Scoble's Finally Caught Up

A little more than a year ago (maybe it was 2, I can't remember) I stood in front of my PR firm telling them of all the sites and information sources they now had to track. I also gave them a peak at what I'd been thinking most about: filters.

Most of the people walked away from that session shaking their heads and saying "it's just too much information." Now they all have Bloglines accounts, run regular searches and are constantly looking for more, just to keep up.

In my view sites like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal won't go away. Not because people will use them for straight information, but because people will always need trusted information sources to help them determine what is important.

In the past I called these "filters." But I also suggested that people within the community will emerge as additional filters.

Now Scoble does as well. Though, he says he hates them.

I don't hate them, they're necessary. It's impossible for humans to keep up with the information now coming their way. Of course, this isn't limited to information. Yesterday I was talking to a top executive at Intel whose job is to help executives find ways to make better decisions. He uses operations research for it, but he noted that people have too much data to absorb and need tools to help them understand what the data is saying. It's sophisticated, but it's a filter.

Don't hate the filters, learn how to use them. They're our future.

Boardroom Ethics... yet again

By now you've seen the news about HP and its spying tactics, you've heard how disappointed the tech industry is that the "HP Way" has been thrown aside in favor of actions more fitting a spy movie.

Here is a company that had ethics built into its very core, and still managed to throw all that aside in favor of spying on journalists. And as always happens with these kinds of stories, the cover-up is worse than the original story. In fact, even HP admits that the leaks weren't damaging, but they just wanted them to stop. Now people have a whole new perception of the company.

I have, on many occasions, called for some kind of ethical advisor in the boardroom. Shel Holtz maintains that a communicator in the boardroom would have the same result. In this case he's right, every PR person know that you don't try to be underhanded with folks in the media, that's just asking for trouble.

But another issue is the basic concept of transparency. What if the board members were blogging instead of talking to reporters? Would that have changed attitudes and information flow?

The Art of the Edit

In high school and college we were all assigned reports and given a minimum page count. "Turn in a paper of between 10 and 15 pages by the end of the semester" we were told.

The problem is that people still think longer is better and technology has only made this worse.

Last night at a local camera club meeting I watched a 14 minute electronic slide show of a trip to Sicily. Picture after picture flashed on the screen, many of them quite beautiful, but many more just repetitions of the previous shot. In all more than 300 images flashed on the screen, all to a musical soundtrack that just didn't make sense. Basically this person had just started using some great new technology but had no real storytelling skills.

Instead of asking "what story do I want to tell, what pictures will help tell that story and what kind of music can help me set the mood to tell it," she instead saw some neat technology and a way to slap a bunch of things together.

The problem isn't hers alone. I tons of emails from friends and family showing pictures of their kids in a linear format. There are many solutions to this problem, including Tabblo, which lets you create photo essays. But then you have to learn how to actually use the tool. Just slamming a bunch of pictures online won't do it.

But back to writing. So many young writers err by putting everything they know on the page. This regurgitation not only creates lousy writing, but it prevents key messages from coming across, they just get buried.

The main issue is time. The more time you have, the more you can edit. Look at each paragraph, does it move the story forward? Then do the same for each word, do you need them all? Can you say the same thing in fewer words?

And when you're done, maybe that 14 minute eternal slide show can become a robust 3 minutes that leave viewers longing for more.

The Paradox of PR Success

One of my colleagues likes to point out that the PR profession is all about hearing the word "no" and that if you can't get used to being rejected 80 percent of the time, it's not for you. I think he's an optimist.

A client of mine recently wrote about the Stockdale Paradox, something I haven't thought about in a while. In a nutshell, RAdm Jim Stockdale got through POW camp by holding two paradoxical thoughts in his head: that he would eventually get through the camp and come out stronger, but had to face the harsh realities in front of him. He later noted that it was the optimists who died first, they believed they'd get out soon, but when soon didn't happen, he said, they lost hope and died.

Now, I'm not comparing PR to anything a POW went through, that's impossible. But the basic philosophy applies very well to PR. It's not that we hear "no" all the time, or that we have an 80 percent failure rate, we just need to deal with the "no" and change our notion of success.

Let's say my smal, entreprenurial client wants to be in the New York Times and they have a strong story. I may call every relevant reporter and be rejected a dozen times. They may not like the story or the timing may be bad, or their editor may have them off on some other project. That's fine, we will eventually get into the Times, and may do so again and again. And when we do we'll have a better story since we'll take the time to keep the reporter informed.

In the media relations world we build programs to focus not only on the business press, but also on vertical and trade press. For smaller companies that are trying to make names for themselves, major mentions in BusinessWeek, Forbes, Fortune and other such publicaitons are a long time in coming. It's often the technology publications that offer the best short-term media opportunities.

I've had situations with major business publciations in which it's taken more than a year of interviews and relationship building to get mentions. Eventually the payoff is excellent, but you have to be willing to spend the time and have faith that the story will eventually appear. Maybe not in the next issue, but some time in the future.

In the meantime, look at the whole PR program, not just the business-level publications. There may be some great successes in the overall program, but if you focus on one particular publication and believe they'll write about you soon, you may be an optimist.

Getting WILD

This week Boston lost one of the few stations that catered to the African American/Black/Urban audiences in this city. WILD-FM sold to Entercom communications, and quickly changed its format from R&B/Soul to hard rock.

The Boston Globe article and a Boston Herald column on the subject talked a lot about the loss for the community and how the black community (6 percent of the city's population) no longer has a voice on the airwaves.

They're right. We know the digital divide still exists, based on both economic and racial lines, but the radio waves are open to everyone. Radios are very inexpensive, sometimes even given away. So anyone can pick up the signal. Technically, the airwaves belong to the public, which is why the FCC probably should have charged the major media companies more for the digital spectrum that they practically gave away.

But alas, they didn't.

Yes, there are options, from the Internet to satellite radio. But those options are only available for a price.

This is a loss, so don't just shrug and move along. Just because you can go online and read this blog and other stories from around the world from the comfort of your home, doesn't mean everyone can.

I used to work for a wonderful little station in Rockland County called WRKL-AM. 910 on the AM dial was the place to go when you wanted to know the local news, the school lunch menus and if there were any closings. No, it wasn't as popular as WNEW out of New York City, or WLIR-FM from Long Island (they had some great progessive rock during the 80s), but it served a purpose and an audience.

Today it simulcasts polka music from Chicago.

The radio spectrum belongs to the people, it should serve the people as well. Just because it's cheap to sit a radio engineer next to a receiver, doesn't mean that simulcasting polka (or WAAF out of Worcester) serves the community.

Today I Woke up 10 Years Younger

In his book Little Children, author Tom Perrotta regularly makes reference to the Gary Condit case. That news story, in the summer of 2001, elicited a media frenzy and marked what seems to be the end of this over-intense focus on mundane matters of celebrity, sex and suspicion. Yes, there are still plenty of stories about Britney and the like, but they don't dominate the top of every newscast the way that Condit did. Perrotta put that tidbit there to place the story firmly in the pre 9/11 world, one in which we cared more about the sex lives of an elected official and an intern than much else. In a way he was declaring that summer the end of our innocence.

Today we're more concerned with the safety of air travel.

That's why I'm actually surprised at the media frenzy over the Jon Benet Ramsey suspect. Yes, I expected it to be big news. This is a story that fascinated the American public throughout 1997 mostly for its titillation factor. Dan Rather compared the story to "kiddie porn."

I turned on CNN last night to see them focusing intently on that story, and it led most of the evening newscasts in Boston. This on a night that a flight enroute from London was diverted to Boston for security reasons.

I'm not sure what to make of all this, but I find it rather fascinating. And, suddenly, I feel 10 years younger.

Promoting Elitism

I could never figure out why it was that people thought journalists lived such nice lives. I mean, we were paid nothing, worked long hours and got yelled at a lot.

But then I read the New York Times, the country's "paper of record," and I begin to understand why. As you move beyond the news pages you find yourself in sections like Styles , which promotes expensive meals, fashion that no one can afford and weddings only from those who "mean something" to society.

Take this article from the real estate section. It talks about the problems of smelling ones neighbors, something anyone who lives in an apartment can understand. But do they talk to folks in poor neighborhoods living on top of one another? Of course not:

“I feel like it’s hopeless,” said Susan Stewart, a book promoter for Monteiro & Company in Manhattan and an actress in her 20’s “exasperated” by the cigarette smoke from two downstairs apartments. The smell pollutes the den and master bedroom of the three-bedroom co-op she shares with her boyfriend, Seth Berkowitz, a 29-year-old film restorer and musician, in Jackson Heights, Queens.

“Usually on weekends when I’m sleeping in, I have the window open and get to wake up to the fresh smell of cigarettes,” said Ms. Stewart, a former smoker herself.

That cracks me up! A three-bedroom co-op? Yes, I know it's not in Manhattan, but still. And her complaint is about when she's trying to sleep in on weekends? Is that when she's not shopping for a pair of $200 jeans she read about in the Styles section? It leaves a reader with the impression that this is the crowd the reporter runs with.

If you haven't read it already, Tom Stites tackles this issue in regards to the Boston Globe in a speech he made while in Amherst.

Value of PR

PR Newswire recently put a release up for bid on eBay, a move that Karen Sams says is an interesting publicity move.

It is, but it worries me a bit. In the late 1990s when I was doing a bit of branding or a small jams and jellies company, well before eBay was known for as much as it is, my brother suggested we put the products on eBay. I scoffed, but his reasoning was simple: there's an audience with money ready to buy it, and you can easily set pricing based on what people bid.

He's right, of course. I often use eBay to determine market value for used goods, such as a camera I recently bought. I knew I was getting a good deal when similar items sold for much more than the price I'd negotiated (for eBay I'd have to add shipping , which I didn't have to pay). It's also led me to the conclusion that there are few real bargains on eBay.

So when Lee Odden pays well below PR Newswire's rates for a 400 word release, I see a small red flag. I'm not going to raise the alarm just yet, it's only one auction. But it's certainly not positive.

Trusting the Source

A constant theme of this blog has been the "trust" issue. How do you know who and what to trust when you get your information from people online? YouTube is no exception and an article in today's Wall Street Journal points out why.

A video that has appeared on YouTube showing Al Gore brainwashing penguins appears to be just another amusing video, but it may be propaganda from a DC-area PR firm working for big oil. To be fair, it could also be the work of one rogue person who works for the firm and sent an email from his work computer.

Of course, this goes to the issue of transparency. We all want full disclosure of information because, as Adam Curry says: there are no secrets, only information we don't yet know.

The fact is, being outed in the Journal is pretty bad.

I think it's great for companies to use YouTube if they're creating legitimately good content. Walk through any museum and you'll notice how many paintings are of the wealthy or of religious icons. Why? Because those with money have always sponsored the arts. They had paintings commissioned of themselves or of issues they cared about. With a little time and perspective we're able to see what makes them works of art.

In today's America corporations have they money and video is an art. So yes, corporate America SHOULD be sponsoring good art, and they want to get something for their money: a little publicity.

But be above board about it, getting found out through email trails can't be good for business.

YouTube Comes of Age

I know it seems like I've abandoned the blog, I haven't. I put it on hiatus for a while as I worked on The Garden City, the citizen-journalism venture I'm working on with Kristine Munroe. If you haven't seen it please take a look.

In any case, I've been watching YouTube come of age over the past couple of weeks. When I left for vacation on July 21, the video site was a place to go and see kids jumping their dirt bikes over homemade ramps. But now it's a place people turn to in order to find home video from the urban battles in the Middle East. Frankly, the phenomenon of Internet video telling the story of a crisis is nothing new; during the tsunami most of the video came from places like BitTorrent, but now people can add comments, tag it and make it easier to find and discuss.

Not long ago I watched a great documentary on YouTube about the idea of "Gold Farming" in China. That is, places where people play video games all day so they can sell the stuff they win online to Americans. It's called a "preview" in the title, so my guess is that a longer documentary is coming. But as I was watching it a question popped into my mind: can I trust what I'm seeing?

If I were watching NBC News, I know there is an organization behind the video that has a certain element of trust built up, one that has earned that trust with its audience. But how do I trust that this is real?

There are those who would argue that the blogosphere is self-correcting, and if this wasn't true, the comments and other bloggers would point that out. Perhaps, but it's going to take us some time to get there. And when you're watching a video in Newton, Mass. said to have been shot in China, who can help correct the record?

Regardless, there is now talk that YouTube could be purchased by a major news outlet like TimeWarner or even News Corp. Whoever ends up as the owner, and however this site makes money, I'll be watching for video from the next major crisis.

Who is a Journalist? Ask Apple

Thanks to the holiday weekend I'm a little behind in my reading. I tried to take in a bit more "real life" this weekend and a bit less of the online world.

In any case, a colleague sent me Charlie Cooper's piece from Friday about the most recent ruling in the Apple case. Basically, a blogger put out what Apple said were trade secrets, so Apple sued. At the heart was whether the blogger was a journalist and protected under California's shield.

The court held that yes, a blogger is, in fact, a journalist.

Last week Charlie Kravetz of NECN stopped by our offices and I had a chance to talk with him about the shield law he and others proposed for Massachusetts (I've written previously on the topic). They wrote the definition deliberately to include bloggers, but I still hold that it protects anyone who puts out information, such as PR people. Kravetz, of course, disagrees, saying that a court probably wouldn't hold that a PR firm could be considered a journalist.

But I guess that all depends on the judge and the lawyers involved.

Putting Up, not Shutting Up

If I'm not blogging as often recently, it's because other activities have gotten in the way. Most notably is a foray into citizen journalism along with Kristine of Krissy in Boston. Taking a page from H2oTown's book, we've launched TheGardenCity.net.

Our goal is to have a community resource for news and information in our little slice of the Boston area. Newton has a population just on the shy side of 85,000 and only one weekly paper covering it. It's a great city with a lot going on, even if you just look on the north side, which is where we're focused. We'd like to get community involvement rather than becoming the only reporters ourselves. Still, I'd love to get deeper into reporting again, doing stories on the need for a new local high school, property issues and local events.

But that's all a matter of spending time. The more people who can be involved, the better off we'll be.

I figure it's time for me to stop just TALKING about the changes in journalism and become part of the movement.

Where is the Audience Now?

One of the interesting after-effects of Howard Stern's move off of commercial radio is the boost it's given NPR. In a nutshell it goes like this: listeners who have spent years driving in to work listening to fart jokes and didn't want to pony up the cash for Sirius radio, have instead locked the serious-toned "Morning Edition" into their radio dial.

NPR knows this pretty well, as I heard a promo during a recent fund-drive that used clips from Howard Stern. Although, I doubt that means Steve Inskeep is going to be interviewing strippers.

Mark Jurkowitz isn't sure of the connection between the two shows, but I think that's the point. Retailers have already figured out that just because someone shops at Wal-Mart, that doesn't mean they avoid high-end retailers. In fact, many Wal-Mart shoppers can probably be found on Newbury Street as well. Just because they want a bargain, doesn't mean they don't have money.

In the marketing world we often try to pigeon-hole people, but it doesn't always work that way. People who like fart jokes also want to hear about Mike Wallace's career.

Is there a connection? No... and that's what makes this new media world all the more interesting.

Deluge and Desert

It's been raining.

That phrase doesn't do justice to what we've been experiencing here. When the weather forecasters start talking about rain as they normally would snow (4 inches, 5 inches, 6 inches, etc.) you know you're in trouble.

I live less than a half a mile from the Charles River, far enough to be outside of the flood plain, but close enough to be concerned about all the water. On the TV news the cameras were up where the major flooding was, as is expected. But every once in a while they'd flash up a graphic showing the list of rivers of concern and that list included the Charles. BUT, the Charles is a long and winding river. Where is the concern? Is it in my backyard? Up in Waltham? Needham? Cambridge?

The news gave me no answers. So I turned to the online presence of the local Newton paper. There I found only one thing: a blog entry asking for people with information to post. The phrase "flood us with comments" has yielded none.

I'm sorry, but this is inadequate. I think the pictures of people getting flooded out of their homes in the Merrimack Valley are horrible, and I feel for them, I really do. But what about my neighbors? Will they need to pack up? What about the people living along Cheesecake Brook (which feeds into the Charles and runs past a school)? Not information of importance to a lot of people, but certainly something of importance to me and a few hundred others around here.

Not many people know about the Newton blog, and they're not trained to become reporters themselves. It's great in theory, but getting the public involved is about more than just putting up a post and asking questions, it's about creating a resource they can use and build themselves.

More importantly, the Newton paper should be sending out reporters with cameras and feeding information online. Yes, I know it's a weekly paper, but it's time that it realized how to become a news source, not just a magazine.

For What It's Worth....

While I'm on the subject of local news, I've noticed a change in tone, recently, of the Newton Tab, it seems more relaxed and chatty. I'm not sure if this change comes from the editors, from the fact that it sold (and was previously on the block) or a conscious effort by the overall CNC group, but it's worth noting.

Also worth noting is the paper's new blog. The editors are practically begging for comments by ending just about every post with a question, which can be a bit annoying, but it's certainly a good start. I'd like to see how this develops over time.

One shortcoming the paper has long had is it's weekly publishing schedule. This means that the Newton paper regularly gets scooped in its own backyard by the twice-weekly Boston Globe West section, as well as the Metro section for larger stories. It would be nice to see the blog become a true daily news source in addition to a place for amusing commentary.

The Local News Leader?

In the middle of a Boston.com story about declining circulation there is a link for a quick survey asking "where do you get your local news?"

Now, keep in mind that the survey is online so it pretty much chooses its own audience. My guess is that a phone survey of people chosen at random would yeild different results. But when I clicked on my answer, of the 508 respondents a whopping 70.9 percent answerd "online news sources." The next in line was newspapers with 16.9 percent followed by TV at 7.1 and radio at 3.5.

I'm not surprised at the low radio number, but I am a bit shocked that even in this sample, TV came up so low.

Saving Local News

One of the things that doomed me in journalism was my misguided belief in local TV. I'd cut my teeth at a local radio station covering zoning board meetings, town board meetings and local events. I saw the effects announcements about jobs could have on the long-time residents in Binghamton, and truly believed that local TV could, if it wanted, make a difference.

The reality is, I care about a fire on my street but don't really care about the one two towns over. It may look great on TV and provide scintilating video, but it certainly doesn't offer me anything that has to do with my life. The sad fact is, I don't really watch local TV news much any longer.

But I still care about local journalism. I read the Newton, Mass. paper on a regular basis and lamented the day that two became one. Now it appears that the Herald has sold CNC (the group that runs my local paper as well as a number of others in the Boston metro area) to a midwestern group. There's some speculation on what it will mean, but I'm pretty sure that journalism will probably change, I'm sure some papers will be consolidated and others will lose staff. If you haven't noticed the speed with which newspapers are shrinking, then you haven't been watching.

But I hold out hope that this could mean great things for local journalism. Why? Because people DO want to know what happened next door, and people like Lisa Williams of H2oTown will keep them updated. Maybe more people will find these sites. Or better, maybe the sites will start doing more promotions.

Also, it's possible that the new owners will look to online as a way to distribute content that may not otherwise pay to print. So they may be willing to pay freelancers for coverage of smaller villages that otherwise would go without news coverage.

There's a problem when it comes to "local news," however. How do you define "local?" In an article this month in Commwealth Magazine, WBUR General Manager Paul La Camera tells Dan Kennedy "I just believe that if we’re going to make as full a contribution as we ought to make to an informed citizenry, part of that has to be local reporting."

But that means Massachusetts. Sure, I care about the race for Governor, and perhaps I care about some of the major power brokers in the state, but do I really care who wins in Holyoke? Not really. Even for public radio, however, audience size means something, so you need critical mass in order to make it all work.

But what does this mean on the PR side of things? Any time there are fewer outlets, it's a challenge, especially for those campaigns such as medical devices and drugs that focus on local programs.

But if people turn to the online world for these stories, then it's just another outlet.

Victim or Perpetrator?

I continue to be fascinated by the Kaavya Viswanathan story. I want to feel bad for her. I want to believe that she didn't fully understand what she was doing and wasn't trying to do something wrong. But then there is this quote at the end of a Harvard Crimson story from Salman Rushdie, from whom Viswanathan is also accused of stealing:

"I do not accept the idea that this could have been accidentally or innocently done," Rushdie told CNN-IBN, an Indian-based network. "“The passages are too many and the similarities are too extensive."”

But what I still don't understand is how she got the contract to start it all. I recently wrote a children's story and called a friend, who is a published children's author (her book spent time on various best seller lists). When I asked her about being published she told me that she, a published author, was having trouble getting her calls returned. In fact, most publishers didn't want to look at any new material from unpublished authors, choosing instead to work with known quantities, such as celebrities. There are thousands of talented writers out there all vying for some recognition, but can never get it.

So, what does that mean for Viswanathan? I think she was a marketing ploy. Her packager/ publisher saw some raw talent, figured it could make some hay with a young, attractive, talented writer who received a book contract along with her acceptance letter to Harvard. It all worked perfectly, right up until the point she was found out.

But what I can't decide is if she was a victim, or just a teenaged girl in over her head who just made a few mistakes.

Feeding Readers Ads Without Getting Burned

While listening to For Immediate Release this morning I heard the team discussing ads on RSS feeds. Specifically they talked about how Castrol was buying ads to promote its new podcast.

I was struck by the somewhat lukewarm reaction to the idea, since I've been seeing these ads for a while and, in the case of Inhabitat, bloggers Jill Fehrenbacher and Sarah Rich asked readers to change to a Feedburner feed (as opposed to the RSS feed created by the blog itself) specifically so they could sell ads.

I had no problem doing it at the time. I felt that Jill and Sarah were creating great content, I wanted to read it, having an ad was a small price. Another 300 or so people who use bloglines apparently agreed with me.

I know with me it helped that at the time they requested the Feeburner change the editors noted that they wanted to hire more writers to provide better content. It all seemed like a fair tradeoff, and one that pays dividends to readers.

But they did get a bit of negative feedback from readers, most of which blew over pretty quickly. During an IM conversation today, Jill said the bigger problem came when she tried to use partial rather than full feeds to encourage people to link directly onto the site.

"Content takes time to produce and when people read your RSS instead of coming to the site, you are basically giving away free content with very little benefit to you or your blog," she said. "When I tried [to switch to a partial feed] all hell broke loose with my readers, so I switched it back... Personally, I'd rather [readers] come to my site, so i can keep track of my traffic and use that to get more advertising, but people like the convenience of RSS."

That struck me as interesting. People were fine with getting the ads, but they revolted when their full feeds were taken away. I believe the feed change came before the Feedburner move, since it was an attempt to drive traffic back to the site.

Keep in mind that Jill is a grad student and still devotes about 20 hours a week to her blog. Obviously she's doing something right. The site measures upwards of 350,000 hits a month and, according to Feedburner, has about 1200 subscribers. Still, Jill says "But who knows, really? hard to measure these things."

Watch for Webbed Feet

My wife and I will often see friends purchase big houses, nice cars and put their kids into fancy schools. These are people with similar jobs and similar life circumstances, and we're sometimes stumped as to how they can seem to do it when we can't.

I believe that we just don't see everything. We have no idea how much debt someone may have piled up, we have no idea whether they have a trust fund, we have no idea of they have anything saved for retirement or if they're saving at all. We only see what they let us see, so it's impossible to do a true analysis.

When the Boston Globe first wrote a glowing feature about a 17-year-old Harvard student with a large book contract, something smelled fishy to me. As fishy as when I was a young, struggling reporter and Stephen Glass was the darling of the journalism establishment. He seemed to defy gravity. He did... he lied.

Now it turns out that the truth behind Kaavya Viswanathan is much more murky than the perception. It turns out her novel was "conceptualized" by a book packager and she's accused of lifting parts completely from another writer. All very strange.

This is why people hate public relations. Because articles are just a few hundred words, readers only see what PR people and reporters have let them see. Like a duck moving quietly and smoothly above the water, readers never see the webbed feet moving frantically underneath.

What's great about social media is that everyone can see the webbed feet. It fundamentally changes how PR is handled, because everything is going to be out there at some point. If you're consciously selling vaporware people are going to figure it out and it's just going to hurt more later.

If you don't believe me, ask Viswanathan.