Category Archives: Media

The social media release is not a PR panacea

Posted on by

In the first few weeks of my new job at readMedia, I’ve been learning tons about the role press releases play in our clients’ local media relations strategies. Although many PR and media bloggers have decried the death of the press release in favor of new tactics like the social media release, from what I’ve seen so far those claims are quite premature.

All the discussion about social media releases seems to come from the perspective of big brands launching new products and trying to get feature coverage. It was no different when I was reading Putting the Public Back in Public Relations. From Chapter 8:

Most news releases are driven by product development, which can cause an inward and narrowly focused view from life inside the company.

But thousands of PR and communications professionals just don’t work in this kind of environment. Many of them work for organizations whose activities form the basis of bread-and-butter local news stories: non-profits, schools, governments, small businesses. (A recent Pew Research Center study found that three-quarters of local news is triggered by government and schools.) The PR strategy at these organizations isn’t focused on trying to get consumers or B2B customers to buy their product and thus aren’t putting out the kind of releases that PPBPR (rightfully) lambastes:

Company X Launches World’s First, Industry-Leading, Innovative Thingamabob That Will Change Our Lives for the Better

The news these organizations are making is the kind of news that likely used to be covered by a local newspaper or TV beat reporter: the results of a state agency investigation or the growth of a local college. But as newsroom resources dwindle, local journalists are relying more on well-crafted press releases to alert them to and help them tell stories. And we all know that often press releases are given a quick copy edit (or not) and reprinted, sometimes in their entirety, as news.

Where the SMR falls short

What the social media release encourages is “atomizing” content into bite-sized pieces so that bloggers and journalists can reassemble it. This may work for a journalist at Fortune or a blogger at Engadget who wants to dig into a trend or review a product, but a city desk reporter at a local daily or the publisher of a suburban weekly often just wants solid, relevant content they can quickly post or publish. They don’t want to have to piece together a story from bullet points, quotes, images and video.

I’m not knocking the concept of a social media release, entirely. I hold great respect for Todd Defren and Shel Holtz and others in the PR profession who’ve developed and worked to refine the concept. I absolutely think many components of SMRs are vital for PR pros to adopt: making sure releases are posted online for purposes of public viewing, search indexing and social network sharing; enhancing stories with multimedia content when appropriate and available; and providing links to additional resources are all important ways to augment a story.

But I just don’t think an SMR is the best approach for every organization – especially locally-focused ones. A lot of the hype about the SMR seems to be built around using it as a tool for news like product or campaign launches (like the Crayon/Coca-Cola example cited in PPBPR). That’s a very narrow slice of PR.

While the SMR isn’t necessarily supposed to be a replacement for traditional releases, there’s still a lot of argument about which is better and which will “win out.” The SMR may eventually become the superior choice for communicating certain types of news, but I still think it has a long way to go before unseating the traditional press release (enhanced for the digital age, of course) as a source of local news content.

While I was skiing: The 10-day media lowdown

Posted on by

I was on vacation last week and then had a quick family trip home, so I missed out on a whirlwind week of media news. Perhaps that’s why it’s been hard for me to get back into the swing of blogging this week: I feel as though everything has been discussed to death. I’ve also barely made a dent in my Google Reader (the “mark all as read” button is looking more tempting each day).

Here’s what the rest of the media-obsessed world was focused on while I was on the slopes, and what those conversations looked like to a relatively disengaged observer:

Super Bowl

More specifically, Super Bowl commercials. I still have only seen a handful of them. It seemed there was more news before the Super Bowl about who wasn’t advertising (Pepsi) and whether that was “risky” or not. From passively scanning my Twitter stream, the Google ad seemed to be a hit. The Tim Tebow ad generated controversy primarily for not being as controversial as many thought it would. I saw a lot of chatter about the lack of pants in a few ads (hmm…). Overall, it didn’t seem that people were too jazzed about the commercials this year, which this Huffington Post article seems to concur with.

Google Buzz

Goodness were people ever up in arms about Google Buzz! From a few brief checks of Twitter you’d think the Interwebs were under siege from Palo Alto. The main issues I saw people frustrated with were privacy issues, the lack of filtering/overabundance of information, and the muddling of GMail with other social outposts. So many people rained on the Google Buzz parade so heartily that by the time I got back home and had the option to check it out or “turn it on”, I didn’t even bother. I may revisit in a few weeks to see if I have any use for it (thought based on my comatose use of Google Wave so far, I’m not sure it’s the ticket for me).

The Olympics

Consensus: NBC totally sucks at covering them. NBC is refusing to broadcast events live in hopes of forcing people to watch taped segments during primetime to please advertisers. That leaves Twitter, blogs, and countless other Web sites to act as spoilers during the afternoon. Not only is the coverage bad, it’s late and it’s old news when it airs. ComputerWorld had one of the better pieces on why NBC is “against the Internet” in terms of Olympic coverage.  I’ve missed almost all the coverage so far.

I did see a lot of disgust and surprise from those I follow on Twitter that networks would (repeatedly) show graphic footage of the Georgian luge athlete’s fatal crash. I share the disgust, but not the surprise. Sensationalism rules TV news these days, and just as we saw graphic and tragic images from the Haiti earthquake, it was inevitable that news channels would broadcast this video. I don’t think they needed to do it as frequently or callously (apparently CBS showed the crash in slow motion), however. Other Olympic story lines I passively observed: Whales (but not fail whales?) were the highlight of the Opening Ceremonies. The weather in Vancouver is abysmal. Shaun White needs a haircut.

Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines

I watched the initial Twitter outrage against Southwest Airlines for how they grievously wronged director/actor Kevin Smith, and then saw the negative sentiment gradually shift toward Smith himself as he continued to berate the airline after they had pretty openly addressed the issue and made apologies via their blog and other channels. Some, like Sonny Gill, even seemed to think that Smith was bullying or antagonizing Southwest.

It would have been very interesting to see how this would have played out differently had it been Delta (the airline that lost my luggage twice on my vacation and caused me to spend a less-than-glamorous evening in a Romulus, Mich. Best Western instead of a Utah ski house) or American or United. Those airlines certainly don’t have the customer loyalty or goodwill that Southwest has built up. I think much of the reason SWA will be able to weather this is that they’ve taken the time to build a positive reputation among customers who are perhaps going to be a little more forgiving of this incident. I liked Adam Kmiec’s dissection of the situation and Southwest’s response.

So, that’s what the Web world looked like to me over the last 10 days as I scanned Twitter and Facebook and blogs here and there to try and remain somewhat connected. What else did I miss?

Can “sponsored journalism” really work?

Posted on by

If you still even subscribe to your local newspaper, you’ve probably noticed that it’s getting thinner and thinner. What once would have passed for a phone book is now, at best, a placemat. Even if you consume your news online, news organizations are having a harder time keeping reporters on staff as they struggle to cover overhead and stay afloat.

So it’s perhaps not a surprise that some organizations are taking matters into their own hands, as the Los Angeles Kings hockey team did earlier this week. According to the New York Times, the team has hired a reporter to write (autonomously) for its Web site. I encourage you to read the full article and noodle on it for a bit.

Is it any different than providing your own corporate content?

I’ve struggled internally with whether this approach is good, bad or even sustainable. Obviously the Kings recognized that its fan base is hungry for news but that traditional outlets no longer have the means to provide it. So the Kings have decided to create news for themselves.

Initially, this may not appear any different than having an internal communications person develop and produce news stories for an organization. It reminds me a bit of what Lee Aase has been doing at Mayo Clinic: Don’t just pitch the media, BE the media.

However, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. Rich Hammond is not employed by the Kings to tout the company line and craft messages that are complimentary to the organization. He supposedly has complete editorial control over the content. Essentially he’s a “sponsored reporter.”

But I question how successful this approach can be. If Hammond’s stories are too complimentary or give the Kings a pass too frequently, will readers write him off as “working for the man” and simply regurgitating the party line?

Could you square off against the organization that’s your livelihood?

Is he really going to feel comfortable taking a hard tack against the organization that provides his paycheck each week? What happens if Hammond uncovers evidence of cheating, doping or other foul play within the organization? Will readers trust that he’s reporting the full story and not covering up details at the behest of the organization that pays him?

The New York Times piece suggests that readers are smart enough to distinguish between reporting and public relations. I don’t doubt that’s true, but I do wonder if it will mean that Hammond’s “reporting” is slightly less forceful than it would have been at an indpendent news organization. Hammond himself claims he’ll continue to write just as he would if he were a reporter.

It’s one thing for a company to internally produce content (blog posts, news releases, video, podcasts, etc.). Readers know that this content specifically comes from within the organization and can judge for themselves how much “messaging” is included in this content.

But in the case of the LA Kings, that line becomes blurred. Hammond isn’t strictly a corporate communications professional working with the best intrests of the organization in mind, but he’s also not strictly a reporter who doesn’t rely on the organization he covers to pay his bills and feed his family.

What do you think about this hybrid model? Will readers trust it – or even be able to distinguish reporting from PR? Could it work for certain types of organizations but not others?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments – I’m still working this one out…

Local news station’s Twitter strategy: Tonight at 11

Posted on by

I follow the Twitter streams of all five local news stations in my area. (Yes. Five. The Albany area has less than a million people but five local TV stations each with 5+ hours of news coverage a day. Really, not that much interesting stuff happens here. But that’s another post for another day.)

Three of the stations use Twitter solely to send out automated tweets with links to their news stories. Sure, these stations can say they are “on” Twitter, but I don’t think automation like that adds much value.

The two others stations are much more interesting. The local CBS affiliate allows its field reporters all to post to the account, so you often get a sense of how they go about tracking down stories based on watching the feed. They share lots of links but not all are to news stories; some are just interesting tidbits about the area.

RooneyThe NBC affiliate, WNYT, also does a good job of giving a human voice to its Twitter feed and not just automating the account. I met Chris Rooney, who manages the station’s Twitter account, at Social Media Breakfast Tech Valley and reached out to him to get a better sense of how they go about managing the social media strategy at the station. Here are some excerpts from my e-mail interview with him:

On getting started with Twitter

“Our experience with Twitter started in January, just before the big Twitter boom.  We sent Benita Zahn [6 p.m. anchor] to Washington, D.C. to cover the inauguration and wanted to her to post to our site from the road.  It seemed too cumbersome to expect her to lug around a laptop and login to our CMS in the field.

Our creative services director, Rob Madeo, and I had both dabbled a little with Twitter on our own at the point and we both thought it would be a good solution for Benita.  So I set up and account for her and she tweeted from the inauguration via text messages.

About six weeks later, we sent [sports reporter] Andrew Catalon to Ohio to cover the Siena Saints in the NCAA Tournament and decided we wanted him to tweet from to road too.  So we set up an account for him and likewise I encouraged him to continue tweeting upon his return. Rodger Wyland [sports anchor] appeared interested in all this.  So we gave him an account too.”

On moving away from the “glorified RSS feed” Twitter model

“Shortly after the inauguration, I set up a general WNYT account.  Initially it just regurgitated our local news RSS feed.  But early on we started to not only post original tweets, but to also retweet others and even pass along links to other news outlets, for example an interesting article from the New York Times.  This made our Twitter feed feel like it served more of a purpose than just being a glorified RSS reader.  It just seemed like the proper use for it.  After all, we’re in the information sharing business.”

On using Twitter to cover breaking news

“The Buffalo commuter plane crash and the Binghamton shootings really showed us the power of Twitter for a news outlet.  These were major breaking news events and we were able to quickly and easily pass along rapid updates as the stories developed.  We also passed along relevant links we had dug up, like Google Maps street views of the locations involved or sites were you could listen to police scanner transmissions.

Likewise, Twitter proved an effective way to keep people up to date in real time with the developments during the craziness in the NY State Senate this summer.”

WNYTsenate

On ditching what doesn’t work

“Early on, in addition to sending out news updates, we used our feed for promotions – telling people what was coming up on the 5 p.m. news or that there was a new episode of 30 Rock on tonight.  But we gave up on that pretty quickly.  I got the sense that our followers wanted to know what was happening right now, not a tease for what was going to happen later on.”

On managing the flow

“Right now I’m pretty much in charge of Twitter at our station with help from a few other people.  I post our tweets and follow numerous other feeds (I use Twhirl mostly) and quickly alert the newsroom when I see something interesting (we’ve picked up a few story tips this way).

I also encourage our reporters and photographers to take pictures in the field and send them to Twitpic.  We’re starting to do more of this, although I wish we were doing it even more often.

WNYTtwitpic

I’ve been a little reluctant to pass out our Twitter password to everyone in the newsroom.  That makes tweeting from the field difficult for our reporters.  But now that I’ve figured out how to get around that by using a TwitterMail account I hope to have everyone tweeting on the main WNYT account soon.  For a lot of our staff, it’s still something a little new and foreign to them, but hopefully that will change.”

On single vs. multiple Twitter accounts

“We’ve had an interesting internal debate over the value of individual accounts or having one central one.  For example, you’ll note that Rodger, Andrew and our back-up sports guy Mike Levin all have individual accounts (Mike set his up on his own).  We were going to do that for our weather guys too, but instead decided to create a single “First Warning” account for them all to share.

There are two schools of thought on this.  I guess the thinking is that it’s easier for people to only have to follow one feed and it reinforces the First Warning brand.  Personally, I prefer letting them have individual accounts.  I think it helps personalize our talent and gives people a chance to feel connected to them.  I guess you can make an argument either way.”

On using Facebook, too

“We also maintain a WNYT Facebook page.  I launched that not long before Facebook redesigned the public profiles.  When I created it, I wasn’t really sure what to do with it.  I was mainly just staking our claim in the Facebook world.  As with Twitter, I initially set it up to send a feed of all of our stories to the page.  I was never really pleased with how that worked and started picking and choosing stories to post by hand instead.

Even still though, I was posting a lot – maybe too much, especially when it came to the harder news stories.  It was my wife who actually pointed out to me that people mainly use Facebook for fun, to socialize and escape.  They don’t want to see news about the fatal fire showing up on their start page.  So with that in mind, I started being much more selective, posting the stories I think are mostly likely to spark a conversation or that people will find particularly interesting.

WNYTFB

Facebook has also proved helpful during severe weather events, giving people a place to share photos and videos of the hail storm or the flooding or whatever else Mother Nature is dumping on us this summer.  These photos always seem to generate a lot of “likes” and comments.”

Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to share how WNYT is learning and navigating the social media waters.

What are you seeing in your local markets? How are local TV news outlets engaging with you via social media in innovative ways?

(Update Aug. 14 — A few folks have pointed out to me via Twitter that Albany’s local ABC affiliate, WTEN, is also using Twitter beyond just an RSS feed. They post links to stories and also weather reports and updates from certain reporters. Thanks for clarifying).

Will YOU still have it when you’re 89?

Posted on by

Today White House Correspondent Helen Thomas celebrates her 89th birthday. After starting her journalism career in 1942 (when my grandmother was just 17), Thomas is still at it, now as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.

When Thomas began as a reporter, most American households didn’t have a television. Network newscasts didn’t exist yet, let-alone the 24-hour cable variety. And the Internet? Still decades away. The first bloggers weren’t even glimmers in their parents’ eyes yet. A tweet was something birds did.

At the speed technology moves today, most of us have a hard time imagining what things will be like in six months, let alone 10, 20 or 60 years. It’s impossible to predict what the media landscape will look like when I’m 89, should I make it to that age.

It can be overwhelming for PR professionals trying to keep up with new tools and trying to figure out what’s useful and what’s a fad. Should I create a blog for our organization? Is Twitter the right platform to share company promotions? Should we invest the resources in creating video? Is SecondLife still worth it? How do I reach customers on their mobile devices?

But adapting, learning and innovating is what makes us professionals. It’s what helps us grow and lays the foundation for long and successful careers. We don’t know what’s coming next, but those of us who are smart and talented will have no problem taking exciting new technologies and running with them — integrating them into our communications strategies or coming up with altogether new ones.

Because in the end, the fundamentals of communicating and interacting with people won’t change, regardless of what crazy new technologies are cooked up by the time we’re all 89. People respond to genuine messages no matter the medium. They want personal, meaningful connections and interactions. They don’t want to be lectured. They don’t want to have to sort through jargon to get to facts. They want to feel like people care about them.

The channels in which Helen Thomas’ stories appear today are far different from what they were her first day on the job in 1942. The channels we use for communicating will likely be just as different for us when we look back on our long careers — or even when we look back in five years’ time. But as long as we continue to challenge ourselves and our organizations and remember those communication fundamentals, we won’t be witnessing the technology passing us by. We’ll be able to harness that technology to help us do what communicators have done for decades: reach people.

helenthomas

Happy Birthday, Ms. Thomas.