Posted on Mon, Feb 22, 2010
By Ben
In rolling out its 2011 plan to begin charging online users, The New York Times makes a grand call-to-action to other industry leaders. While the need for increased revenue is clear, the success of this plan requires a major undertaking: shifting the way readers view media content. This is not an easy paradigm to break. Readers want their Web-based news to be high-caliber, bountiful and, above all, free. Until this point, they’ve gotten it. The Web is synonymous with free content. If you charge, they will go somewhere else. The New York Times can’t go this one alone. They need buy-in from other major newspapers. Even if The Times rallies wide support for its new pay-per-play model, is it enough to shift consumer mindset?
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the New York Times, frames this intent perfectly: “This is more about where we think the Web is going.” In his predictive statement, Sulzberger lays out the future of Web-based content. In its position of power, it is perhaps The Times that can make this prediction a reality. Yet, the paper is working against a stubborn readership base steeped in a Web culture of “free and now.” A 2009 Forrester study states 80 percent of Americans would go somewhere else if charged for content. Furthermore, a recent Nielsen survey of individuals in 52 countries finds nearly eight out of 10 would no longer use a Web site which charges for content. The aggregates’ unwillingness to pay for content – in the context of a blogosphere brimming with rich, nuanced information -- raises the question: is this just an outmoded model?
On one level, we can’t continue to expect and demand high-quality content at no cost. It’s just not sustainable. Over the past year, the Times alone has been forced to take out a $250 million private loan, sell off major real estate assets and cut numerous jobs. Also, let’s not overlook the countless reporters who, in many cases, risk their lives in remote areas of the world to bring us coverage. While these financial realities and personal risks by reporters should compel individual readers to pick up the tab, it’s evident that the majority will not. Even if major publications unite in a joint plan to charge for content, will this be enough to shift the power of the blogosphere?
Blogs are able to offer extraordinary content on limited budgets, oftentimes pulling information directly from citizen journalists living the story in real time before hitting major outlets, all at no cost to the reader. The increasing validity of such non-traditional forms of news delivery was highlighted last week when a prestigious Polk Award in Journalism was bestowed upon the “anonymous individuals responsible for recording the shooting death of 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan at a June protest in Tehran, Iran.” The video, widely distributed via Twitter, YouTube and other internet sources, was later covered by established news outlets. The recognition of these unknown videographers as award-winning citizen journalists raises plenty of thorny questions about the future of the media beyond the pay-per-view model proposed by The New York Times.
And the reality remains; there are operating models to which readers are responding. Regardless of the success or failure of The Times’ content-charging plan, such an announcement is sure to stir up discussion on how to further create quality-content on a shoestring.
Posted on Sat, Aug 22, 2009
Blogs are fantastic. One of my favorite things to do is read and coast the information superhighway in search of great content, writers and people.
Lately, I’ve been perplexed by the “business” approach to blog commenting. It is nice to comment on someone’s blog, regardless of whether you love it or hate it. However, posting a comment is not a way to plug your company or service, no matter how relevant or on topic you feel it is to do so. Even those who read the comments glaze over the propaganda or just smirk when they see such an obvious attempt to sell – well, at least this blog reader does.
My advice is to post a blog comment the way you would speak with your Mom –provided you have a relationship with her and are not hurting because you use wire hangers – polite, honest and easy.
You need to sell your company by offering advertising-free comments by making an effort not to sell. You are already one step ahead by taking the time to read and write to your favorite bloggers, so why waste the opportunity to genuinely connect with them?
You have already jumped in when you post a comment. The blogger knows their post inspires you when you leave a comment, so they are already baited. Why not just “unplug” and then hook them? If you must, keep your company name in your signature so you can begin the relationship with a positive start.
Posted on Wed, Jun 24, 2009
by Melissa
Cathy recently wrote a blog about relationships that I completely agree with. Bottom line: If you don’t have a good story or angle then it doesn’t matter who you are “friends” with – they can’t always help you. That being said, it’s good to have a relationship with the right people when you do have that great story.
Lately in the journalism world, you make a relationship one day at a specific outlet and you are saying “see ya around” the next. But don’t be disappointed because, if the relationship is solid, then the contact will resurface, writing for three different outlets that are applicable to three different clients. Laid off journalists are looking for work and pitching their writing capabilities any where they can. We see it on media briefings all the time. They ask: “How can I help you on other levels? Are you hiring?”
Don’t underestimate the power of these freelance contacts. They can write for outlets ranging from TechTarget.com to Fortune Small Business to FOXNews.com to Woman’s Day Online… Cultivating relationships is more important than ever. Tweet them, connect on LinkedIn, shoot them an e-mail, call or Facebook them – Just stay in touch! Obviously, I am not saying you should bother them every second of every day but make sure they don’t forget who you are while they are out pitching articles. Continue to build your relationship, by relating to them and letting them know they can trust you. Why? Because they don’t get paid if you don’t deliver. Therefore, they must trust you.
The “T” word (as in trust) is monumental for a reporter when it comes to trusting a PR person with their paycheck. They want to know: Will they answer my questions? Will they get the information I need? Will the customer really be available to provide me with good ROI that my editor will like? Will they get me that photo? And, most importantly, will they do this to meet my deadline when the interview is Monday and I need this all by Thursday?
Some PR people aren’t good at maintaining relationships with freelancers. Find the ones that excel at it because these days, the ones that can cultivate the relationships are the ones that will take the pressure off the internal PR/Marketing department to drive X amount of traffic to the website, reach X amount of prospective customers in the financial industry or get in front of that investor audience you’ve been looking for.
Posted on Thu, Jun 18, 2009
by Melissa
The pervasiveness of Twitter has gotten even crazier the last few days. Is this the beginning of the “Electronic Revolution” as heard on NPR just this morning? As we watch the Iranian election news unfold, protesters are updating the world through Twitter and I keep thinking how powerful this social medium has really become. It’s insane and admirable at the same time. Insane in the way it is clearly overtaking the world, and admirable because it was invented and implemented without a business plan attached. (Not a knock on Twitter’s founders, just reality.) The fact that the U.S. State Department, who usually doesn’t take an interest in start-ups, talked Twitter into delaying a network upgrade that was scheduled for Monday night to protect the interests of Iranians using the service to protest the presidential election, is baffling. Mashable is even reporting that there are 221,744 tweets per hour from Iran at peak. And, not only that, but while the front pages of the Iranian newspapers were blank where censors had whited-out news stories, Twitter was delivering information from the streets, in complete real time. Sad, but great. See my previous post on “Is Free Content King in Journalism?” Well, it is now. And, if the journalism world doesn’t adapt – well, forget it.
We’re up to our eyeballs in Tweets in every way. Twitter is monitoring every human process that takes place during a global crisis. Speaking of managing all this interaction, check out our client ActionBase. They manage processes between individuals at organizations in Microsoft Outlook to help them stay compliant. How about a product that manages and controls your Tweets for compliance reasons in organizations? I’m waiting…
Posted on Wed, Jun 17, 2009
Every day there are discussions about how important “relationships” are for PR executives, with extra emphasis placed on social media. So many experts talk about how now, more than ever, in this world of social media, relationships are so important. When were relationships not as important in the past? They have always been top priority but they will only get you so far.
The exchange of ideas and knowledge between audiences has only gotten more exciting as there are so many new ways to connect with people. Social media gives everyone a voice that wants one. That’s more ideas and sources for everyone who trades on information. Instead of the past where PR folks relied mainly on the phone and the fax, you can now search online for more background information. Instead of waiting every Monday morning for all the trade IT and business weeklies to arrive and receiving the newspapers everyday to read, we have the Internet too.
We are all processing information much faster these days but the fundamentals are still the same. You still have to do your homework. You still need to have a strong working knowledge of your outlet, audience and beat coverage. Providing the industry with timely and relevant information is always the most important priority and that will never, ever change.
Finding a common ground is always great but it’s always about the story. Regardless of whether you and a journalist share a mutual love of antique trains, Wilco, Fenway Park or dance movies, it’s always about the “so what?” If you don’t start with a great story, no one will care. If your news is meaningful, people will respond.
Posted on Tue, Mar 31, 2009
The New York Times published a story today about two American journalists from Current TV that will be indicted and tried in North Korea: N. Korea to Try U.S. Journalists.This article was the first one I read today and it continued to stick with me, impressed upon my brain. Sitting in the office this afternoon, my mind keeps heading back to this article’s subjects. I keep reading up on the developments and my thoughts turn to those who sacrifice themselves daily for the good of all of us.
The details of what the detained journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, did are limited. Regardless, I was struck by the article because it was a somber and humbling reminder of how often reporters put themselves in harm’s way to get a story. Laura Ling, one of the journalists set to stand trial, is the sister of Lisa Ling, who I’ve watched on National Geographic and the View. Both sisters are international news reporters.
In a day where newspapers are fighting for survival, there are journalists fighting for their lives on a daily basis too. Stories often focus on the dollars and cents of reporting, the content delivery methods, the state of our wired brains and struggle to maintain proper language. Behind every story, Tweet, text, blog, video feed, whatever, there is a human being sharing information. Take some time and visit Reporters Without Borders and read about the plight of missing or detained journalists worldwide. Read about the stories these journalists were working on and take note of them. Remember them, and their families, from time to time and thank them for their sacrifice.
Posted on Fri, Feb 20, 2009
by Melissa
As you know, there’s been a lot of talk in recent years about the survival and future of newspapers. Years ago, I wrote a research paper at Northeastern University about print publication shrinkage and how stories and reporters were being replaced by advertisements. At that time, there was little focus on the concept of free journalism. As the conversation continues, publications are appealing to consumers all over the world in hopes of saving newspapers and journalism jobs in some way, without solely focusing on bringing in advertising dollars. In fact, this week’s TIME magazine cover story by Walter Isaacson (a former TIME managing editor), highlights “How to Save Your Newspaper.” Issacson discusses how he himself has stopped subscribing to the New York Times because “if it doesn’t see fit to charge for its content, I’d feel like a fool paying for it.” He goes on to compliment Rupert Murdoch for the WSJ’s online paid subscriptions (up 7 percent in 2008), and deciding not to drop the fee after he publicly stated he would do so.
But the question remains as we promote content in the PR industry: Is content really king if it’s for free in the journalism industry? We, as PR professionals, pitch these reporters day in and day out, trying to help them form story ideas and providing sources for their articles. How can we do this successfully if their magazine is not surviving or being respected by consumers because they aren’t charging for their content? It’s much more important to stay visible during times like these. Should journalists get paid for every consumer reading their story? You would think so. Therefore, if you’re one of those people that likes free web applications, downloads, publications, etc. - maybe you should think again. Of course we always like anything for free, especially during an economic downturn. But as a consumer that looks forward to reading the news each day (online and in print), I look at the future of my favorite publications like TIME, NYT, Newsweek, etc., with caution. I completely agree with Issacson. I want them to survive and I want these journalists and publications to get paid for the hard work, respect and content that is king all over the world…
“Charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value…they need to be valued by readers – serving them first and foremost rather than relying solely on advertising revenue – will allow the media once again to set their compass true to what journalist should always be about.” Hats off, Isaacson. I’m happy to send a dime or more to TIME magazine.