Decision '08 and Web 2.0
Friday, August 31, 2007
Next year's election is certainly driving old and new media to become more creative. First, we had the CNN/YouTube debate and now the online divisions of the Washington Post and CBS are teaming up to create a unique kind of coverage. The two media moguls plan to announce the news on Tuesday. Both websites will feature material from the other media. The Washington Post site will have political clips from CBS affiliates and the CBS site will feature political commentary from The Washington Post. In addition, visitors will be able to interact with reporters by commenting and asking questions in a live exchange. This last bit has yet to be detailed, so who knows what it really entails. Sure it's nothing super groundbreaking, but it is an interesting step, considering how fiercely territorial media companies are with their material. If successful, it could signal the first of many big media convergences online. It should be noted, though, that this seemingly unorthodox approach has been in the making. Research firm, the Bivings Group, reported that 92% of the 100 largest US newspaper websites are offering video, which is a 31% increase over last year. Some of the sites pull the video from the AP or local news stations, while some make their own original content. So it is a natural step for these two big players to team up to try to stomp out the growing competition. Labels: new media, politics, video, Web 2.0
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Blogs Surpass Newspapers
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
"It is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams" - Johannes Gutenberg Whether you believe mass printing developed in Europe or Asia, there is no debating that movable type transformed society. The written word then went digital, and the information revolution was born. The sheer volume of data accessible today online has long since surpassed anyone's imagination. Yet for the better half of a decade, publishing on the World Wide Web remained exclusive to those technically savvy enough to deal with obscure acronyms like HTML and FTP. To some, it was no easier than dealing with picas and pigments. Today, that time has come and gone. Blogs, which are really no more than chronological journal posts, have transformed the Internet. Indeed, they have altered the media and therefore our very view of the world. Even if someone still has never read a blog, the fact that influential reporters both read and write their own blogs have shaped the mainstream media... which means they ultimately affect the economy, politics, and somehow our everyday lives. Today, user demand has caught up with the marketing hype. More people searched today for blogs than for newspapers according to Google Trends. 
Many in old media may still hope that blogs are just a passing fad. Sure, the term "blog" may one day become passé, but the inexhaustible streams of everyone's own virtual press cannot be silenced. There is no going back, as Gutenberg would surely have attested. Labels: blog, Internet, media
posted by Adam Edwards
0 comments
Quote of the Week
Monday, August 27, 2007
And it's only Monday! Warren Buffet (my "neighbor" growing up in Omaha) ...is armed with a cash pile approaching $50 billion...when the price is right, he told the WSJ this week: "I can spend money faster than Imelda Marcos." And as The Economist chimes in "unlike the Philippines former first lady, however, he will be looking for weather-beaten shoes in need of a shine." (as reported in the August 25th issue of The Economist on Distressed-debt Funds.)
posted by Connie
0 comments
Blogging in China
Friday, August 24, 2007
The evolution of Web 2.0 is interesting to track in the West, but it is sometimes even more fascinating to learn about how countries like China, which does not support free speech, fine-tune advancements to align with their censorship. During the past couple of days, stories have surfaced on blogging in China. Obviously, the anonymity available to bloggers is a threat to communist societies and so the Chinese government has "recommended" that bloggers not only refrain from posting "bad" material, but also register under their legal names with providers of blogging technology. Among these providers are companies like Yahoo and Microsoft, who have agreed to the stipulations. Of course, these "recommendations" are nothing short of laws, and are probably enough to deter most bloggers from posting ill thoughts on their government. But this censorship is nothing new. The information exchange on the Internet in China is not only limited through blog content, but also through blocking specific sites. For example, if you type "Tiananmen Square" into Google in China, you will not see any links associated with the 1989 protests. Instead, you will find tourist information and neutral historical references. Though this is outrageous from our American perspective, this technological feat is impressive. After all, in terms of population, China is the largest country in the world and the second largest, after the U.S., for Internet users. Some condemn Google and the like for cooperating with Chinese officials to accomplish this task. However, one has to consider what it would mean if Google would refuse. Would it lead the Chinese government to reconsider its policies? Perhaps. But most likely, it would lead them to find other companies willing to perform the task, making for poorer access to all the unrestricted information online. Labels: blog, Google, Internet, Web 2.0
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Wikipedia's Ironic Taboo
Friday, August 17, 2007
The anonymity of Wikipedia is being put in question this week with CalTech grad student, Virgil Griffith, unveiling a tool called WikiScanner, which automatically identifies contributors to the user-generated site. Traditionally, the online encyclopedia grows with people just like me and you supplying information. Wikipedia also has a staff of "editors", who police the site and make sure the information added is not purely promotional or inappropriate. The ease with which people's identities could be revealed is spurring a dialogue to which PR professionals should be paying attention. The AP's Brian Bergstein quoted Griffith in an article published yesterday as saying that with his new tool "he hopes 'to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations [he] dislike[s].'" What does he mean? Well, even though it is quite obvious that companies are most likely responsible for their own Wikipedia entries, the notion of public relations teams being behind them is still taboo. So, if there was a tool that would call us out, so to speak, it might make the entries created seem less credible. I have to wonder, though, why is this the case? Who, for example, has time or the urge to write a Wikipedia entry for a random company or individual, even if it might be of relevance to Wikipedia? I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who would perhaps want to contribute to a World War II entry or some other such topic, but for the types of entries we are talking about, there really is no realistic third party contributor available. Yet, the information in those seemingly unimportant entries is valuable. If Wikipedia's aim is to truly be an encyclopedia, then it must have information relating to companies and people affecting our society. Thinking about this more, I realize that it may just be the old problem of PR ignorance. The majority of people simply don't realize that PR, and marketing in general, shape the way we see the world. This is a reality and surely it would manifest itself in the world of Wikipedia But it doesn't mean that we're trying to trick you and present a false image. On the contrary, PR professionals spend much of their time correcting journalists (see my entry from last week) and making sure that accurate information reaches the masses. In an ideal world, truth is objective. But in our complex world, truth is often multifaceted. Should the FBI, CIA and companies like Diebold be allowed to edit their own Wikipedia entries to serve their messages? Of course! But so can you! The very nature of Wikipedia depends on its readers paying attention, and the transparency added by the Wikipedia Scanner might push those PR folks with not the most honest intentions in the right direction. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Wikipedia
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
A Voice through Google News
Friday, August 10, 2007
Just when we thought we could foresee where the world of PR was headed, Google throws us a curve ball with its revamped Google News. Yesterday, word came out about Google featuring a truly unique option on their news site that would allow people and companies to respond to articles in which they are mentioned. The feature is currently in an experimental stage, but if it is to succeed, which with Google's track record is highly likely, it holds incredible implications and possibilities for the PR profession. You're probably wondering how Google will be able to determine whether the comments submitted are truly from the company or person mentioned in an article. According to Google, a new division will act as the gate keepers to qualify sources submitting comments by validating email addresses and/or calling the sources directly to confirm identities. While their methods do not sound exactly scientific or efficient in terms of time, I have faith that Google is not approaching this endeavor blindly. An example of what we might expect is up on the news site. The scenario involves an article on a study that found children prefer to eat food from McDonalds that comes in visually appealing packaging to food that does not look kid-friendly. Following is a lengthy response from the Corporate Communications office of McDonalds and a much shorter response from a professor of pediatrics in the University of New Mexico. Even from this 1st example, PR professionals should be taking notes. Who seems to be the party with something to hide? Might it be the one with the convoluted 550+ word statement? I vote yes! McDonalds clearly doesn't appreciate the fine art of brevity. Also, it doesn't help that their "statement" is simply regurgitated marketing material. A simple, "Of course children like food that has cartoon characters on it! But we also have cartoon characters on our apple slice containers, so the choice in our establishments is based on food, not on packaging." would have been sufficient and effective. We in the PR world know that few issues are black and white, and so it often becomes our job to simplify matters in favor of the companies we represent. Yet sometimes the problem with an article isn't that it was swayed in favor of the opposing viewpoint, but that a company was simply misquoted. As Calcanis, co-founder of Weblogs, Inc, pointed out in an Information Week article on this topic, "Journalists have misquoted people for so long," and it is high time technology offered a way for meaningful corrections to be made. Labels: Google, new media, pr, Public Relations
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Future of PR
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The world is changing, but the signs as to how are always there if you know where to look. If you want to find out where the media and PR industries are headed in the near future, one only needs to read between the lines on Silicon Alley Insider this week. - Newspapers are embracing blogs, but the online divisions are still not seeing revenue like their counterparts in print. The online division of the New York Times is bringing in 10% of the company's revenue.
- Yet online advertising budgets are expected to surpass that of newspapers in four years.
- Meanwhile, bloggers can make a decent living on their own thanks to a chunk of that advertising -- in the realm of six figures.
- And, in an effort to keep up, editors at the Times are asking reporters to cut down on article length. It's not just to save paper or for people's attention spans; it's also to compete with those very same bloggers in search engine results. Short stories can be just as influential as novels in PR (meaning PageRank), so it's better for editors to get two shorter pieces for the price of one.
What does it all mean? You can expect more editors and journalists leaving high profile publications to become independent bloggers. It's no coincidence that journalists Mark Frauenfelder, Jeff Jarvis, and Om Malik have been made into celebrities through their blogs. They are smart guys with devoted readers, and they figured out how to build their own brand and create new destinations online. Even those who stick to their day jobs are branching out, from Walt Mossberg on All Things Digital to David Pogue's musical vlogging at the Times. That begs multiple questions. Do you go to read a publication because of its reputation or because of its writers and editors? What is your loyalty to said publication? If your favorite columnist left the Times to go to the Post a few years ago, that might not have been enough to get you to switch your paid subscription -- but now it's easy to read both in your RSS feeds. This is just another indication that media consumption is going from one-to-many to many-to-many. How does that affect PR? Blogs are leveling the playing field with traditional media, so future PR professionals had better start learning their names now. Clients, too, need to realize it's not always about getting a cover story. A post on the blog of that publication's former editor can be just as effective in getting your message across, if not more. That blog post you once thought was quaint probably has a link to your website providing a clear call-to-action and increased online authority in search engine algorithms. Plus, the blog post is more likely to come up in search results than a corresponding online version of a print article, meaning it has longer shelf life. That doesn't even include the viral marketing opportunities in such a post! We see the future, but we understand it can be hard for some people to give up the past. Publications often have such vaunted histories that there is still a tendency to cherish the printed story above all, despite the fact that getting written up in influential blogs can often have equal or higher ROI. Labels: blog, media, pr, RSS, Silicon Alley
posted by Adam Edwards
0 comments
Is Wall Street Heading for Main Street?
Friday, August 03, 2007
The Wall Street Journal being acquired by Rupert Murdoch is raising interesting questions about the future of the paper's integrity and its structure. Will all of its articles adopt a sudden a FOX News slant to the right and will its rebirth give life to sports and culture sections?
On the first note, Time reporter Edward Gomez is not convinced that the paper had much integrity to begin with. In an opinion piece published on the San Francisco Chronicle website he proclaims that "it's media outlets like the WSJ that, over the years, have championed exactly the kind of more, more, more, bigger, bigger, bigger, corporate greed and unrestrained consolidation of ownership that Murdoch's latest buy represents." Hmmm… perhaps they are just getting a taste of their own medicine?
Of course there are also the theories that Murdoch, with his very hands-on management style, will steer the paper away from its core financial focus to a more mass appeal. This would pin the Wall Street Journal directly against the New York Times, which is multifaceted with sections devoted to culture, style and theatre. Other compelling points were brought to light by Ad Age's Nat Ives in his video commentary on the deal, in which he discusses the change in perception the public might have of the media because of the merger.
He says that Murdoch's purchase might "further the realization among Americans that media is a business." Though this fact may seem obvious to PR people and our colleagues in the marketing world, few people outside of this field actually understand the nature of the media. Specifically, that being fair and unbiased is an aspiration, but often not a reality. It's no secret that in small trade publications, advertising drives editorial content. What are the big ones driven by? This answer is certainly more complex, but part of it involves the views of their tycoon owners like Rupert Murdoch. Labels: media, Web 2.0
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Undoing a broadcast accident....?
A reminder to all the the power and influence of the Web can be both very good and not so good. And there can be a lot of mis-information by shear human error, rampant in the Web 2.0 world.
Today, on Facebook, I received email from a woman who asked me if I was gay and giving me kudos for being brave enough to "come out" on Facebook. I went to my profile page, and sure enough, loud and clear, I've indicated that I am interested in "women" and "dating."
It's been that way for two months. I'm wondering if all my industry colleagues and friends were whispering, "OH THAT's why she got a divorce."
Not that there is anything wrong with being gay (Seinfield disclosure.) But the information was the opposite of what I had intended.
Beware of the slip-of-the-click.
posted by Connie
0 comments
 |
