Posted on Tue, May 18, 2010
Notes from the Intern's Desk:
By Elizabeth
Early last January, the first day of the spring semester found me trudging through the snow at 7:45 a.m. under still-glowing street lights. As I tread carefully over ice patches and wished I had worn more layers, I reminded myself not to complain about the undesirable class time. I needed to embrace the dreaded 8:00 a.m. lecture, as it was now sure to be included in many of my future schedules. Having just declared journalism as my minor, I was on my way to my first class in the program. When registering a couple months earlier, I had mentioned to my advisor that all the journalism courses seemed to be held during unfortunate time-slots (translation: very early). She laughed and said, “They do that on purpose, you know, so that you’ll get used to it. Journalists have to get up early. The news doesn’t sleep, and now, neither do you!”
Little did I know I would soon be informed my early-rising was for nothing. Though freezing and groggy, I was excited. This was the beginning of my journalism career, whatever that might be. Settled in the lecture hall, I admired my professor’s classic reporter looks: tweed suit, round glasses, gray mustache, pen tucked behind the ear. He turned to face the class and smiled: “Welcome to ‘Interpreting the Day’s News.’ I guess if you’re sitting here, you enjoy writing enough to study a dying profession.”
I know he was joking, but only partly, and I wasn’t amused. College students don’t generally take kindly to being told that their field of study is useless and going to leave them unemployed. The discouragement continued throughout the semester: we all dragged ourselves in twice a week at an ungodly hour just to be told we were wasting our time. On top of that, my advisor constantly told me that the journalism and communications programs were too similar for me to minor in one and major in the other. By April, I was over it. The next semester, I concentrated on my other minor, Spanish, and planned to drop journalism as soon as I found time to fill out the forms.
Exactly a year after that first journalism class, I started interning at Metis. Here, I have seen for myself that journalism is not dying at all, but is, rather, in transition. The viability of print journalism is certainly dwindling, but the internet offers plenty of outlets, from forums to blogs to actual online news sources. And in the world of public relations, there are countless tasks that require journalism skills: writing press releases and news alerts, pitching to reporters, editing for clients and coworkers, etc. Seeing its usefulness firsthand began to bring back my enthusiasm for journalism, and the final push I needed came from Metis employees who assured me of how important their journalism degrees are to their success in public relations. My fall class schedule now includes another journalism course.
There is no question that journalism is evolving. Readers have discovered exciting new ways to consume news, and print media is now an endangered species. But there will always be a need to know what’s going on in the world, and getting that news out to consumers still requires journalism- just in different forms. As a Metis intern, I’m learning to think outside the proverbial box when it comes to spreading information. Blogs, videos, and social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter are often overlooked as information-sharing tools, but we can’t afford to fear experimentation with multimedia. Only those with creativity and willingness to try new media forms will survive the journalism revolution.
Posted on Thu, Apr 01, 2010
Notes from the Intern’s Desk:
By Elizabeth
Last month I attended an “EE Times Roundtable,” a presentation and discussion for PR and marketing professionals based on market trends, best practices and new techniques for engaging with engineers. EE Times is considered one of the go-to sources for engineers, so the presentation on how the publication is engaging and changing its approach to interacting via social media was helpful. EE Times is working on a redesign and relaunch for its Web site and will include many types of content and opportunities to connect online. (Also, they are currently looking for site moderators for their online forums, if you are interested.)
A sophomore in college interning here at Metis, I was easily the youngest person in a room full of seasoned reporters and specialists - a fact that, while primarily making me feel out of place, enhanced my ability to understand and relate to speaker Paul Miller’s discussion of the current struggle with a generational gap and his prediction of where the future of engineering content lies, both in print and online.
The event served for Miller, CEO of EE Times, as an opportunity to present the publication’s plan to re-energize its place in the market, re-think the way it does business, and re-engineer new and exciting products to meet the demands that 2010 will present. I have always associated engineering with innovation and fresh thinking, and although I know a person of any age is capable of coming up with a cutting-edge design, I assumed the engineering field to be made up of a younger crowd. So, I was surprised when Miller explained that the average age of an engineer in the United States is 48. He discussed a colleague’s research regarding the kinds of sources engineers look to for information and the existence of a problematic generational gap: while older members of the field continue to rely on print media for information, the newer and soon-to-be engineers are focused on social media.
As my generation ascends into the workforce, the importance of Twitter feeds, forums, Facebook communities, and message boards is rapidly growing. Social media is one of the most important content sources available. Everyone from journalists to PR execs to the engineers themselves should start socializing. However, it’s not necessary to dive in head first. Someone who loves to read the newspaper on his desk need not be forced into reading it online (until they all disappear – check out Newspaper Death Watch) - however, he should make himself familiar with the newspaper’s Web site to involve himself in the online discussions that may be occurring. The fact is that PR, marketing, journalism and the professionals who rely on these industries for exposure have moved into a new realm when it comes to content and networking – we’re following our customers; those who refuse to jump on the social media bandwagon run the risk of being left behind – and losing out not only on great connections but on future customers, too.
Posted on Wed, Feb 24, 2010
By Melissa
Another example of the importance of instant message in PR and journalism
This week I was reminded again of the commitment a great writer needs to get a good story and the importance that instant message (IM) has within online public relations and social media activities. Writers are under an enormous amount of pressure from their editors to deliver online, breaking stories as fast as they can without the luxury of excessive time for consideration. But, once in awhile, you see the inherent passion for the story overcome the daily burdens of the immediate deadline. I witnessed this last week when 20 minutes before a call I had arranged with Metis client Kampyle, and Blogger and Entrepreneur Aliza Sherman. Aliza contacted me to say that she had laryngitis (no voice at all), but still wanted to carry on with the briefing. “Hmmm…,”I thought. Had Aliza lost it? Maybe.
However, this was the exact instance I also learned that IM is, again, a crucial aspect of this industry beyond a pitching method. The fact is, I’ve worked with Aliza on many stories through the years (SympathyTree.com, WatchDox, Clarizen, etc.), and her passion for writing and finding that good story has, until now, never been sacrificed for good health, deadline pressure, or any other reason.
So what did Aliza do? She took the call on a GoToMeeting demonstration and typed in her questions via the IM chat function. The call felt awkward at times without hearing Aliza, but it served its purpose and she was able to discuss the concept of Kampyle’s feedback analytics quite impressively. Her questions, as my client read them aloud, were intelligent and quite witty, I might add. It was encouraging that someone like Aliza; who is a mother of small children, writer and entrepreneur of a social media marketing company; took the little time she has out of the day with no voice but a squeak to speak with a company to which she had never before been introduced.
As this example strengthens my last post on online media relations and IM about David Greenfield’s IM preference with pitching, I continue to hold my torch high to IM, and the writers who also love it. The importance of IM and other communication channels provides an easier way for reporting and finding that one story that might further impact an outlet’s credibility.
So…hats off to you, Aliza Sherman. Thank you. Your passion for writing is inspiring.
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.