REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Text Overload

I saw a news report this morning that said the typical teen sends and receives some 3,800 texts every month.  3,800 texts!!

But when you break it down, what seems like an enormous number starts to feel a bit more reasonable -- about 126 texts a day.  That's still a lot, but not outrageous.  It's in the range of how many emails I get on a typical work day.

I remember back several years ago, when I got a new cellphone that had texting capabilities.  Why would I ever want to text, I thought at the time.  Then I saw how helpful texting could be.  I was meeting a friend after work at a music club downtown, and she was late.  I happened to glance at my phone and I noticed I had a text message.  Up to this point, the only texts I ever received were from AT&T Wireless giving me an update on my cellular account and from one other friend who had been trying to prod me into the 21st century.  But here was a text from my friend saying she was in the cab and would be there in 5 minutes.

Amazing!  I didn't have email capability on that old phone, and even if I did, I might not have been checking emails.  But the text popped up on the screen, giving me the information I needed.

I gradually began texting, at first mostly in reply to someone else's texts to me.  But now I'm a bonafide texter (never when behind  the wheel, of course) and texts are my primary means of communication with some people.  If I call or email my son, it could take 3 - 4 days or more to get a response.  Send him a text and I almost always get a prompt repsonse.  It's the same with many other people I know.

In a client meeting last week, I got a text.  Turns out, it was from the person sitting across the table from me, sending me a private comment on the discussion taking place in front of us. 

So now, although I'm a long long way from the teen average of 126 texts a day, I get several texts daily.  Thankfully, I'm still quite a distance from text overload.

 

The Launch of Crisis PR

Jack O'Dwyer, in his PR blog, reminds us that this is the 30th anniversary of the Tylenol poisoning scare.

For those readers under 50, this may not have much meaning.  Jack gives a good rundown of the scare, which grabbed the nation's headlines and dominated the news for weeks.  To sum it up briefly, several people died in the Chicago area after taking Tylenol that had been tainted with cyanide, evidently done intentionally.  Tylenol maker Johnson & Johnson, a trusted household name, found itself in the middle of a giant PR crisis.  Even before the company advised stores to clear the shelves of the product, stores themselves took the step.  Not that anyone would go out and purchase a bottle of Tylenol Extra-Strength at that time, as headlines screamed off the pages and TV news covered every aspect of the tainted product.

The episode led to some things we now take for granted.  Tamper-proof packaging is now the norm, and hardly anyone would now buy or use any medicine or food product whose packaging or seal has been compromised in any way.  

For the business community, the event marked the start of what we now call Crisis PR or Crisis Planning.  This is not to suggest that crisis planning never took place before the Tylenol scare, but it is now a fairly routine part of many organizations' thinking.  Companies whose products are sold to or used by the public often have crisis plans in place, in anticipation of any number of things that might occur.  Manufacturers often have plans in place should there be an accident at a plant, or an event that could endanger workers and the neighboring community.  Airlines, railroads, truck and freight lines have plans in place in case of a disaster.  Even fast-food chains have plans for handling situations ranging from food poisoning to mass shootings in one of their restaurants.

It's unfortunmate we have to think in these terms, but hey... stuff happens.

As PR people, it's part of our responsibility to assist with planning in the event of a crisis.  It means trying to anticipate all the crazy things that could happen, and having a basic plan in place for informing the people impacted -- employees, families of employees, neighbors, customers and vendors, shareholders, local officials and beyond, as appropriate, police and other safety agencies, and the list can go on and on and on.

Planning needs to have a well-defined chain of command -- with alternatives in the event key people are unreachable -- and with specific people tasked with the responsibility of handling communications with the media and the various publics involved.  Communications should strive to impart information as available and as confirmed as accurate, and not try to hide or cover things up.  Lying and covering-up may work for the moment, but it WILL be found out, adding even more damage to the organization's reputation.

Good planning and proper communications can be a major factyor in how quickly a company can regain the public's trust and their business.

Many of these things were not thought about before the Tylenol scare.  We've learned a lot in the past 30 years.

 

Jack O'Dwyer has other thoughts on the issue. 

 

 

 

TV is King for News

A new Harris poll, reported this week in Media Daily News, shows consumers prefer TV as their source of news and information.

The Harris poll says 50 percent of us prefer TV for news.  Online news sources are the prefered vehicle for 36 percent, and only ten percent say print is their first choice for news. 

The fact that print gets only ten percent is discouraging, although it should hardly be a surprise as more people go digital and use mobile devices.  It really is becoming a "news whenever and wherever I want it" world.  We know how newspapers and magazines are struggling to stay alive and relevant by putting content online, even as they try to figure how to get paid for it by subscription and/or advertising.

Also interesting from the poll is the demographics of who is interested in news.  Men, it says, are twice as likely to be interested in news than women -- 17 percent vs. 9 percent.  While the gender gap is suprising, what troubles me is that only 17 percent of those polled say they have a "serious" interest in the news. 

The poll also shows that news consumption is more a habit of older consumers.  Thirty-one percent of millenials -- the 18 - 35 age group -- say they are not interested in news.  (Are they too busy keeping up with all the personal trivia on Facebook?)  Among the Gen-x group (36 - 47), 23 percent say they have no interest in the news.  Only ten percent of boomers (48 - 66) have little interest in news, and six percent of those over age 67 say they are not interested in the news.

Now that is really scary and depressing, to see that such a high percentage of young people have little interest in what's happening in the world around them.  It does not bode well for the news business, but also for us as a nation in general.

 .

 

 

Brand Journalism -- A New Buzzword

Business, and marketing in particular, seems to fall for new buzzwords periodically. "Brand journalism" seems to be the hot new one, and a story in PR Newser a few days ago asks if brand journalism is the new PR.

The story quotes a strategist at a major PR agency who says the best way to promote your brand is to create content, and he sees the Public Relations business moving in that direction.  He is right, to a degree, but the article makes a complex issue a bit too simplistic, thus offering advice that may be off-base for many marketers.

The article cites as examples the Open Forum project by American Express and HSBC's Business without Borders program.  Both are good examples of creating media to promote brands without a direct hard sell.  Instead, both provide relevant and useful information to target audiences via original content.  Both also have huge budgets to help direct people to the branbded content.

But wait... isn't this what smart marketers have been doing for years? Many companies have created their own branded content such as specialized magazines and catalogues that are far more than listings of products and services.  What about give-away publications that give home decorating advice, or lawn care and garening tips, or fashion and accessorizing ideas?  Thirty years ago, I remember developing a lawn care series for Ciba Geigy's Spectracide bug and weed sprays.  We were creating branded content in a journalistic manner, rather than hitting consumers over the head with hard-sell "buy this" messages.

Good PR people knew, long ago, that a branded newsletter had to offer lots more than sales pitches if you expected people to pick it up and actually read it.  It had to be like real journalism, with the sell message pretty much implied subtly.  But if the branded content has real usable information, the subtle sales pitch will have even greater impact because it's coming from a source that has credibility.

 

The weakness I see in this approach, though, is that this technique is harder to pull off for small or unknown brands.  Thanks to the internet, branded content can be created and posted at relatively little cost -- unlike printing a magazine or creating an infomercial.   But the challenge remains -- you've got to get people to click on your site.  SEO, PR and social media can help build an audience, but none of those tools come cheap.  Unlike the phrase from the film Field of Dreams that says "Build it and they'll come," just putting something out there doesn't mean people will see it.  Building an audience is something that takes effort.  And as more content is available, your branded content has lots to compete against for the same eyeballs.

So yes, branded content is a good tool, albeit, hardly a new one.  Solid PR and publicity will be needed, more than ever, to support the effort and help it succeed.

 

photo:  David Henderson

A New Year

 

 

Rosh HaShana, the Jewish New Year, begins tonight.  It's not like the secular New Year, with parties and noisemakers and drinks. 

Instead, for Jews around the world, the Holidays are a time to reflect -- a time of thanks and of self-assessment.  We thank God for all the wonderful things He's given us and for Life itself.  And we look at how we've behaved over the past year and where we've made mistakes.  We ask God for forgiveness and for help and guidance to do better in the coming year.

In the end, it's very simply about doing the right thing -- treating others the way you would like to be treated.  After all the symbolism and tradition, that's really what it boils down to.  And that's what we all should strive for every day -- not only on the Holidays.

To all, no matter what your beliefs may be, best wishes for a Happy, Healthy and Peaceful Year.              

 

originally posted Sept. 17, 2009

30 Years of McNews

 

USA Today celebrates 30 years as the nation's national newspaper. 

In 30 years, what many (myself included) derided as McNews for its super-brief news bits, has evolved into a newspaper that has national impact and does some serious reporting.  Every day, USA Today reaches more than 1.8 million people, second only to The Wall Street Journal and a bit more than The New York Times.

Even after 30 years, USA Today tends to homogenize stories, giving us just the top-line information.  But at a quick glance, readers can get a sense of what's important that's happening around the country and the world.  If you want more details and background, you generally need to go elsewhere, which isn't hard these days thanks to the internet.

But USA Today has done some serious reporting over the years, with in-depth features in all areas of the news including business, entertainment and sports.  And they've broken some important stories, too.  Indeed, this bold experiment of 30 years ago has become a part of our lives.

Gannett, USA Today's owner, has been promoting for a while a new design that would launch as it hits 30.  Looking at the first issue on Friday, it seemed much ado about not much.  They've added more graphics and more color, and it looks like they're making even more use of colorful charts and graphs than in the past.  But the content seems to be pretty much the same.

The new logo leaves me cold.  The circle of color changes with the various sections, using the blue for the main news section, green for business, purple for lifestyle and red for sports, as in the past.   But, to me, it's not at all distinct.  Maybe I'll get used to it after time.

Hopefully Gannett won't slash editorial jobs at USA Today, as they've done at many of the their local papers, seriously compromising the quality and depth of local news coverage. USA Today, of course, isn't a local paper, but they still need reporters and editors to continue putting out what's turned out to be a fairly good paper.

Hopefully, even in this disastrous time for the health of our newspapers, USA Today will celebrate another anniversary in 30 years.

Meanwhile... any thoughts on the new logo and layout design?

 

They can't get a break

 

Still more rough news for newspapers, as 2nd Quarter ad revenues just came in from the Newspaper Association of America.

Total ad revenues slipped 6.4 percent from 2Q 2011, down to $5.6 billion.  That breaks down to a 7.9 percent drop in print ad income, softened a bit by a 2.9 percent increase in online ad revenues.

But publishers had been hoping for a larger rise in online ad money, which many see as the only real hope for the long-term future of the newspaper business.  Online advertising income is still a fairly small part of total newspaper income, at $827 million, or 14.7 percent of total newspaper ad revenues in the 2nd Quarter.               Photo: Fast Company Online newspaper ads have consistently failed to even come close to the growth of digital advertising overall.

What's the problem here?  Part of it, I think, is that there's such a dizzying wealth of venues for advertisers to choose from.  Newspaper online sites face tough competition from other online platforms that are seen as more exciting or more contemporary.  In many cases, other sites are seen as more exciting not by consumers but by young media buyers and planners, who have not grown up reading newspapers.

Newspapers have a solid story to tell the ad community, explaining how many of their sites have become much more than a digital version of the print paper.  Newspaper sites now have expanded photo coverage, video journals that can rival news coverage and analysis on local TV stations.  They have reader comments and opinion, often with back & forth comments from readers that can get feisty and fun to follow.

Maybe the newspaper industry needs to mount a concerted effort to tell the story of their expanding online editions to the ad and marketing community.  Several years ago, the syndicated TV producers and distributors undertook an effort to tell their story to young ad buyers who didn't understand the distinct ways their media platform could deliver.  It worked.  I know, because I was involved in the effort, handling trade PR for the Syndicated Network Television Association.

So perhaps the Newspaper Association of America should undertake such an effort on behalf of the nation's newspapers.  It could help improve the growth rate of online ads for newspapers, providing much-needed revenue to make up for growing losses in print ads.  It could help keep the newspaper business alive.  It's an effort that shouldn't be put off any longer.

 

We remember...

.

                      9/11/01

Weekend Thoughts: Sharing

One of the great things about social media is the ability it gives us to share our thoughts and opinions with many people at once. 

Have good news?  Throw it up on Facebook and all your friends can know about it instantly.  Got a cute photo of your kid or grandkid... or your dog?  Share it with everyone on Facebook and Instagram.

Got an opinion about something in the news headlines?  Send an email to dozens of your friends and business associates.

How great, right?  But here's where I'm going to don my "grump" hat.

Sharing opinions via a mass email is ok, but NOT when the sender includes everyone's email address.  Here's what often happens... and I'm sure this will sound familiar to you.

Joe sends out an email blast to four dozen people with cute dog pictures.  Because of all the pix attached, the email is 8MB and almost fills my email Inbox, the same Inbox that I rely on for work-related messages.  So I have to open it and, possibly, scroll down quickly to look at the pictures, and then delete the whole message.  To be polite, I'll probably send areply email to Joe saying something like "How cute!"

But if the sender has included everyone's email address in the "Send to" box, here';s where the problem begins.  Sally, who I don't know, sends Joe a note saying how cute the pictures are.  But she hits "Reply to all" so I get an email from her.  And then Bill sends a similar note, along with his own cute photos.  And he too hits "Reply to all."  There's back & forth with another dozen innocuous emails, almost all from people I don't really know.  

The process has added a dozen emails to my Inbox, which already gets, on a typical workday, anywhere from 150 to 200 messages.  So it means more stuff I have to open and delete.  

That's frustrating enough, but it really gets bad during a political season.  It's been especially bad this season, with people seemingly strongly polarized eitherred or blue.  I rarely try to sway others to my way of thinking via email, but some people I know (and some I hardly know) think an email -- whether originated by them or forwarded by them -- will convince me that President Obama was born in Kenya or that all the troubles in the world today have been caused by the current Administration.

A friend recently included me in a mass email she sent encouraging support for Obama.  She made the mistake of including all the email addresses in the "To" line.  There was some back & forth -- all of it going to everyone on the list.  Finally, when someone who disagreed with my friend sent an email that had to be more than 1,000 words long, I decided I'd had enough.  I asked my friend's friend to please take me off her reply list.  She did and she apologized.

But how much time and aggravation could be saved if people sharing by email would simply hide the mailing list as a bcc.  Please.