want and how best to present it to them.

 I'd love to hear any thoughts readers might have, as well as any other predictions that we should add to this list.  And in a year, we'll take a look back to see how we did.

And as always at this time of year, we send our best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year. 

HAPPY NEW YEAR from NEW YORK CITY!

A disaster waiting to happen

Last week I caught the tail-end of a Twitter discussion group -- Journchat#.  It was my first time venturing into an online discussion group on Twitter and, although I found it hard to follow at times, it was interesting and fun.

I got caught up in one thread of the conversation, talking about citizen journalists.  Some participants felt they are playing an important role in the newsgathering process, citing staffing cuts in newsrooms of many traditional media outlets.  Citizen journos, they claim, can help fill that gap.

There is some truth to that proposition, but there is also considerable risk which, frankly, frightens me.

Some of the chatroom participants also expressed concerns about accuracy and context, saying those things are best left to professional journalists to deal with.  Citizen journos can help with the raw reporting, they feel.

But as newsroom staffs are getting smaller, with fewer copy editors available, might accuracy and context get lost in the shuffle?  And throw in the pressure to be first with a story, coupled with the increasing frequency of deadlines as print and broadcast reporters have constant updates to file for online editions, Twitter feeds and the blogs of the media outlets.  It's a recipe for disaster.

Big celebrity news has been broken more frequently by TMZ, which may have started life as citizen journalism but is now very much a real newsroom.  Their track record for accuracy seems to be pretty good.  But they're dealing with celebrity news (and soon, sports news).  It's not news of earth-shaking importance.

What about the more complex and important stories on the global, national and regional fronts -- politics, war and terrorism, natural and man-made disasters, crime, business?  Can we afford to get those stories wrong? 

Mistakes get made, even by the most respected news organizations.  But throw citizen journalists -- untrained "reporters" -- into the mix and it's a disaster waiting to happen. 

Will 2010 be the year we have a major reporting screw-up that jumps from the online stream into the mainstream media, taking on a life of its own?  It could be a simple error, or it could be something more sinister -- intentionally erroneous or distorted reporting slipped into the news stream by someone with a political or financial ax to grind.  Surely, there are many people or organizations who would love to take advantage of any weakness in the social media-to-mainstream media news pipeline.  Since information moves so rapidly now and is so pervasive, the impact could be substantial.

I'm just not a supporter of citizen journalism -- at least, not for important news.  I hope I'm not proven right on this.

photo: Future Perfect Publishing

"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.