filter by tag: media

We all know the stats – over the past decade, network news audience numbers and ratings have continued to dwindle. The three major networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have tried a variety of approaches in order to keep what audience they have and attempt to attract new viewers. The morning shows have shown more staying power, with “The Today Show” continuing to hold the number one ranking; however, hard news in the morning has dwindled, while the length of the shows grows. (Both NBC and ABC have added “the third hour” to their shows, which is mostly dedicated to celebrity news, pop culture and cooking.)

Moving Katie Couric, a morning show superstar on “Today” and the first solo female news anchor, to the “CBS Evening News” in September 2006 did little but further sink the evening news program’s ratings into a solid third place. The retirement of legendary anchors like Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings left NBC and ABC grappling with the gender, age and type of anchor that should replace them. Diane Sawyer’s more recent entre to the 6:30 p.m. slot has sparked some momentum for ABC, thought it’s still difficult to discern what one show offers versus another. The hosts may have different styles – Sawyer is known for communicating greater empathy, while Brian Williams attracts a slightly younger audience – but the formula for evening news has largely been the same. Night after night, everyone leads with the same big story regardless of the channel.

However, times may be changing. For the first time in a decade, evening newscasts have shown a slight gain in audience. One noted change that may have something to do with the ratings increase is in the format – the networks are no longer leading with the same story (gasp!). One channel may lead with a breaking story, another with an in-depth political story or another with an exclusive interview. Whether this is contributing to the slight ratings increase remains to be seen, but the networks appear to be shaking up the formula more than ever before. With the continued proliferation of social media to break news and make stories old within the time span of the evening newscast, it’s a good thing the evening news in particular is revamping its model.

Other interesting changes to keep an eye on both with morning and evening news:

“CBS Morning Show”: Two weeks ago, CBS debuted a new host and content strategy for its third-place morning show. Charlie Rose, a legendary PBS newsman who frankly doesn’t seem well suited to engage the mom audience in the morning, is now hosting what’s being touted as a “harder news” morning show, along with Erica Hill and contributor Gayle King. However, on his first days of the show, Rose didn’t appear to offer any hard hitting news at all – he conducted a relatively fluffy interview with Newt Gingrich – and covered celebrity news in the first hour, which is similar to the third hour of content on competitive shows. Perhaps this will change over time, and it’s too early to criticize the program out of the gate, but it seems CBS’s reformulation is not quite up to snuff yet.

“Rock Center with Brian Williams”: While most primetime newsmagazine programs (remember “20/20,” “Dateline”) have gone by the wayside, Brian Williams and NBC have recently launched a new show that is breathing fresh life into a relatively tired genre. Initial episodes include a mix of breaking news, with some creative content approaches and perspectives, integration of Web/social media content, as well as some light-hearted celebrity interviews or pop culture references. At least initially, the show appears to do a great job of covering breaking news in a fresh way and is integrating social media content that younger audiences should appreciate.

--Heather Breslau, Vice President

As communicators, there is obvious fascination with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement – so much so, that it became the focus of several discussion, among many other topics, during last week’s annual PRWeek NEXT Conference. Below are some themes and thoughts that emerged.

Overstock.com CEO and founder Patrick Byrne observed that the OWS movement is leaderless and suffers from a “message vacuum. It needs to get back on message. Right now it is just becoming a pool of discontent.” Janet Rolle, EVP & CMO at CNN, and Terrence Samuel, deputy national political editor from The Washington Post, concur. Rolle pointed out that “[OWS] has no clear definition of the antagonist and no clear message of what they are trying to enact or change.” Samuel observed that the initial story was a “rag-tag gathering of intense grievances but now the story is that it’s not going away.” He posited that it was “better that it wasn’t covered by mainstream media [initially] because that allowed it to become a huge social media frenzy.”

When the topic shifted to information and influence, much discussion naturally centered around online communication. Peter Rojas, co-founder of Gizmodo and gdgt, noted that the Internet has really brought a “democratization of authority and a fragmentation of influence.” This has allowed anyone to access the “collective wisdom of this community.” So, as he explained, even if your friends are not into whatever subject you are, you still have the ability to “tap into actual user experts.” No longer is communication just about reporting, but the online community is “helping people figure out what to buy and how to use it. It is a very positive community, not just fighting it out on news stories.” Yet, Bill Holstein, president of the Overseas Press Club remarked, “the advent of online has brought about a decline in quality and standards.” This is likely central to the fact that consumers now need to see a story four, five or more times before they believe it.

The topic of democratization of information and news was central to the speech by Dan Abrams, legal analyst for ABC News. “Mainstream media no longer dictates what the public gets to see. Consumers have more of a say in the brand now – brands are a democracy, not a dictatorship.” And, CNN’s Rolle agreed. “Brand is the most overused word in the English language. A brand is a tribute that is paid to you by consumers. The emotional relationship between you and consumers is the brand.”

When the future of tablets took over discussions, Gizmodo’s Rojas felt that the tablet’s “place” is still settling out. “While smartphones are ‘out and about’ and laptops are about work, the tablet can be just anywhere. It has people engaging in different ways. For example, tweeting reactions while watching TV, shopping in real time as something is viewed elsewhere.” The long-term challenge as marketers figure out how to capitalize on the tablet is to see where it lands – is it a personal device, like a smartphone, or a shared device, like a PC? Is it more in-home or equally out-of-home? In a similar vein, Duane Bray, a partner at IDEO, observed, “the distinction between online and offline is really going away, consumers don’t think that way anymore.” The tablet will likely contribute greatly to that, as the smartphone already has, allowing simultaneous online and offline interaction. Witness folks tweeting about conferences while attending and following others' comments and threads – online interaction supporting offline activities.

How consumers are being communicated to by brands, and the distinctions between owned, earned and paid media, comprised a good portion of the event. Simon Lowden, CMO of Pepsi Beverages Co., declared to the room of PR professionals that “The 30-second ad is here to stay, but US consumers don’t trust it anymore.” This has contributed to Pepsi looking at its marketing not as TV-centric, but as idea-centric – and not as control, but as collaboration. Sean Cochrane, senior analyst at Forrester Research, reported that “in 2009, 500 billion word-of-mouth impressions were made by people to other people. WOM is now a trackable earned media.” But with the advent of online communication and networks like Twitter, “six percent of adults create 80 percent of conversations; so short-term data needs to be balanced with long-term measurement.” We need to be careful not to rush to judgment when relying solely on very short-term topics and trends.

Where is this all headed? Forrester tells us that mobile is the next big battleground for agencies. But, as yet another form of communication in this increasingly blurred world of online and offline, it only makes sense that public relations and communications professionals take the lead. Carry on!

--Cici Gordon, Senior Brand Strategist

Calling all news junkies! Is there anyone who can’t get enough compelling news reports in one day? Does the 24/7 news cycle barely satisfy your cravings? Reading CNN breaking news is a daily ritual for me, and with my RSS feeds, I try to get my fill of factoids, pictures and opinions to stay well informed about the latest trends, social causes and educational campaigns.

Apparently, I’m in the majority when it comes to being hooked on headlines, and it seems the growth of mobile media is helping us news addicts satisfy our insatiable appetites. According to new research by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, people are spending more time with news than ever before; however, they are receiving it more and more in front of some type of screen.

Could it be the printing press is on its way out? Pew’s 2011 State of the Media Report finds 41 percent of Americans use the Internet to get “most of their news about national and international issues,” a 17 percent spike from last year’s report. When it comes to any type of news, nearly half of Americans get news online at least three times a week, surpassing newspapers for the first time. As a result, new online publications, such as AOL’s Patch and Yahoo! are increasing in popularity, as are niche sites like Bloomberg Government.

Things are changing rapidly, from the shrinking traditional media landscape and the proliferation of new media, to the age of instant global news reports waiting for you in the palm of your hand. But despite all of the changes, one thing should remain true: news should always drive awareness about issues important to all citizens, helping us make smarter, more well-informed decisions.

--Maureen O’Connell, Senior Account Supervisor

You can’t wait for it to come out…the big story you’ve been working on for weeks. The one your client is so excited about because it’s in the media outlet her CEO has wanted coverage in for years. The entire executive leadership team knows it’s coming, too, and they can’t wait to share it with the Board of Directors.

Then it runs, and as you read the story, you cringe:

• The CEO’s name is spelled wrong, and his age is off by 10 years
• Some crucial facts are inaccurate, including the name of the new product
• One of the key points of the story is omitted

You feel let down and you get that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. Instead of merchandising your success, you’re dreading that unpleasant conversation with the client that’s coming soon. It’s time to scramble! First, you contact the outlet to get the facts corrected online and request a written correction in the next print edition. Next, you have to assure the client the story will still have a positive impact. But, despite your efforts, deep down you know some damage has been done.

It’s an all too familiar – and modern-day – scenario in the PR world. One of the unintended consequences of downsizing in the media industry is that fact checking is no longer standard operating procedure. As recently as five years ago, I vividly recall fact-checking calls and emails for the bulk of stories I worked on with reporters. Now, I’d estimate that only one in 10 is thoroughly fact checked by the outlet – whether it’s a reporter from a traditional media outlet or a blogger. It’s not necessarily their fault because they have broader responsibilities than they had in the past – more beats to cover, more stories to file, fewer editors to help out.

Although a lack of resources is a major issue, it’s important PR practitioners not sit by and accept these inaccuracies. We work hard to pitch and secure placements for our clients, an activity core to the value we deliver. But factual inaccuracies and lack of clear messaging can wipe out, or at the very least overshadow, our hard work and the impact for the client.

We can’t eliminate these errors, but we can certainly do everything in our power to mitigate them. Here are some tips for working with reporters and bloggers to ensure your story doesn’t suffer from careless fact checking:

• Inform, but don’t overwhelm: Don’t give reporters and bloggers too many details – take the advice we give spokespeople and focus on the most important details
• Prep them before the interview: Adequately equip them with background information prior to interviews
• Clarify quickly: Follow up right away after interviews to clarify information that might have been unclear
• Don’t wait for a fact checker: Be proactive and confirm important facts via email – name and title of spokesperson, name of campaign, name of partners, goal of campaign, etc.
• Rinse and repeat: Reach out and ask if there are any facts they’d like you to confirm

What tips do you have for avoiding the inaccurate-fact blues?

--Marc Berliner, Vice President, @mberliner

In-person editor meetings and press events have always been an integral tool for introducing media to our clients’ new products and campaigns; however, shrinking editorial staffs, busier schedules and tighter program budgets challenge us as marketers to consider new and more efficient ways of presenting information to the media.

We know the average American spent 32 hours a month online last year, so it only makes sense to interact with media through the same channel. More and more, brands are taking the traditional editor meeting out of the hotel boardroom and onto a live-streaming webcast, hosting virtual press conferences. This format can effectively communicate your client’s key product and campaign messages and offer a number of other benefits.

Avoid travel and scheduling issues
While New York and Los Angeles will always be central locations for media, more and more, editorial staffs are made up of freelancers and contributors who live all across the country. Gathering your contacts in one place may prove more costly and time-consuming than you may have anticipated. Hosting an online event removes this barrier and can also attract attendees who would otherwise not be able to attend due to personal or professional conflicts. Writers and editors who may be on the road for business or away for a family trip are more likely to log on to a webcast for an hour in the middle of their busy travel schedules – especially if your product launch doesn’t always fall in a “convenient” time of the year.

Widen your reach
Most brands are eager to reach beyond traditional media and engage with bloggers and social media influencers. A webcast is a great way to present your client’s information to this audience through a medium they are most comfortable with and allows your brand to interact with hundreds of contacts at one time. This may also result in instant coverage for your clients, with attendees posting about your client’s product attributes or campaign details directly after – or during – the virtual event.

Offer more content
The options for providing content through this platform are endless. Encourage social media chatter through a live Twitter feed, deliver digital assets like photos and videos or engage in real-time Q&As with attendees from across the country. You can even provide media who were unable to attend with an archived version of the press event broadcast – something that media who attended could benefit from, as well, by having the option to revisit the information on their own time.

--Emilie Valle, Account Supervisor

Confidence in traditional media in the U.S. is down, if the results of a recent Gallup poll are to be believed. Americans continue to express near record-low confidence in newspapers and television news – with no more than 25 percent of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either.

This is a highly compelling – and frankly, somewhat dire – reminder that to create provocative, influential and successful PR programs for our clients, we have to be sure to include many different channels of engagement to get our messages to our intended audience.

We all understand the power of social media, with massive numbers of people engaging in networks from Facebook and Twitter, to Groupon, Foursquare and countless others. Building programs that can live within these networks is critical for a brand’s success and offer marketers the opportunity to get straight to the intended consumer, bypassing the need to engage traditional media to tell our story for us.

Similarly, event and experiential marketing activity is a great way to bring the brand directly to the consumer. Think about the lines of people eagerly awaiting a scoop of free Ben and Jerry’s (client) ice cream on Free Cone Day or the rush to grab free samples of 100-calorie snack packs after exiting the morning subway train.

But, we can’t ignore traditional media outlets, altogether – lest we drive those confidence numbers even lower. We all know a well-placed article in The New York Times or Huffington Post reaches millions, and the third-party credibility of a well-respected editor telling our story doesn’t hurt, either. Yet, this is exactly what makes Gallup’s recent revelations so troubling. How should this change our approach to media relations?

It comes down to doing our jobs better. We have to help editors tell our story in the most transparent, clear and honest manner we can. This means challenging our clients to give us more than marketing group-approved key messages and really getting into the meat of what makes our brands work, so that we can be fair, balanced and truthful brand advocates. It also means doing our own due diligence in following competitive brands so we can present our editors with a 360° view of our story. It means more work for us, a better pitch for our editors and a better story for their readers.

Can PR pros impact the shift of people’s confidence in traditional news media? I think we can. As brand consultants and strategists, we are in a unique position to help our clients tell better stories. And this is through accuracy, fairness and taking a few risks. I challenge us all to think about the consumer next time we write a pitch. We can impact the quality of what is reported, and we owe it to our clients, and ourselves, to do so.

--Lisen Syp, Senior Account Supervisor

Toyotas and aspirin and lettuce! Oh my! These days, everywhere you look something else is being recalled. What is a company in crisis to do?

First, take a deep breath. Second, be glad you have a crisis preparedness plan in place.

You do have one, don’t you? You should. Mid-calamity is not the time to start developing one. Take advantage of today’s peace and quiet to prepare for tomorrow’s potential disaster.

And, be sure to consider the following when developing your company’s plan:

• Act quickly and take responsibility to “contain” the crisis.
• Your organizations will be on trial during the early stages of a crisis. If you wait for every last fact before taking action, you will be convicted in the “court of public opinion.” 
• Ensure your actions are consistent with your mission and values, and don’t forget to show empathy for what has happened.
• Organizations in crisis too often focus their communications on the minutiae of the crisis, event timelines, etc. and forget to share feelings (regret, sadness) about what has happened to critical audiences as a result of the crisis.
• Review your organization’s history to find prior damaging occurrences (similar past events, active litigation, etc.) that could be dredged up or leveraged for greater impact during the current crisis.
• Agree on how you’re going to address questions about this history, the impact it has on the current event or what it may suggest (i.e., the company did not sufficiently address a past problem).
• Use the media – traditional and new media – as information resources and communication vehicles.
• Both media and online resources can help organizations reach critical audiences quickly with a message about the crisis or can help correct damaging misinformation before it has any significant impact.
• Make time for media and online monitoring as well as monitoring for feedback from audiences with which you are communicating.
• Listen to what’s being said about your organization’s response to and communications about the crisis – this information may prompt valuable adjustments to communications strategy and messaging.

--Jenn Sheehy Everett, Vice President

Two-in-five American adults read a newspaper every day. An intriguing statistic, surely, but one you likely won’t find in a newspaper. Though it might be counterintuitive, this statistic was the result of an online survey, and as such, is subject to being easily dismissed by many of the nation’s top media outlets.

Why? Some of the most venerable papers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post – the list goes on – have strict standards when it comes to covering polling research. Specifically, they “do not publish most Internet polls.” They make a fair case for exclusion, noting that populations surveyed must be based on a probability sample; that is to say, each person in the population should have an equal chance of being selected. Typically, online survey researchers draw from a pre-recruited panel to respond to surveys and then weight the sample to align it statistically with the population being polled.

Random digit dial (RDD), or telephone polling, is believed by many, at least the Times and Post staff, to be the only way to accurately recruit a survey sample that mirrors the U.S. population. That’s because anyone can be reached by landline telephone. Right?

Wrong. In fact, as much as 20 percent of the population is now considered cell-phone only, something becoming a bit of a thorn in the side of RDD proponents. The cellular population is so burgeoning that researchers are forced to supplement RDD with custom samples of cell phone-only households to boost the accuracy of their samples.

To make things even more interesting, a recent study conducted by the Advertising Research Foundation compared RDD and online methodologies to see how each stacked up against demographic data from the U.S. Census. RDD showed no evidence of being more accurate than online methodologies and even turned out to be less accurate when it came to reporting respondents’ ages and cell-phone usages. This isn’t to say online surveys are the most accurate, but they certainly aren’t as “cheap and dirty” as once made out to be.

Nearly 80 percent of U.S. households have a computer with Internet access. And it's a number far more likely to increase than landline telephone usage, thanks in part to the Obama administration's efforts to provide high-speed Internet access to all. As our nation moves closer to realizing universal Internet access, perhaps it’s finally time for media to rethink their standards.

It’s safe to say many of the media’s most influential editors and reporters are based in major markets like New York, Los Angeles or Chicago. And, while brands can be successful communicating with these reporters via phone and email, there is nothing quite like a face-to-face meeting between a brand representative and a reporter to foster a fruitful relationship.

Brands can take several approaches to these meetings:

• Deskside Tours – a brand representative travels to the offices of several media outlets over the course of a day. Reporters often find these convenient because they don’t need to leave their offices and may even feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts about what your brand is presenting. But remember, deskside tours can be time consuming for the brand representative who has to get from place to place.
• Editor Events - editors gather in one location to hear an announcement from a brand. This format allows your brand representatives to speak to a variety of people in one location, but limits the amount of one-on-one interaction. It’s valuable if there are a lot of products to share (that don’t travel well) or if there is a spokesperson who has limited availability.
• Lunch Meetings. Of course, there are always good old fashion lunch meetings, coffee and drinks. This is encouraged when brands want to foster a deep relationship with a reporter – maybe they are offering him or her an exclusive – or if the reporter is a new contact and the brand would like to build a more personal rapport.

When planning for these meetings, here are a few things to think about:

• What type of media are you trying to reach? If it’s high-level business media, a CEO or senior level executive should be a part of the meetings. If it’s a lifestyle editor, an industry expert could be valuable.
• Is the reporter in high demand? If so, you may need to get creative with your meetings or events. If you are launching a nail polish, try offering her a manicure at the editor event, or if it’s a fashion product, consider planning a fashion show.
• What do you need to be prepared? For face-to-face meetings, it’s important to have any available press materials, key messages points, background information on the reporter and his or her recent stories. It is also helpful to develop sample Q&A, anticipating any tough questions the reporter may have. If your spokesperson is new to media interviews, he or she may require media training.

While a lot of planning often goes into face-to-face meetings, brands often experience positive results and find, in the long run, they’re well worth the effort. I know I have!

--Jennifer Newberg, Account Supervisor

If your clients aren’t talking about social media, get them started now! A new study from Cision and George Washington University finds nine out of 10 journalists turn to at least one type of new media channel for story research and source information. That’s especially true for newspaper and online journalists, three-quarters of who use social networking sites for research, compared to just under two-thirds for magazine writers.

The big takeaway here is that while journalists used to go directly to the source for information, they are increasingly looking to social media to act as conduits. This means that we need to make sure our clients are participating in and taking ownership of the online dialogue and their presence across social media, blogs and traditional online media. This requires an entirely new level of rigor and in many cases, new skill sets to maintain their brand.

This could be a good opportunity to start a dialogue with your clients about the importance of online brand maintenance and reputation – beginning with a basic audit of their online presence. From there you can start to home in on the key places where consumers are talking about your brand.

Is it a sign the worst is over for the newspaper industry?

An industry that only a few months ago was suffering massive layoffs and closures now sees one of its leaders embarking on an ambitious marketing campaign. The Wall Street Journal announced this week that it will launch a new brand awareness campaign with executions across print, online and broadcast.

The paper’s first marketing initiative in three years is designed to improve people’s perceptions of the quality and breadth of the newspaper’s coverage. With the tagline “Live in the Know,” the campaign stresses the importance of moving beyond bite-sized news briefs to longer, more comprehensive coverage and analysis – like only a newspaper could deliver. WSJ hopes “Live in the Know” will appeal to readers looking to be better informed about current affairs, especially in the wake of the financial crises of the last year.

Despite the shuttering of long-established papers like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Rocky Mountain News, declining ad spend and 15,000 layoffs in 2009, refocusing on content and quality might be just what the industry needs to get back on track. Although downsizing was the trend for newspapers in 2009, Rich Boehne, CEO of newspaper publisher E.W. Scripps, doesn’t see that as a sustainable business model for the industry. "In the longer run, we will need to add (newsroom) jobs, add content and raise (circulation) rates."

For the sake of all newspapers, and those of us who read them, let’s hope the WSJ will deliver on this promise and lead by example.

Few stories over the past months have gotten as much attention as the Tiger Woods saga. And as marketing and public relations professionals, it is worth taking a look at the way this story has spiraled from a one-car fender bender to worldwide scandal that will be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This story, more than most in recent memory, has precipitated a flurry of opinions and advice from public relations professionals on how things “should” have been done as the scandal began to take shape. Some say it would have been best for him to speak publicly and put the rumors to rest – the David Letterman approach. Others argue his silence has been valuable. Still, some say the media are infringing on a hurting family’s privacy and should only be interested in Tiger Woods as a golfer, not as a family man. But for those of us whose business isn’t what is happening in Tiger’s personal life, it is worthwhile to look at the impact this scandal has on Tiger Woods the brand.

Image Credit: Examiner

Tiger Woods isn’t “just a golfer.” For many, he’s essentially the public face of golf. And he certainly is the public face of many companies who have paid millions to see Tiger don their watches, consume their products or speak to the superiority of a company, with the expectation that both deliver high standards and superior performance. His sponsorships may be based on his athleticism, but they go beyond that. And at this point, his personal brand has been turned upside down, and ultimately, the financial impact of this scandal is a real one. Some say what he does on his own time is his own business, but it is a hard argument to make when his actions could do financial harm to those that have invested hundreds of millions in his image.

As sponsors continue to “evaluate” their sponsorship deals, it will be interesting to watch how much of an impact the personal side of an athlete who was celebrated for his sports’ achievements and not for his personal life will have. Recently, AT&T announced it, too, would drop Tiger Woods as a sponsor, following in the footsteps of Accenture, Tag Heuer and Gillette, who have ended or scaled back relations with Tiger.

In today’s content-obsessed media environment few things are secret – or sacred – and it is extremely difficult for a brand (whether a person or company) to control its reputation. Reputation and credibility can be stripped away in a matter of minutes not only because of a scandal, but also because of poor communication and management during the crisis. And many would argue this Tiger Woods story is a classic way not to handle a crisis.

During the last few months, we’ve been bombarded by news coverage of purported PR “stunts” conducted by “regular folks” that have resulted in media firestorms. Whether it was the alleged White House party crashers or the Balloon Boy supposedly flying off into the great beyond, news organizations around the globe picked up these stories and ran with them. Although facing potential punishment for their actions, the people involved got what they ultimately wanted – the chance to become famous (or infamous) and a place in the popular culture Hall of Fame.

Aside from wondering how these folks actually pulled off their respective forays into the media spotlight, what is truly amazing is how quickly these stories became part of our daily lives. Now that the dust has settled a bit, we have to ask ourselves the burning question, “Why were we and the media so interested?” It seems a big part of the interest has to do with the human drama and eventual back-story tied to each stunt. As these bizarre dramas unfolded, we watched as larger-than-life stories about real people played out in real time, right in front of our eyes.

As a public relations professional, you have to wonder if there is anything to learn from all of this (aside from how far people will go to get their own reality show). It seems the big lesson is that if you surprise the media and media consumers while, at the same time, challenging societal norms (ideally somewhat tastefully and without breaking the law), you have a story that’s going to get an emotional reaction and make a big impact, good or bad. It’s the over-the-top element of surprise and the unexpected that drove these real-life human interest dramas to new heights of sensationalism. In short, they were as entertaining as any reality show or prime-time drama could ever be.

Like any good publicity stunt, it’s the element of surprise that gets the attention. Just don’t try to crash the White House or pretend that one of your family members is floating away in a make-shift balloon. It’s been done.

-- Mark Malinowski, Vice President

As I worked out at my gym the other day, keeping an eye on the bank of 12 TVs set to different channels, I was a bit taken by what I observed. Were the various stations reporting on the massacre of four police officers in Washington? Sure, a little bit. Was there coverage of retail spending leading up to the holidays, including the critical Black Friday and Cyber Monday milestones? Yes, in small doses. How about the military build-up in Afghanistan? There was a mention or two. But none of these stories were the main focus.

You’re thinking it must be something big, really big, right? Well, no, not really. The story dominating those TV sets was this: Tiger Woods won’t talk to the Florida Highway Patrol and he’s skipping his charity golf tournament this week. Really? Is that really important news – so important that stations were rolling out every analyst and expert they could find to talk about legal implications, image implications, relationship implications?

Keep in mind, this is a story that involves a single-car accident with minor injuries and no damage to or crime against other parties – unless you count that poor fire hydrant and tree. Granted, Tiger is one of the most famous people in the world. And, if as first reported, he was seriously injured, this is a pretty big story with some legs. Not to mention this story probably would have gone away by now if Tiger had done what most PR professionals would have counseled: get out in front of the story and address what happened. He didn’t, and we’ve become a celebrity and gossip-obsessed culture. The media believe this is what we want to see. So the story dominates the news.

The bottom line is that a story with very little news value or impact on our society is stealing the spotlight from big stories – stories that shed light on real issues, stories that impact us and people we know, stories that people need to hear.

What does this mean for PR practitioners and the clients we represent? Well, it just reinforces the importance of going to the media with something of value to them and their audience. We need to make news. A promotional, look-at-me sales pitch will rarely cut it, especially when we’re competing against the likes of Tiger.

Shouldn’t we expect more? Don’t we deserve more? I say we do. I want to see and read about the news that really matters.

-- Marc Berliner, Director

There’s good news for businesses online!

New media users are increasingly interacting with companies and brand in this environment. In fact, interactions are up 32 percent from 2008 with almost 80 percent (78%) of new media users engaging with businesses through traditional online or social media channels. This is according to our latest research, the 2009 Cone Consumer New Media Study.

The2nd annual new media study, an update of the 2008 Business in Social Media Study, is a three-part survey which explored new media users’ interactions with brands, their support of social and environmental issues and their engagement with corporate responsibility practices. The research also reveals new media users:

• Feel a stronger connection to (72%) and better served by (68%) companies they can interact with via new media
• Believe companies should market to them through traditional online advertising (43%, up from 25% in 2008)
• Believe they can influence corporate responsibility decisions by voicing opinions via new media channels (62%)
• Believe companies and nonprofits should use new media to raise money and awareness for causes (79%)

For additional findings, please visit www.coneinc.com/consumernewmediastudy to download the research fact sheets.

“I don’t know why anyone would pay for this when you can get it online for free.”

The comment snapped me out of my early morning haze as I was waiting in line outside a very busy Dunkin' Donuts over Labor Day weekend. The voice was coming from a fresh-faced young boy, no older than 11, who had set up a card table outside the coffee shop to sell newspapers to a captive audience of vacationers awaiting our much-needed jolt of caffeine. His words were aimed at a woman who was buying a copy of the Cape Cod Times from him. Seemingly embarrassed by the truth in the boy’s words, the woman mumbled something about not having Internet access at her vacation rental and then quickly got back in line. But his words hung heavily in the air.

At the ripe old age of 11, this young paper boy could easily see one of the fatal flaws of the newspaper industry. His words struck like a death knell for the failing industry.

Cartoon Credit: Houston Chronicle

Dogged by a tsunami of challenges, including an outdated model, the proliferation of the Internet and other news sources and rapidly dropping ad revenues and subscriber bases, the newspaper industry finds itself in the fight of its life.

As a PR practitioner, I have watched for quite some time the downward spiral of the newspaper industry. I have felt, first-hand, the impact of publications closing, short-staffed newsrooms and the loss of relationships with reporters who were casualties of downsizing. But my sense of loss seems to be even more personal than it is professional. As a bit of a news junkie, I admittedly get my daily fix of news from a wide cross-section of media – newspapers, TV, radio and online sites. Yet, I still cherish reading the print edition of the paper – mostly for reasons I can’t quite explain. Perhaps it’s the format and the ability to skim through entire sections, capture headlines and a few snippets of each article so you feel as though you are up to speed on the big stories of the day. Perhaps it’s the smell of the paper or the feel of the ink on your hands. Or, perhaps it’s that sense of accomplishment you feel when you’ve finished the last page.

I know I am not alone. There are many people, like me, who simply cannot fathom a time when we won’t have print papers. Yet, a recent Rasmussen survey published in US News & World Report indicates that many Americans are more apathetic to the change. Two-thirds of American adults (65%) think daily papers won’t exist in 10 years – and that number jumps to a whopping 83% when you ask a younger generation of 18- to 29-year-olds. Like the 11-year-old paper boy, future generations simply don’t see a need for the daily paper. Sadly, nearly a quarter of Americans (22%) say they “will miss nothing” about daily papers when they’re gone.

While the newspaper industry fights for survival and scrambles to find solutions, we must simply wait and see. In the meantime, I plan to focus on cherishing what little time I may have left with my daily paper.

-- Amy Russ, Director

A few months ago, account director Byron Calamese lamented the struggling newspaper industry, and consequently, the future of his first job -- paper boy. Now, Carol Cone, our chairman and founder, expresses her own sadness and makes a plea to save print newspapers. Read her thoughts on our sister blog, What Do You Stand For?

Many of us probably remember this popular bumper sticker from the 1990s, urging people to do their part for the environment in their community. These days, for me, the slogan speaks to how brands should practice the art of media relations in the communities in which they do business.

The “Think Globally” piece is easy. Think about all of the things going on in the world – the economic crisis, the explosion of social media, drivers keeping their vehicles longer, swine flu (the list goes on and on) – and how you can leverage these trends and topics to insert your brand into the conversation. The media are fragmented – it’s more challenging than ever to get press for your company, product or service. So, find a way to hitch your wagon to something they are already interested in. Before you pitch, think about how you can link your story to a broader trend.

What brands still need to master is the “Act Locally” piece. Despite the proliferation of online media, including the presence of even local newspapers on the Internet (in a way, making all news global), it’s more important than ever to localize your story. A generic pitch simply won’t fly 99 percent of the time, even if the story is compelling and timely. Many local media outlets are understaffed, and they just don’t have the time to localize your story for their readers, viewers and listeners. Don’t bother pitching the Des Moines Register (Iowa), the local ABC affiliate in Springfield, Massachusetts or the news talk radio station in Waco, Texas if you don’t make the story relevant to their communities.

Here are a few ways you can do it:

• Localize your materials – Make sure your pitch, press release, media alert and any other tools you use make the story relevant to the community you are pitching. For instance, reference a local statistic that supports the story you’re pitching.
• Provide a local twist – Offer the media an opportunity to speak with a company representative in their market – a store manager, a district manager or a franchisee.
• Let them hear from your customers – Media want to put a human face on a story. Provide the name of a local customer they can interview to bring the story to life.
• Use a local “pitcher” – When possible, have a local company representative send out the pitch, press release, etc. Local media are often more receptive to contact from local people rather than someone at national HQ. That doesn’t mean you can’t help manage the communication – for national initiatives, create press material templates that local representatives can fill in and distribute to local media.

Sure, localizing your story does take more time. But, it’s all about getting the best results. A well-researched, customized pitch to 10 outlets will yield more results – and better stories – than a generic pitch that’s blasted out to hundreds of outlets.

--Marc Berliner, Director

A 24-minute interview with BBC’s HARDtalk host Stephen Sackur is a hard ticket to get. But, Cone Senior Account Executive Jodi Housman made it happen, securing an interview for Timberland CEO Jeffrey Swartz. Congratulations to Jodi, as she takes the Brand Marketing group’s Clip of the Month Award for May.

Honorable mentions go to:

Aryn Ehlow for GQ’s coverage of Barbour

Lindsay Harrington for the Associated Press’ coverage of Deloitte LLP

Apparently, it’s not all gloom and doom for the newspaper industry. Amid continuous news of long-established papers being forced to fold, the city of Detroit is actually gaining a daily—The Detroit Daily Press.

This might be welcome news for media relations practitioners well-versed in the art of pitching traditional news outlets, but it hardly signals a return to business-as-usual for a media sector once dominated by newspapers. The landscape has changed. Newsrooms are cutting staff, closing bureaus and more and more, transitioning to “online-only” outlets.

Here are some quick tips for securing print coverage in these turbulent times:

• Don’t wait until Monday morning: The 24/7 online-news cycle means stories don’t have to wait for the work week to start
• Take advantage of news wires: Newspapers are losing staff and are often pulling stores right from the wire services
• Connect with reporters through new channels: Follow a reporter’s blog or Twitter page to see another side of the person you’re trying to pitch
• Consider paid PR content: Fewer staff doesn’t equal less news, meaning media may be more inclined to run with packaged content like a MAT release or satellite media tour (SMT)
• Have video content and b-roll available: Despite your efforts, not all stories will make it to print, but having video can improve chances of an online story

At Cone, we love to recognize all the hard work of our brilliant, creative staff. One such recognition is the Clip of the Month Award. Each month we honor the employee who secured the best media placement, as voted on by peers, on behalf of his or her client.

Congratulations to the April Clip of the Month winner, Maureen O’Connell, for securing coverage of FIRST—a nonprofit started by Segway inventor Dean Kamen to foster science, engineering and technology skills in young people—on ABC World News Tonight on April 20, 2009.

Honorable mentions go to:

Anjala Gulati for Working Mother’s coverage of Lindt

Aryn Ehlow for Forbes.com’s coverage of Ben & Jerry’s

Chrissy Redmond for Ideal Bite’s coverage of Guayaki

Hilary Blowers for CBS Early Show’s coverage of Lindt

Jodi Housman for The New York Times “Green Inc.” blog’s coverage of Timberland

Kimberly Leistinger for CNN.com’s coverage of FIRST

As the newspaper industry struggles on life support—with circulation and ad revenue in flux and the once lively newsroom culture replaced by empty cubicles and whispers of buyouts—I cannot help but wonder what will come of my first career, America’s other pastime: the paper route.

Popularized and depicted in movies and television as a neighborhood staple, the paperboy is now cycling down a path to becoming obsolete—replaced by online editions and virtual news aggregators. This shift has required a new way of thinking for marketers, as the paperboy symbolically served not only as news messenger, but a reliable, trustworthy and uncluttered bridge from brand to consumer. Dramatic? Perhaps—but before you read your next blog post or tweet about your morning brew, take a second and process what consumer branding and PR will look like without daily—relatively objective—newspapers.

TIME magazine recently chronicled the journalism crisis and sourced a Pew Research Center study revealing last year, for the first time, “more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines.” And excluding the Wall Street Journal, most news outlets have shied away from online paid subscription services when information is so easily accessible for free.

This all comes as no surprise to PR professionals who continue to evolve to manage an abundance—albeit highly segmented—of on and offline news space, skeleton editorial staffs altering how we “pitch” and increased reliance on often faceless and less accountable bloggers.

While the demise of traditional print journalism seems inevitable, there are those fighting for its survival. The Newspaper Project, launched in February by top news executives, is designed to empower people to talk, brainstorm and share ideas on how to save the industry. Likewise, publishing leaders are taking action with calls for anti-trust revisions allowing newspapers to collect revenue from news aggregators.

Despite the love/hate relationship between PR practitioners and reporters, we need each other—now more than ever—and it’s in our best interest to get engaged and support initiatives to prolong, if not save, the newspaper industry.

If for nothing else, do it for the few remaining paperboys.

As yesterday’s New York Times reported, Chevron hired former CNN reporter Gene Randall to create an Internet video in response to a “60 Minutes” investigation about the company’s oil pollution in the Amazon region of Ecuador and the resulting $27 billion lawsuit.

Chevron’s video lays out the oil company’s side of the debate, downplaying its responsibility for the oil waste in Ecuador’s waterways. The segment signs off with, “This is Gene Randall reporting.”

While this type of advocacy isn’t new to the arsenal of PR professionals, the reach and level of engagement is greater today with the democratization of mass communication and the proliferation of social media tools.

With corporate reputation crucial in a struggling economy, Chevron’s approach underscores the importance of transparency and maintaining stakeholder trust when developing counter-crisis strategies.

-- Jennifer George, Account Supervisor

Cone's Chief Reputation Officer Mike Lawrence also commented on Chevron's crisis response in a recent Ad Age article.

From today's eMarketer newsletter comes some very interesting stats regarding trust of various media:

- Not surprisingly, recommendations from friends (word of mouth) is #1 at 48%.

- Online news is slightly more trusted than newspapers.

- Trust of private blogs is DISMAL. (Fewer than 1 in 10 people say they are an 8, 9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10 where 1 = "don't trust at all" and 10 = "trust completely")

What does this mean?

My gut reaction is BALANCE. A balance of: online and offline media; traditional and non-traditional; media focus and direct-to-consumer buzz generation through social networks. A program that garners millions of blog impressions but does not inspire consumer trust may be less likely to move the business needle than a well executed online media relations campaign and direct-to-consumer outreach.

Mike Hollywood, Director of New Media