USAToday Points to the Newspapers of Tomorrow
For those of us in the PR business, this story pretty much sums up where the news media world is headed.

USA Today's overhaul cuts 35 newsroom positions

The AP describes the carnage at the paper saying that USAT is de-emphasizing "... its print edition and feeds more content to mobile devices."

But it's the sixth paragraph that really speaks volumes:

"With the print edition selling fewer copies and less
advertising, USA Today is reshuffling its editors, reporters and
photographers so they will be in a better position to produce information
more quickly and develop story packages more likely to appeal to the growing
number of people who are getting their news through mobile phones and sleek
computer tablets ..." -- AP/Michael Liedtke, 10/6/10

Well there it is. If you think PR had a hard time getting credit for what it does and putting a value on what it's worth, as the Bard said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

If PR pros can no longer equate a story's column inches to an equivalent sized advertisement, then what should a news placement be worth (especially when that clip is a digital image on a 2 by 3 inch screen)?

Should an electronic placement be equivalent to one found in a fixed media (newspaper, magazine, website) or even a broadcast hit (TV or Radio news, blogs)?

When newspapers go the way of the Dinosaurs, we (PR pros) will know where the eyeballs will be. Don't know about your practice, but if our clients can't grasp the value of PR-produced news coverage is NOW, what's it going to be like in the future?

Will it be: "Congratulations. Your video news release has generated 1,375 viewings on YouTube. Now pay me."

To be continued....

- posted by MediaObserver @ 8:05 AM 0 comments

 
Journalist or Celebrity. Please not both.







- posted by MediaObserver @ 7:43 AM 0 comments

 
Democracy coming to a TV near you(?)
Had a bit of banter with the good folks in the Advertising Dept. today about a news story we forwarded from Yahoo! News.

Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV - Yahoo! News

The article basically sketched out the demise of "free TV" from the American landscape, more or less. While you'd think that a PR group would find that a BAD thing for PR business (we'll get to that in a minute), we rather liked the concept from the consumer point of view.

Before you think, "How am I going to afford my TV if I have to PAY for everything on it ...?," take heart. Before things get to that point, we predict another "age" of American TV will emerge: a true Free Market structure -- emphasis being the uppercase "F" and "M." True, we'll be paying cable or satellite fees to get the programming, but coming days the power will move away from the service provider to the service consumer.

We think we'll soon be able to select cable TV programming "a la carte." No more of this "Standard Cable" or "Tier Two" or "Deluxe Level III," etc., as defined by the cable or service provider.

This will make Advertising and PR people MORE important because it'll break people down into more defined media consumers and we'll be in a position to recommend what "types" of people to buy (or influence) and more efficiently be able to target where they are with our client's messages (or news). Eventually someone will find a new use for "free" over-the-airwaves frequencies and the people with just their metal fillings will be able to pick up the broadcasts.

As Rod Serling used to say, "... imagine if you will ..." tomorrow's TV marketplace much like mobile phone plans are today: an a la carte menu of programming and bells and whistles that the consumer selects based on how they use the media. YOU would get to select what you/your family want -- and more importantly what you DON'T want. Have you ever considered all those stations that you click through en route to your desired or "favorite" station? By virtue of your monthly bill, you are paying for those unwatched "misfit" channels.

For this convenience (soon to be a "right") the providers will lock you into a contract for a specific period (but nothing approaching the bad old phone days of 1-to-3 years). Some sort of requirement will have to be instituted if nothing else to help standardize media buys (remember, this is still advertiser supported "free" TV). At this point, you would be yet paying for the service plus underwriting some of the programing.

There will probably be a minimum channel selection you'll have to make to justify running a cable line to you, and you might have to pay for installations and/or service calls.

For example, we'd select "sports": All ESPNs, or all Network sports feeds; or ideally just the sports we wanted -- say, golf, all season college and pro football and March Madness(tm), but no pro basketball, or baseball -- and sure as hell no soccer. Other people will get MMA + WWE + NASCAR, while still others will simply go with "all sports."

How about "the News"? Will it be Fox News, PBS Newshour, or one of the Networks? Does one keep CBS if for only "60 Minutes" and drop CNN (as viewers are today in droves?). MSNBC anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

We could see where the government might require consumers to receive the local channels or at least local news, plus the local city/municipal government channels, and probably C-Span. PBS would lobby hard to be included here too no doubt, but we think the large yellow Bird, a certain purple Dinosaur, a little blue Train and several rotund multicolored aliens could do much better on their own channel.

The world will see what the viewing public really thinks when consumers start paying for things and NOT paying for others. People will vote their preferences via their pocketbooks, which is real consumer power, real democracy and choice.

Mixing our metaphors, the cream will rise and the chaff will float away. If people really want to watch Bill Moyers or Bill O'Reilly, Tavis Smiley or Travis Tritt, perky Katie or doughty Diane, they'll have to select them for viewing. After all, people paid to see "The Sopranos" on HBO and the result was the best TV drama ever.

May the most popular programming win.
- posted by MediaObserver @ 2:20 PM 0 comments

 
Washington's newest verb: 'Salahi' - MICHAEL FALCONE | POLITICO CLICK
Washington's newest verb: 'Salahi' - MICHAEL FALCONE POLITICO CLICK

While reading this today, we got to thinking about how words entered our lexicon.

Comes against a backdrop of many interesting (and seemingly disparate) recent events. Does anyone doubt there will someday be a term coined for “… pulling a Tiger…”? Also noted that CBS announced that the network was bagging the soap opera production industry as they cancelled the epitome of daytime dramas “As the World Turns” after 70-some years.

Those of us pre- and post-Boomers are acquainted with the reference “as the world turns ...” (and the endless permeations of that phrase) meant to describe something that has devolved into deep drama, marital infidelity, diva or playboy shenanigans, or similar other tabloid escapades.

Leading me to wonder, will Gen Xers, Millennials, etc., know what “as the ____ turns” means if they hear it in the future? Will they blindly use it without knowing from whence it came? Will they use it at all? To test this theory, we asked our twenty-something* receptionist if she was familiar with the term and/or what it meant; she replied that she wasn’t but didn’t watch soaps all that much.

(*There’s another. Will these youngsters realize this phrase was enshrined in today’s parlance by that 1980s TV show, “Thirty-something*” which actually did include the asterisk in the title.)

Something we as communicators need to keep in mind as we craft messages for audiences younger than us in the years to come. Better run it by the receptionist.
- posted by MediaObserver @ 9:58 AM 0 comments

 
Whatever happened to CNN?
"CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks"

So reported the New York Times on Oct. 26.

The NY Times media writer (Bill Carter) might have his opinion as to what the ratings mean.

"The results demonstrate once more the apparent preference of viewers for
opinion-oriented shows from the news networks in prime time."

If I may be so bold, perhaps -- just perhaps -- it could mean that they are just tired of CNN. (the audience gasps!) At least, this incarnation.

Whether that fatigue is better described by "weariness" or "wariness" is the real predicament for the network, because one condition is far easier to respond to than the other. One is a change of personnel, and maybe a studio set. The other is a change in how they report the news and what news they decide to cover. (again, the audience gasps)

- posted by MediaObserver @ 1:38 PM 0 comments

 
Letterman's (better late) Apology

David Letterman finally did the right thing and said what needed to be said (albeit a week late), and did so (to all appearances) sincerely.

Regrettably, his mae culpa Monday night was all that needed to be said at the very outset.

It would have been better if he had said it the very next show instead of trying to laugh it away, or poke more fun at the expense of anyone who "didn't get it." Now – although it appears to be a sincere apology – Letterman's apology could also be seen as the result of pressure by CBS or advertisers (or both).

Some additional observations:

• Letterman (or his staff writers) need to realize that "18 not 14" WAS NOT the point; continuing to parse the joke into being funny if it had only specified the 18-year old only digs the hole deeper. Best advice: simply stick to "I'm sorry" and stop trying to explain who the original target was. As Letterman eventually said, it was a poorly conceived joke (whoever wrote it) and a dumb choice (Letterman's alone) to actually use it.


• The lesson to be understood is that most people didn’t think the joke would have been funny even if he had specified it was about the 18-year old daughter. To a lot of people, just because she's 18 didn't make being joked about getting "knocked up" in front of millions on TV (and millions more in subsequent news coverage) any more acceptable, classy, or amusing. SOMEone on Letterman's staff should have recognized this (a woman?) and questioned the "joke."


• This cautionary tale warns all of us to be cognizant of the possible collateral damage that can result from today's divisive political rancor from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps Letterman's joke writers subscribed to the "conventional wisdom" that such statements are uttered only by conservative talk show hosts; it must be a surprising revelation to the comic and the Late Night staff that they are not only just as capable -- but also just as likely -- to say hurtful, derisive, and politically toxic things from time to time. And perhaps that is what truly took the week to figure out.
• Lastly, the Indiana-bred Letterman ignored a simple test that has served him well countless times in that 30 year career he mentioned --what would Mom say?

None of this means we should chill "free speech" -- it just illustrates that we have a responsibility for that speech, and just as often, have to be prepared for the response that speech engenders -- good, bad, and the ugly.

- posted by MediaObserver @ 8:52 AM 0 comments

 
Bank on it: a real world lesson in image repair during a Recession
A recent e-newsletter brief from MediaPost's Media Research Center is headlined, "PR Outranks Advertising in Improving Consumer Confidence in Banks." [Original source is from a Neilson News blog post from Nielsen IAG.]

While we at OEA PR are always happy to hear about the discipline getting its due respect, the article is an important "teachable moment" for most enterprises (aside from banks) about marketing during a recession.

Indeed the article speaks well for BOTH Advertising and PR, finding that consumers who see their financial institutions putting out Advertising felt "very confident (55%)" about the firms, and that the leading factor boosting in boosting their confidence "... in the safety and soundness of their financial institution, ... (was) reading positive stories in the press about that institution (44%)."

The PR finding isn’t really "news" (excuse the pun) to those of us in the PR biz. This article reported data consistent with similar studies done about PR over the years for many different industries, various concerns and even political candidates. People tend to believe PR more than Ads because of the intrinsic “third party endorsement” that news editorial is perceived to have – that’s why press coverage is so coveted.

Being coveted and being valued are not necessarily interchangeable when it come to Public Relations. In the business sense, PR’s problem resides not its perceived value, but quantifying that value. At the risk of being brutishly simplistic, PR is: A) hard to measure, B) predominantly out of your control, and C) can’t be guaranteed. [This is true for simple news coverage/publicity, as well as nuanced activities such as community relations or environmental stewardship.] Hence, putting a price tag on it is a squishy science.

In a sense, PR is very much like insurance: one knows inherently, intellectually, and rationally that such a purchase makes good sense and is a worthwhile investment; but then many other distractions demand more immediate and/or are emotionally more tantalizing. Then BOOM, comes the day -- like today -- when you need "it" (insurance or PR) but don’t have "it." Then come attempts to get some quick and "on the cheap," followed by the inevitable regrets and second-guessing “if I had only….”

Which brings us back to today's business climate. The Nielsen report is demonstrative of the over-arching “don’t-make-the-mistake-of-cutting-marketing-during-a-Recession” argument.
As this story shows, when you are out-of-sight, you soon become out-of-mind. And worse, less trustworthy.
- posted by MediaObserver @ 6:13 AM 0 comments