Using Existing Content in Different Ways

One thing I'm always preaching around the office is that we need to find new ways to use existing content. Yes, this used to be called "re-purposing" but now people don't notice it as much as they once did.

I don't mean just copying a piece of text and placing it elsewhere, but I'm talking about doing things like recording an interview with a customer, then creating both a podcast and a written case study from the same material.

I live up the street from a small, but well-known bookshop called Newtonville Books. Owner Tim Huggins has been amazing at using different media to get his voice heard. He was one of the first small, local shops to embrace email as a communications tool. Keep in mind, he launched his shop in 1999 or 2000, right around the time that the massive Barnes and Noble stores as well as Amazon.com were said to be taking over the book business. Conventional wisdom said that starting a small, independent bookstore was suicide. Well, not only is Newtonville Books still here, it's thriving.

Apparently Tim has launched a podcast series with the Boston Globe stemming from the writers that regularly come through his shop. Newtonville Books is a major place to go for readings from new and established authors, its "Books and Brews" series is awesome. It's not just a way to get a reading from an author, but you get to sit down with that author over a beer. How great is that?

Well, it seems like Tim just brought in a microphone, started recording the authors (I'm sure he has their permission), edited it down and put it online. PERFECT!

I just heard about it and haven't yet listened, but as soon as I get a moment it's going to be part of my playlist. The fact is, even though the store is up the street I still don't get time to go as often as I like. Now I can still interact with the brand when I don't have the time to go up the street.

Does Violence Have to be a Selling Point?

When it comes to watching NFL football, CBS owns the rights to the AFC games. Since we're fans of the New York Jets (the reason I have DirecTV and the NFL package) that means in our house, CBS is our primary choice on Sundays.

But the commercials often have my 7-year-old son covering his eyes and ears. For some reason the promo people believe that blood and violence sells TV shows, so a gun shows up on just about every commercial break. It's not just CSI Miami, but also Without a Trace and the entire Sunday night lineup. It's a bit frustrating to try and watch a game with your children when there is so much violence. The worst part is, I can't avoid it. Sure, I don't have to watch those shows (I don't) but I can't really help but watch the commercials, since you're never quite sure when the game will start again. The only true solution is to get TiVo and skip the ads, but isn't that the problem TV faces in the first place?

This past weekend the Jets played the Chicago Bears on Fox, so I had a chance to watch those commercials instead. Fox manages to show action-packed shows like Prison Break without all the violence, focusing instead on quick cuts, pounding music and intense quotes. That said, the promos for Family Guy had a little too much sexual content for my taste.

Keep in mind, I'm no prude and I don't believe in sheltering my children, but there are limits to even my tolerance.

That's why I'm happy that no bigger a name than Steven Spielberg agrees that the promos are way over the top.

But I would say that the responsibility goes beyond just the TV networks and extends to such properties as the NFL. If the NFL wants to continue to attract a young audience, it must put pressure on CBS (and Fox) to ensure that its programming between the programming be family-friendly. This doesn't mean halting promos but just changing the tone.

I've never been one for celebrity news...

Frankly, I don't understand why people wait hours to catch a fleeting glimpse of someone famous. They're just people who do a job.

Regardless, this weekend my wife left the TV on in the bedroom and while I was getting dressed some reporter I've never seen started talking about the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes wedding. So here is this lavish affair with celebrities coming from all over the world, and what does Brooke Shields bring?

A blender.

That left me laughing all weekend.

Launching TanoPhoto

This is a cross post from the TanoBlog.

I'd like to let everyone know that I've launched TanoPhoto, which is a blog that will showcase my photography. I've been playing with a number of different services, including Tabblo, PicasaWeb, Flickr and a few others, but I felt I needed a site of my own to make this work.

Part of the reason for this is that I'm hoping to start doing child portraits, and I needed a place online where people could go to see my work. This blog doesn't meet that purpose.

So check it out. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed. Over time I'll add a few more features. It's not going to be a place for my family photos, for that I'll still use the TanoBlog and Tabblo, but for the pieces of my work that classify more as "art photography," those will be there.

The lines are blurred... now what?

When I talk with people who don't understand the changes going on in media (and there are many) I often point to the TiVo box. I note how life will get interesting when you return home from work, turn on the TV and see consumer-generated videos co-mingled with high-cost products produced by the major networks.

The way I see it, when the DVRs take content from the Internet just as they do from cable or satellite providers, and that content is delivered automatically based on your viewing habits, the distribution wall comes down. Throw in some smart search and you don't even need to put things on YouTube, you just put them on your blog or on your personal site, give it the right tags and viewers' boxes find the content.

Think about a person who loves historical documentaries. Imagine if they return home and find a documentary about small town in Wisconsin right next to a documentary about Jessie James from the American Experience.

I saw such a video during a recent trip to Milwaukee that traced the history of a piece of property. The man who owned the property commissioned it from the local historian just so he could show his friends what he owned. What if he put that on the Internet so it could find an audience? That audience may be just 10 people, but so what? It's already produced, the cost of distribution is almost nothing, why not put it up, tag it and let the audience find it?

Today TiVo took a step in this direction by announcing that it will expand its Internet-based content. That's not the only step toward this world. This weekend a John Markoff article in the New York Times indicated that Web 3.0 is about smart search. Maybe it's more hype than truth, but the search world is moving slowly in this direction.

So, what does this do to the traditional advertising and media relations model? Both are built on the one-to-many concept. That is, put out a few well-placed ads and you can reach a large audience. Buy an ad in the Sunday New York Times or on Lost, and people will see it.
Place an article in USA Today and the audience comes flowing in.

And that still works. But for how long? Advertisers are already starting to look at their spots more as mini movies and entertainment than just product ads. The idea is to make the ads as compelling and enticing as the rest of the content. Media relations companies are also branching into blogger relations and other open communications concepts. These are all great steps.

The thing is, the answer may not lie in marketing, it may lie in product development. If the market becomes fractured, then it's hard to reach a massive audience with a single product. You can, however, deal with the customized world by creating customized and personalized products.

For an example just look to the open source world. Need certain functionality but not others? Then go in and tweak the code. Or maybe someone has created the code you need.

Look at the tuner generation in the auto world. A used Civic may cost just a few thousand dollars, but the car they create has tens of thousands of dollars on top of it. The car is a platform.

Even with all this, I still think we're a long way from a completely diversified media market. There will still be blockbuster shows and big hits, but now is the time to learn how to make all this work.

Color the Future

A number of PR, marketing and advertising firms are trying to figure out this new, social media -driven world. In fact, a number of us working in those firms are trying to find ways to help our clients get there. It's a long haul, as many cultures and business models have grown up doing one way and are now trying to change. When a bulk of your revenue comes from marking up printing and reselling advertising space, how do you adjust? If you're used to working with traditional media and heap praise on people for getting major hits in top publications, how do you change to the high-touch and conversational environment of the blogging/podcasting/MySpace/Second Life world?

At least one group of very smart people are trying to do something about it by starting fresh. Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, CC Chapman and Joseph Jaffee have launched crayon. This is a company devoted to social media from the get-go, so it's not like clients will come to them and say "so, we really want to be in the New York Times... oh, and what about this blogging thing?" Considering that they held a launch in Second Life, they've already got the right idea.

These are people whose advice I heed, so I'm eager to see where they go with this.

And in this world that is constantly in metamorphosis, there is plenty of passion.

Coffee Filter

I've talked a lot on this blog about the concept of a "filter." That is, as we continue to be bombarded by information filters will arise to help others separate the wheat from the chaff. The filters will take different forms for different people, or even different types of information. Maybe it's Amazon for filtering through products, or an individual whose taste you admire. Maybe it's TiVo and its recommendations, or Google and its algorithms for choosing what appears on Google News.

Or maybe it's Starbucks.

Starbucks?

A few years ago I looked at the shelves at my local Starbucks and wondered why it suddenly looked a lot like Pottery Barn. My initial instinct was that the coffee company was veering far from its roots in an attempt to leverage its demographic. I figured that kind of venture would fail. I was only half right.

The company failed at selling dishes, but it succeeded at selling entertainment. An article in Sunday's New York Times lays this out nicely (reg. req.). Keep in mind, Starbucks' original concept was to become the "third place." Work, home and another place to be. Of course, when you have a number of people gathering, you have a community. In this case it's a community with an average age of 42 and income in the range of $90,000.

Perhaps my favorite quote in the piece comes at the end:

Thomas Hay, a 48-year-old contractor from Hartsdale, N.Y., said Starbucks helped him by editing down his cultural choices. Looking over the selections the company makes, he said, he has the impression that “some people of caring hearts and minds have looked at this and felt it was worthwhile and beneficial and would create a good vibe in the world.”

It's not just that this guy trusts the brand, it's that he's overwhelmed by what's in the market and needs some way to find the "good stuff."

So, in the future, PR people are going to have to figure out what filters they need to target and how to best reach the decision makers. It's not going to be easy.

Where the People Are

Battlestar Galactica tried something new leading up to its new season: Webisodes. You can argue whether these were just television on the Web or something more, but they added a little more excitement to the whole premier.

But it appears that the Webisodes will be no more, at least according to TV Squad (also seen in Newsweek).

The main reason the Webisodes are done has to do with contracts and how they're written. NBC calls the Webisodes "promotional material" and therefore won't give the writers true credit. But anyone watching them knows they were much more, as they helped advance the plot.

Why am I reporting this? Because in that same piece, TV Squad points out that the Webisodes attracted much more interest than the broadcast version of the show itself.

"Last month, nearly six million people streamed BSG episodes within two days of the premiere. Compare that to the 2.2 million people who watched the third-season premiere of the show."

These aren't NBC's only problems, as the broadcast giant is laying off workers and rethinking "prime time."

Also this week, The Financial Times reported that BusinessWeek reporters are being asked to do more reporting straight to the Web. According to the piece, online advertising grew 61 percent last year while the print side hardly moved. The online side now represents 13 percent of all ad revenues, so it's obviously more attractive.

People are moving to the Web, not in small numbers, but in droves. Those industries that adjust have a chance to survive, those that don't will perish.

A few years ago freelance writers fought a similar battle. If you sell an article to the New York Times to run in the print publication, then the Times earns money on that content by selling it online, should you get part of that revenue?

Eventually that argument was settled and now freelancers find a clause in their contract expanding the use of their material.

TV and the Writers Guild of American need to get out of their own way. They tie writing and credit to TV and broadcast, they need to redefine their product.

Serving PR like Takeout?

A PR Store just opened up the street from me. I haven't been in there, though I do remember hearing about the concept a few years ago.

While it's interesting, the person quoted at the end of this article is correct. Cookie cutter PR just doen't work. Especially now that the media world is fragmented. I know that I've received a large number of pitches, but few (if any) actually speak to my particular focus. Though, recently I have had some success in pitching bloggers, those tend to be the kind that use a blog model but act more like a traditional news operation.

Then again, it doesn't seem like the PR Store is actually about pure PR. It's more like a gimicky advertising shop, or even what used to be the corner print shop... with a twist.

I think what bugs me about it is that it's not actually selling PR. It's selling marketing, printing and design. It just confuses the issue.

Christopher Glenn

CBS News Reporter Christopher Glenn died on Tuesday. I bring this up only because I loved his Saturday morning segments when I was a kid. I can remember shushing my brother when they came on, and they made more of an impact on me than the hours of cartoons I watched.

It's part of what seeded my interest in the news business. And I know I'm not alone on that one.

Anonymity in the New Media World

Early in my career I made a conscious decision to remain behind the TV camera as a producer. There were many reasons for this, but among them was a desire to maintain relative anonymity. When you're a TV reporter or anchor, everyone knows who you are and you never have any downtime. I remember Chet Curtis once commenting that as he sat in the stands at a Pats game, people kept calling to him , to which he had to constantly wave and respond. He couldn't just be the guy in the stands, he was always a guy everyone knows. He didn't just represent himself, but the entire TV station.

It can get exhausting. It's also why most TV anchors and reporters do what they can to keep their home hone numbers and addresses unlisted. It works to a degree, keeping the quick snoopers out, but if people want to find you they will.

Still, when it came to blogging I never thought about doing this anonymously, though I find there are plenty of people who do. What I can't figure out is, if you want your thoughts broadcast to the world, why wouldn't you put your name on them? Yes, there may be occasions when a blogger should remain anonymous, such as if they're using their blog to report, first hand, about government corruption, or if they're inside a war zone. But for the most part, how can you trust information if the person writing it won't put their name on the page?

In fact, most newspapers have taken strides to remove the veil between readers and reporters, offering up phone and email in the stories themselves. There are times when a source may remain anonymous (though I think this is often a crutch) but the reporter never does.

So why do bloggers remain anonymous? I'm not sure. I know that if a legal issue came up they could probably be uncovered, but that's just not enough. If you're going to write your thoughts and criticize people (which often happens) then put your name out there too. It's only fair.

There is one blogger local to me who maintains his anonymity, even as he can often be highly critical of individuals or even the local government. I'm not going to link to him just on principle.

I continue to read his blog, but with each post I wonder who this is, what axe he has to grind and whether he has any credibility at all. It was one thing when he only wrote about a few local restaurants, but it's quite another when he tries to go after politicians and take on other, more weighty issues.

The frustrating thing is, he does great work. Why not tell the world?

TV Recommendation

There is a show on TV with some of the best writing I've heard in years. I'd put it up there with the Aaron Sorkin-era of West Wing, perhaps even better. It tackles though issues, is an emotional force and makes you realize what TV can do. This isn't Lost, though that is a fine show. It's certainly better than Grey's Anatomy or even Law and Order.

The problem is that most people dump this show into the science fiction genre, then refuse to watch it under the idea that "well, I just don't like sci-fi."

I'm talking about Battlestar Galactica, which begins it's third season tonight at 9pm ET. If you haven't yet seen this show, please give it a chance. It's amazing. It'll rattle you a bit, it'll make you think, it'll get deep into your brain.

It can be violent and raw, so this isn't a kid's show. Also, the name is pretty much the only thing in common with the campy 70s show, so just forget about that one. This is an entirely new idea.

Don't turn up your nose, just turn on the TV.

Bad TV Remade

So TimeWarner has dug deep into its own archives to find content to sell to the Russian market. The mega company is taking old shows and remaking them in Russian language with a few local tweaks, like changing a Chicago apartment to a Moscow apartment.

I like the concept, but they couldn't find better shows? According to the CNN story, they're remaking Full House, Step by Step, Suddenly Susan and Perfect Strangers.

I mean, really. All the properties that TimeWarner owns, and Perfect Strangers is the best they could export?

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.