REICH COMMUNICATIONS

The 48th Street Journal

For virtually all of its 119-year history, The Wall Street Journal has been located within a few blocks of the street from which the paper took its name.  The exception was for a period after 9/11, when the paper, whose World Financial Center offices were directly across the street from the World Trade Center, had to quickly scatter employees throughout other parts of the city and even to New Jersey, where the company has a printing facility.

Even before Rupert Murdoch bought The Journal in December, there was talk of moving the paper into News Corp.'s building on Avenue of the Americas at  48th Street in midtown.  It makes sense from a financial and logistical point of view.  A story in The New York Times earlier this week indicated many Journal employees would welcome the move, since the midtown location is an easier commute.

Of more significance than the move away from the Wall Street financial district is another move the paper will be making -- an editorial move.  Plans are reportedly in the works to expand The Journal's non-business news with more space devoted to politics, entertainment and sports.  These subjects already get coverage in the paper's "Weekend Journal" section on Fridays and the new Saturday edition.

These editorial changes are aimed at attracting more readers and -- most importantly -- new advertisers.  The Saturday edition has had mixed reviews so far, but it seems to have succeeded in bringing new advertisers in.

Is there need for more coverage of non-business news?  Perhaps not, if it's simply straight reporting of news we already get from other dailies, TV and online. 

But if The Journal delves into the new areas with strong investigative reporting and deeper analysis and commentary, they just might succeed in their quest for more readers and more ad pages.  I just hope they don't skimp on their core business coverage along the way.

Update Feb. 5, 2008:  This week's issue of Crain's New York Business covers the topic, in a story they call "Murdoch's gamble."  They say The Journal could end up a diluted paper, going into battle head-to-head with The New York Times.  Read it here.

Only 5 more days

February 3rd is the end.  Last chance.  No more.

It's not a headline for a going-out-of-business sale.  It's not a come-on for the next "Cloverfield."

Sunday is the last day to cast your vote to help decide the topic of the next collaborative bloggers' book project.

The brainstorm of two bloggers on opposite sides of the earth -- Drew McLellan in Iowa and Gavin Heaton down under -- "The Age of Conversation" was a huge success.  It drew in 102 of us who contributed essays on conversation in business, it got attention in the advertising and marketing trade media, and it raised more than $10,000 for Variety, the international children's charity.

Drew and Gavin are not the types to rest on their laurels.  (What are laurels, anyway?)  Or maybe they're just gluttons for punishment.  So they've announced another collaborative book project, and we're all invited to participate.

But this time, we get to participate right from the start, helping choose the book's topic.

The choices are:

• Marketing Manifesto
• Why Don't People Get It?
• My Marketing Tragedy (and what I learned)

The choices are purposefully vague to leave the authors plenty of room for interpretation and the give readers plenty of variety.

To vote....click here and look for the SurveyMonkey survey. 

You DO NOT need to be an author or potential author to vote.  Drew and Gavin want everyone's take on this year's topic.

And if you want to be one of the contributing authors, drop a note to Drew and say, "I'm in."  They'll be in touch once the topic has been decided.

But hurry and do it NOW!  This offer ends February 3rd at midnight. 

Survey shows role of the individual in media impact

Judy Gombita, a public relations pro up in Toronto, pointed me toward a new survey from Ketchum PR and the Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center at USC.  It's called Media Myths and Realities: A Public of One.  The title refers to a key finding that shows the increasing role of individuals in communications.

The change has impact on those of us in marketing and public relations, since the media is still the primary means of communicating our messages to the people we strive to reach.

Not surprisingly, the media most of us rely on and consider most credible are still network TV news (65%), newspapers (62%), and local TV news (61%).  Search engines were also ranked high for both usage (60%) and credibility.

Word-of-mouth is seen as key form of communications by 43% (from friends and family) and 20% (from co-workers) of the general population.  Celebrity endorsements have impact with only 9% of the public, and expert spokespersons impact about 6%.  "Influencers" (see an earlier post on this topic) seem to rely on word-of-mouth sources more, with family and friends at 61%, advice from co-workers at 41% and celebrity endorsers at 20%.  (The difference of impact by celebrity endorsers on the general population (9%) and the so-called influencers (20%) tells me something about the reliability of "influencers.")

Also not surprising is that new media are gaining ground with older users.  It's not just the 20-somethings who blog (I'm certainly not even close to that age demo), use networking sites like Facebook or LinkedIn, or view content on YouTube.  The survey shows that 17% of Americans in the 55-64 age group are blogging, compared with 7% a year ago.  Seventy-two percent of us use search engines, vs. 54% in 2006. 

The report shows media usage down in just about all categories, which I would guess is due to the proliferation of media channels among which we divide our time and attention.   

With all that proliferation comes the individual's increasing ability to fine-tune what sort of information he or she wants.  Business news?  The Wall Street Journal or WSJournal.com, your local paper's business section, Business Week, Forbes, Fortune, CNBC or FOX Business News, Nightly Business Report on PBS, Bloomberg Business Radio, business channels on XM and Sirius satellite radio, etc., etc.   Celebrity news?   ET, Access Hollywood, People Magazine, Inside Entertainment, The Star, TMZ.com and on and on.  You get the picture.

It continues to be a growing and more complex challenge for advertisers, media planners, p.r. pros and others who look to get our information out there.   

Painting:  Confusion, by Mary Sellen

Weekend fun

I came across two things online that I thought were worth sharing.

First, our good friend and marketing's blogging guru Ann Handley, chief content officer at MarketingProfs, has found her own voice.  She launched a personal blog called, appropriately, Annarchy.  That's Ann with me, from a blogger meet-up last September in New York.

Ann's a great writer -- clever, witty and just plain fun to read.  I'm sure you'll enjoy Annarchy.

Several weeks ago I came across a video on YouTube called Uncle Jay Explains the News.  Every week, Uncle Jay (whoever he is) gives his take on what's been happening in our world.  This week, he talks about reality shows.  Some weeks are funnier than others, but they're all pretty good and worth taking about 3 minutes of your time.

So, click away and come back here Monday.  Have a good weekend.

Has the Tipping Point tipped over?

Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" and other books like "The Influentials" have been making a case for marketers targeting their message to a relatively small group of trend-setters or thought-leaders they call "Influentials."   If you can interest them in your product or service, they have the clout through word-of-mouth persuasion to get the masses to follow their lead, say the books.

The concept of influentials actually goes back to two sociologists who in 1955, according to the February issue of FAST COMPANY, chronicled their theory of marketing influence in their book "Personal Influence," where they introduced the idea of what they dubbed "opinion leaders."

Over the past 40 - 50 years, marketers have targeted those opinion leaders with their advertising as a way to break through to the larger markets they hope to penetrate.  In the past few years, more than $1 billion is spent annually, according to MarketingVOX, on word-of-mouth campaigns targeting influentials, and the trend is growing by more than one-third every year.

So along comes a guy named Duncan Watts -- a Columbia University network theory scientist currently working for Yahoo (unless he's one of the several hundred caught in recent layoffs there).  Watts says all that money being spent to reach influentials is a waste.

His experiments, outlined in detail in FAST COMPANY, claim that moving markets through influentials just doesn't work.  A number of random factors come together to create WOM, or viral buzz.  The emergence of a trend, he says, depends more on the receptivity of the public to a particular message at a particular time, and not on the blessing of so-called influentials.

Viral marketing a dud?  That flies in the face of trendy marketing, which often encourages companies to focus on a well-connected few who spread the word out to the masses.  Watts says his experiments and analyses show viral marketing through influentials may ultimately be less effective than that old standard -- mass marketing.

He recognizes the power of viral, but claims it is impossible to know who is going to spark the fire.  Therefore, he says marketers should aim at as broad a market as possible within their target demos, rather than waste money chasing "important" people.

I won't hazard a guess as to which theory is right, or perhaps more effective.  Watts' experiments are interesting and should challenge us to look more closely at how we try to get our messages out to potential buyers. I suspect some combination of the mass market and the "influentials" approach might work for some, customized for who you want to reach and how much you have to spend.

Check out the FAST COMPANY article if you have time (it's lengthy, but interesting) and let us know what you think.

Update 1/29/08:  Gavin Heaton explores the subject a bit more at his blog today.

Be Social ... Come to New York

New York City, "the greatest city in the world" as the David Letterman accurately boasts every night, hosted an estimated 46 million visitors last year.

For 2008, thanks to a bunch of bloggers, that number will grow by at least 50 or 60... maybe more, if you do one simple thing.  Click on the link below that can get you registered to be part of Blogger Social '08.  Save the dates April 4th - 6th.

No BS -- Blogger Social will be unlike any blog event you've been to.  No seminars, no speeches.  Blogger Social is all about "social."  It'll be a fun and informal way to spend time hanging with people you regularly read, comment on and sometimes argue with via the marketing space in the blogosphere.  Over the course of a weekend in fantastic New York, you'll have a chance to get to know the people behind those blogs. 

CK and Drew McLellan, who came up with the idea, are putting together, with help from several others, a great itinerary that will be based around all of us having the time to connect. 

More than 50 people have already signed up.  The deadline is only a few weeks away, Feb. 15th.  But don't wait -- sign up today.

Go to www.blogger-social.com for more info.  And for inspiration, click here to see a great video courtesy of CK and Mark Goren.

New York City is calling.  Join us.

Social media and the news

A few posts ago, I wrote about the impact blogs are having on news reporting, based on a recent survey.  Journalists who responded to the survey said information and ideas on blogs help generate story ideas and can impact the timing and editorial direction of stories.  They insisted, though, that blogs had no impact on news accuracy.

I came across a post on the Public Broadcasting Service's blog PBS MediaShift.  The blog tracks how digital media technologies and techniques such as weblogs, RSS, podcasting, citizen journalism, wikis, news aggregators and video repositories are changing our world.  I found the post  interesting because it outlines one reporter's experience -- good and bad -- as she's used social media to gather information for stories she's reported.

Jennifer Woodward Maderazo, who covers Latino marketing and cultural issues and is also associate editor of PBS MediaShift, discusses the benefits of using social media for journalistic research.  She takes us through her experience and that of some of her colleagues using Twitter, Facebook and even YouTube and Flickr to gather information and reaction to events.  She tells how these channels have enabled her to see and hear news events unfiltered, sometimes as they are actually happening.   They've at times given her access to people she might normally have a difficult, if not impossible, time getting comments from through traditional channels like the phone or, I hate to say, corporate public relations departments.

Maderazo also talks about the pitfalls of social media as a news-gathering source.  It's the same concern I've voiced about citizen journalism.  There's lots of room for misinformation, whether intended as fraud or merely a prank.  Maderazo gives as a recent example reports from big and respected news organizations like The London Telegraph and Agence France Presse, who seriously misquoted slain former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto's son's comments about Islam.  The reporters lifted the quotes from  Bhutto's son's Facebook profile, which turned out to be a fake.

It's easy to see how social media can help journalists quickly get information, background and comment from sources anywhere in the world.  It's also obvious that journalists can be tricked if they're not careful.  The ever-accelerating race for speed in the news business can lead to some bad, and potentially harmful, mistakes.

It's important to applaud and utilize the terrific advantages we can gain from social media.  But it's also essential to recognize the limitations and inherent risks.  Hopefully, major news media who value their credibility will be extra careful as they use the new social media tools.

10 Steps to Happiness

Lewis tagged me several days ago, asking me to list my 10 steps to happiness.  The idea flows from his new book Lead with your Heart, which talks about doing good to make yourself and others happy in business and in life.

My happiness steps might be totally different from someone else's.  That doesn't make mine or theirs better. 

These are things that work for me.  A few might be (or, perhaps, should be) universal.  Others may be very much my own.

So, in no particular order:

In Business --

1)  Try, always, to be honest, fair and considerate. 
I have found it's so much easier to do business when you're fair and honest.  And being considerate often makes you do a better job by understanding what others want.  These things also make for a happier work environment.

2)  Enjoy what you do.
I have friends who can tell me, almost to the minute, how much time they have until they can retire.  How sad that is.  I like what I do.  I'm not saying there's never a day when I'd rather be at the beach, but most of the time I actually look forward to going into work. 

3)  Give as much value as you can.
You'll feel so much better about yourself if you can honestly say you've done something to provide value in the product you produce or the service you offer.  It makes work more about accomplishing something than simply about making a buck.  I know people who make a sh*tload of money but are very unhappy every day.  That's sad.

In Life --

4)  Don't waste time staying angry.
Anger is a wasteful and harmful emotion.  I'm not saying never to get mad or upset -- it's natural.  But try not to hold onto anger.  I've seen it debilitate people.  Holding onto anger is just plain stupid.  Let it go... and you'll be happier.

5) Try not to be jealous.
We all get jealous at times, but try to keep it in perspective.  Look at what you have that others may not, and focus on that.  Unless you're way up on the Forbes Richest People list, there will always be someone who has more than you. So what.

6)  Don't obsess over money.
Remember that money is a means to an end, not the end itself.  Money can buy you things that may make you happy, but it really can't buy you happiness.  There's a difference.  I know people who spend their time chasing every last dollar, and they seem to be on a constant hamster-cage wheel, chasing instead of enjoying what they have.  You know what they say... you can't take it with you.

7)  It's not always about winning.
You can't always win.  Sometimes, it's not worth the aggravation to fight until you win.  I have a friend who was going through an ugly divorce.  The process could have ended years earlier than it did, but my friend had to win...had to get more spoils than the ex-spouse.  I said, so what if your ex gets a little more than you?  You don't need the extra money.  And the faster you finalize things, you're rid of that person forever and you can move on with your life.  My friend understood, but still continued to fight because it was about winning.  Through the process, the friend was miserable.  So much time wasted; so many needless tears. 

With Family and Friends --

8) Time is precious.  Don't waste it.
Don't waste time by letting anger, jealousy and pettiness get in the way of treasuring family and friends.    Got a problem?  Talk about it, calmly and openly.  And remember #7 above -- it's not about winning.  The years go by oh so quickly.

9)  Tell someone you love that you love them.
Don't assume they know it.  What a wonderful thing to hear from someone who is important to you!  Men are especially bad at this.  How many men don't tell their sons they love them, and how many fathers and sons don't kiss or hug or show outward affection because it's not the "manly" thing to do.  Baloney!  Express love while you can.  I've heard too many people say, after a loved one dies, "I never told him how much I loved him."  Why wait until it's too late?

10) Hug your dog.


I can think of a few more, but I'll save those for another time.

Instead of tagging some people, I invite anyone reading this to offer a comment below with your own Steps to Happiness.  It doesn't have to be ten.  Even one good one you care to share with us will suffice.

So... What makes you happy?
 

Optimistic outlook for newspapers

 

Regular readers of this blog know I'm a newspaper junkie and a big booster of papers.  I keep hoping -- against the odds, I suppose -- that newspapers will forever continue to publish in their traditional newsprint format so I can enjoy the day's news over a cup of coffee or as I ride into work on the train.

Yes, papers will have to make changes to adapt to the round-the-clock demand for instantaneous news.  But is the demise of the printed daily paper as imminent as some pundits predict?

I hope not, and I was given some optimism as I read an interview, published in MediaLife a few days ago, with John Morton, head of Morton Research Inc. and for 30 years until last April, publisher of the Morton-Groves Newspaper Newsletter. 

Two key points came out of the interview, which fly in the face of the gloom & doom scenario that gets so much media attention.

1)  Newspapers remain the dominant media in local markets with their print product, and they are having an increasingly important presence online.  Thanks to brand name recognition, newspaper web sites generally deliver the second-largest audience to local advertisers, outdone only by the newspapers' print editions.

2)  The biggest misconception is that newspapers are in deep financial trouble.  Morton says they are not.  For the first three quarters of 2007, newspapers publicly reporting earnings had an average operating profit margin of 15 percent, which is better than most businesses hope to achieve.

A problem, Morton says, is that 15 percent is down from an average margin  of 22 percent just five years ago.  Newspapers have fallen out of favor with Wall Street, partly as a result of the negative hype papers have had.

Good news is that smaller local papers continue to lose circulation at a lower rate than the larger market papers.  The internet, like other changes in media, impacts the bigger market papers earlier and heavier than it effects the smaller ones, says Morton.   

He says newspapers are learning, albeit slowly, how to embrace the web.  In the past two years, more papers have realized that major changes will be needed to meet the challenges of conventional newspapering, which remains centered on the printed product.   

Newspapers cannot treat revenues from the web as found money, Morton says.  "The should use it to shore up the economic model that supports  journalistic efforts," he says.  "Failure to do this would be a catastrophe."

Morton says a key strength that newspapers still have is that they are the only medium economically organized to provide mass coverage of local, national and world news.   It's not about entertainment, but about news and information.  "This capability is the one enduring strength of newspapers, however delivered," he concludes.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Tequila tales -- Is this the way to sell?

If you make a product that, if abused, can make people act crazy, lose their memory, throw up and/or pass out, are those traits you want to actively promote?  I guess the folks who market Partida Tequila think so.

MediaPost had a story today about an introductory campaign for the tequila brand, involving man (and woman) on the street interviews they call "Tequila Confessions."   Some are funny, but many of the confessions involve tequila causing stupid behavior, bodily injuries, and puking.  One experience resulted in the woman getting pregnant.  Well, those sound like good reasons to drink your brand of tequila, don't they?

As MediaPost writer Amy Corr says, the connections the consumers talk about with tequila are usually not positive.

In her article titled "Tequila confessions not always good for the brand," Corr writes "most 'confessors' have steered clear of tequila since their unpleasant experiences. Why focus on negative connotations to sell your product? Yes, the brand advertises itself as premium tequila, but will one taste test from former tequila drinkers reform them? I doubt it -- especially after watching the reactions of a few of the female taste tasters. "Smooth" seems to be the preferred word to describe the taste, but many ladies (in the videos) don't finish their entire sample, and their looks after taking a slug tells me that the tequila is not for the weak."

The videos are an attempt at viral marketing.  Someone had a brainstorm and said let's go viral with tequila horror stories that'll get sent around the net.  I don't know how many views they've had, but in this case, the marketer might be better off with fewer views than more.

See for yourself.