Can Newspapers Break News Anymore?

I recently got into an argument (if you can call less than 140 characters long an argument) over whether or not newspapers can still break news due to the explosion of social networking, specifically Twitter.

At this point, everyone should know what Twitter is all about or maybe at least know that it exists and all the tech geeks, PR-types, marketing gurus and journalists are salivating over it. If not, you're way behind the eight ball. Step your game up. Seriously.

The argument stemmed from some Twitter chatter at the "Change dot gov" event at MIT yesterday, or better known as #smcboston in the Twittersphere. The event was about the government's use of social media and the information sharing that should and does go on between citizens and those that run this state. Long story short, one of the panelists was an editor for the Boston Globe who apparently was complaining about the pressure to get news out faster and how that pressure eats into follow up time (probably a subliminal message to all the PR folks in the room saying that, "yea, I got your email/voice mail, but sorry dude, I can't call you back. I'm too busy twittering").

Regardless of realistic or unrealistic time constraints to push out news, I still believe that newspapers can "break" news, specifically in two ways:

1. The first is through investigative journalism. We still need news outlets to be our watch dogs. We need them to ask the tough questions; do the longer, three-part series on government corruption or financial shadiness by big companies. These are the "gotcha" stories. These are the stories that truly showcase a reporters talents - writing and reporting (not to be confused with one another because each is different from the other and are unique skills). My point is that news can still be "broken" in the long form. Yes, I agree that it's tougher to do, but it is still a viable option.
2. The second way outlets can break news is how everyone else is doing it these days - social media channels. News outlets need to stop pushing out headlines just to drive website traffic. Yes, that has a place, but man up guys. Get real people behind your social media brands. Hire young, aggressive news-minded journalists who are social media geeks and can become the first "Social Media Reporter" for the Boston Globe, for example. Instead of pumping out Twitter headlines, why not assign reporters to be your online news voice, pushing out breaking stories, interacting with readers, cultivating sources, gathering news intel for your longer-lead writers, etc. News outlets need to stop using social media channels as content marketing tools and put real resources behind them in order to break news via Twitter for example.

Part of the reason I think newspapers and magazines are struggling to survive is because they were too late to the social media party. They are still outside the club, waiting at the back of the line, 100 people deep. They assumed their product would stand the test of time - similar to the print business and the threat of TV news. I really do think the opportunity exists for the print medium to survive. Old school print cronies need to take off their blinders and push the envelope aggressively in terms using technology to create, deliver and market their content to readers and advertisers.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Girla Obscura

Read more!

Thoughts On The Newspaper Business

While enjoying a quiet Sunday morning with my girls, I fired up the ole MacBook Pro to see what NetNewsWire snatched off the Interwebs. I came across a post over at the Healthcare Economist that outlines the reasons why we still need newspapers.

I've been thinking about this topic for some time now, specifically around two topics: why they are still relevant and what business opportunity they are missing.

Why Newspapers Are Still Relevant

I strongly believe that newspapers are still relevant purely on the fact that the world needs investigative journalism. Big business, politicians and the like, all need to be dragged on the carpet every once and while. The "gotcha" factor is what makes people go out of their way to buy a magazine, newspaper, Tivo the news, etc. We love the drama. We love when criminals and white collar crooks get nailed to the wall. We need folks policing the police, as the Healthcare Economist writes.

Investigative journalism is a form of reporting that brings out the best of writers talents. It's a true story telling format. You have to set up the background. Lay out the issue that is impacting a certain group, audience, culture, etc. Point the finger at who is at fault. And finally, report the feedback of those who are getting the short end of the stick.

Breaking news isn't made for print any more. The Interwebs have taken care of that. The longer, thought-provolking, "gotcha" articles are what make print outlets relevant (whether advertiser buy into that is another story).

Last point I want to make is that newspapers (and long lead print pus) bring credibility to their reporting. I'm more apt to trust what I'm reading in the Globe than I am to trust what I read on a blog - even blogs that are "reputable", have an audience, etc. While blogs are a relevant source for news, they just don't bring the street cred as a brand such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post, for example. The proof in the pudding comes in the form of discussions with clients and new business prospects. They all want media coverage and they all want to be in the top tier papers. A blog hit on Mashable is great, but a story in the Wall Street Journal will have a better chance of driving sales inquiries.

For newspapers to continue to be relevant, they need to really step their game up in terms of their business model.

Advertisers aren't buying ads any more. The masses are online. Video and mobile is where it's at. Those two mediums provide THE best opportunity for newspapers to make money.

Newspapers need to create more video content. I'm not talking about simple voice overs on pictures, but in-depth reporting that is accompanied by supporting print coverage. The video can be wrapped around advertisements and include breaks in the segment with ads - similar to what networks are doing now with popular shows. Additionally, papers need to do a better job in packaging their content so their website compliments the paper/magazine. Make very piece of reporting part of a package that makes interested readers engage both via print and online. This will help avoid the, "I don't buy the newspaper because I can just read it online" thing.

Mobile is the Great Frontier

Another great opportunity for news outlets is mobile. For example, look at the iPhone 3.0 OS announcement last week. The OS will enable app developers to sell content with apps, versus solely through iTunes.

How can this translate into a revenue generator? Well, first off, each news outlet should invest in creating an on-device app, not just a mobile version of their website. Using the Apple Store model, news outlets can offer their app for $.99. Within the app, they will be able to sell advertising space as well as additional content for users. For example, if the Boston Globe had a mobile app, they would could offer exclusive content for an additional, one time fee or some sort of monthly fee - all reasonably priced based on the threshold of mobile consumers. I would pay for things like exclusive videos, inside reviews to new technology, archived articles, etc.

What news outlets need to do is interact more with their consumers. Find out what content they really want and determine the purchase threshold I eluded to.

News outlets just aren't acting quick enough. Where's the urgency? Is it too late? Some will say yes. I say no. The mobile and video opportunities are just two examples. These alone won't save the sinking ship, obviously. Just a small piece of the larger revenue generating pie for a service that's important to consumers, whether we like it or not.

Time is running out.

Photo Credit: Just.Luc

Read more!

Media Relations is to PRs as American Idol is to Singers

Sunday night is a great time to troll through the RSS reader and catch up on what people are writing and talking about. Tonight's topic is PR and journalism.

One of the revolving conversations that will never, ever go away is the relationship between PR pros and journalists.

Those in the business know the gory details:
- Media consolidation
- Social Media explosion
- Client pressures
- More content to create on the journalist side (blogs, podcasts, etc.)

My last point is the one that I want to make stick. It's the point that is really at the heart of this issue.

There are more PRs than there are journalists. It's a matter of numbers. It's really that simple.

While you think you have a great story to pitch, so doesn't your equivalent at a competitor firm right down the street. In fact, the PR to journalist ratio has got to be 10-1 if not more (probably like 25-1). So while your story might be great, it's not like breaking Watergate. Those chances are few and far between.

So what does all this mean? Well, you know those people that get in line and fill stadiums just to get a shot at auditioning for American Idol? Yea, that show. The one where you need to nail your audition...30 times in a row. That's what it's like to pitch the media these days. As a PR, you have to be dead on...all the time. You have to have a great story line, great spokespeople, fit into a larger trend and make the reporter look like God in front of their editor. Even then, you need a little bit of luck and great timing in order to get your story placed.

Well, maybe I am being a bit dramatic. Then again, maybe not. Try giving a reporter at the New York Times a call and let me know what you think.

You probably have a better shot at making it to Hollywood than placing your story. Read more!

For the most part, Dan Shaughnessy pisses me off, but today he got it right

Sports columnists are the worst type of journalist. They can have you carrying the rally cry one day and ripping your heart out in pain the next. For me, Dan Shaughnessy typically is a half empty sort of columnist. He's the, "now that I've read this, I want to jump off the Tobin Bridge" type of columnist. I am convinced that he coined the terms, "It's over," and "Wait 'till next year" as they relate to the Red Sox (prior to 2004 of

I swore I saw some pigs flying this morning or heard a report that hell froze over because in today's paper, Mr. Dan has a column that's right on the money. It's a great piece of writing and is one of those stories that encapsulates a big sporting event like the NBA Finals without actually talking about the details of a game or player profiles.

I must admit, I do question whether or not he was actually in Faneuil Hall that late at night/early in the a.m. (never mind talking to the ghost of Red Auerbach).

There would be less people jumping off the Tobin and having mental breakdowns if Mr. Dan conjure up more of these types of stories where he truly showcases his writing talents.



Read more!

Beth Daly's Globe piece about "Not as green as they claim to be"

I was waiting for this story to hit the papers. Just a year ago, I started this gig at MS&L. That's when the PR machine started to really rev up in terms of everyone and anyone promoting their green initiatives. It's nice to see some real journalism being produced at the paper that was once on top of the media world (well, maybe in their own mind, but at least a top five US daily).

Basically, my friend Beth (yes, I know her), pulls the card of some companies/orgs that are pumping their chests about "going green."

One of the more aggressive ad pushes about "green" has been around the Chevy Tahoe. It takes two graphs before Beth pulls Chevy's card.

But the Tahoe gets only about 20 miles per gallon - not much better than the nonhybrid Honda Pilot SUV, which also seats eight. The celebrated Toyota Prius gets around 46 miles per gallon.

Ouch.

Double ouch.

The slaps on the forehead keep coming:

Few companies out and out lie, but they often use vague terms with no defined meaning, such as "earth friendly," or tout an environmental benefit while leaving out the environmental harm their product can cause.

She's absolutely right. It's a PR ploy. The media is covering anything and everything green so why not hop on the bandwagon?

Like I said, good work Beth. Keep these money hungry "eco-friendly" companies on their toes. Good work. Read more!

Herald apologizes for bogus reporting on spygate

In a classless display of, err, journalism, the Herald reported today that they ran with a bogus source that lead to a story THAT GOT NATIONAL ATTENTION about the Pats allegedly video taping the Rams walk through the morning of the Superbowl. Apparently, the "source" wasn't reliable, but they ran with it anyways. So this morning, after all the hubub about the Walsh meeting, we wake up to this headline:



I know the Herald isn't know for pulitzer prize winning journalism, but come on guys. Don't you check your sources? Hello attribution? Are you there?

How can you run with a bogus source planting a story that YOU KNOW will get national attention. Actually, I know the answer to this already:

TO GET ATTENTION AND SELL PAPERS.

Morons. Read more!

Blacklisting PR firms

To those outside of the PR/journalism/social media realm, you're going to be bored with this post. Don't both reading more. For those of you who are, please continue to read. Believe me, it won't be a waste of your time. I have some pretty poignant comments to make to both PR hacks like myself and scribes.

Sorry, maybe this isn't a ground breaking post, but rather my simple-minded thoughts on something being discussed in the blog/pr/social media world these days.

A massive part of the existence of PR hacks is to get media coverage for clients (and sometimes avoid it). Selling ground breaking widgets? Hired a new controversial CEO? Think you've created the best bread slicer in history? Whatever the "story" is, clients want to get media lovin'. They want heaps of it. They want it now, not later. They want it above the fold, read by millions, in front of customers/potential business partners...it makes them look like king tut. The point? They want coverage and it's our - PR hacks - job to get it.

Sounds like a pretty fun gig, right? Should be pretty easy to do, right? Just pop over an email, come up with a catchy subject line, slap together a few witty graphs, stitch in a press release and you're good to go, right?

Maybe this is true for the dot-com, www.4realmen.com, days. Not anymore. The media landscape has changed dramatically. There are no clear lines as to who is a journalist and who is a hack. Some hacks ARE journalists. If you're reading this, then I guess you could call me a SMS - social media scribe (you heard the term here first).

The changes in the media landscape have fueled the scribe/PR battle. The social media world is now is now blazing with talk about blacklists and using gmail filters to give hacks the heisman.

Now, by no means and I sticking up for my fellow hacks or slapping the hands of scribes. Here's my point to this waste of cyber space: can't we just all get along?

Kidding.

Seriously though, here's the deal as I see it.

SMS's are being bombarded with bullcrap pitches from everyone and anyone. I can understand their frustration and the move to blacklist or filter out hacks. At the same time, I know where the hacks are coming from. They have real pressures coming in the form of clients who want coverage and no excuses. Pressures that in some cases, mean employment with benefits or flipping burgers at McDonalds.

There needs to be balance in the force. Here's how we can make it happen - "we" as in SMS's and hacks. It'll be like the good and bad sides of the force coming together to make a better galaxy. So, without further delay, here are my three key steps that should help SMS's and hacks play together nicely in the sandbox:

To SMS's:
1. Respond - I know you can't respond to each hack email, but for those that are on target in terms of the focus of the pitch, yet you're not interested, reply back to the hack and politely say, "Thanks for the pitch. I'm not interested at this time. Keep the ideas coming. Thanks!"

2. Educate - To those that bark up the wrong tree, give them a second chance, but tell them that they f-ed up. If it happens twice or three times, put them in the filter bin.

3. Share - give us hacks a bit of insight as to what you need from us. It's all a guessing game, but if you take a bit more guessing out of the game, then we can be more in tune as to help. Maybe post a "here's how to pitch me" item - a road map or sorts, so we will be on target (or at least be in position to).

I know, this is asking a lot because once you bend over for one person, you gotta do it a million times a day. In the long run though, don't you think you'll get better pitches and smarter sources?

To hacks:

1. Think - Think about what you're pitching and who you are pitching it to. Think sniper, not shotgun. Be smart about what you're pitching and ensure that it is right in the wheel house of the person you're pitching it to. These folks don't have the time to read BS pitches. Think before you hit the send button. Think as a journalist. Are you giving them everything they need to make an intelligent decision about your story? Is it even a story? Just think. For the love of Pete, think before you hit the send button.

2. Communicate - To be part of the conversation, you need to engage. You need to be part of the conversation. SMS's will take you more seriously if you're blogging, are on twitter, understand their world. Don't always pitch. Ask about their family. What they drive. Where they grew up. Went to school. Anything, nothing, everything...just communicate. Be a human and communicate. Stop being a PR robot. Build a relationship with your contacts by communicating and coming to them with something of substance and be reliable. Clear communication is the building block to a fruitful SMS/hack relationship.

3. Share - Hacks need to do a better job at sharing their wealth of resources. It shouldn't all be about your clients media coverage. Provide sources to scribes even if it's not a client source. Share you expertise even if it means you'll get no kudo's for it. Help a reporter out, is what I'm trying to say. Be helpful and it will come back to you. Trust me. I've been doing this long enough to learn that it does pay to play.

So there you have it, words of wisdom from the big guy. It's not brain surgery. It's really just common sense when you think about it.
Read more!

Can you die from over-blogging?

The Time has a piece today about the burdens of blogging for those that do it professionally or at least get paid for it. The question posed, is blogging coming at the expense of our health, mental stability and, gulp, life?

Two weeks ago in North Lauderdale, Fla., funeral services were held for Russell Shaw, a prolific blogger on technology subjects who died at 60 of a heart attack. In December, another tech blogger, Marc Orchant, died at 50 of a massive coronary. A third, Om Malik, 41, survived a heart attack in December.

I love blogging. I love social media. I love following the trends. I love writing about them. I love interacting with smart people online. That's why I do it. Not because I get paid to do it (though I think that would be cool). I guess if I was in the "I get paid to blog" category, I would want to be the type that visitors were interested in my style of writing, my online personality, my wit, my jokes, my honesty, etc. I wouldn't want the pressures of being a breaking news blogger. No more are the days that you pick up the newspaper and there is "breaking" news in it. Breaking news happens all the time and by the time it's actually covered by the print media, it's old news. If any outlet has it the easiest, I guess it's broadcast. They can shoot and throw on the tube within seconds. Then again, they have to have the footage. If not, then we're just looking at talking heads.

Same goes for the social media reporters. It takes them a little time to gather their thoughts, write the post, quickly edit, and then go live.

However, micro-blogging sites like Twitter have now changed the game completely. All you need is a good story and 140 characters and you're breaking news. Check Mashable for an example of that. They are always breaking tech news. Steve Garfield and Steve Rubel are two other examples.

So while blogging is fun, informative and a great source for all the news that's fit to print, I don't think it's a real cause for people kicking the bucket. It might lead to unhealthy eating and abnormal sleeping habits. People just need to get a grip. Let's be smarter about what we are writing instead of always trying to beat the other guy. Yes, we need people to cover breaking news, but there has to be a balance of writing smart posts that really add to the value of the story versus pumping out 140 characters just to gain ad revenue. Read more!