Peter Shankman, the creator of the much talked about HARO (Help A Reporter Out) service has been a feel good media story. Guy starts a free service to help reporters find sources. Guy sends the list to PR folks for free so they can get their clients mentioned as sources. Guy grows the list on his own to over 23,000 to compete with paid service from Profnet. Guy signs on advertisers to keep it free for users and gets “way over $100 CPM’s,” as advertisers reach a very targeted group. Everybody wins. What’s not to love about this story? Capitalism at its very best.
Unfortunately, fairy tales don’t usually last forever.
This morning while scanning some Twitter updates my colleague stumbled across this:
and then this:
My first thought – Maybe Hamilton Nolan is right and this is some sort of cult. Folks what are we thinking? I realize Peter does use shock value, he did agree to get tasered after all. But his use of the word “lynching” and all the connotations that come with the word is totally uncalled for and wrong. Now I obviously don’t know the race of the PR person that he is referring to and despite our name, we don’t usually get into racial discussions on our blog. If the PR person happens to be white – then perhaps it’s nothing more then an egregious error in judgement. If the PR person happens to black his use of the word is unconscionable. Either way, the use of the word that brings back images of one of the most despicable acts in our Nation’s history is wrong.
There’s obviously some comparisons that can be made here to the recent incident involving Golf Channel host Kelly Tilghman and her use of the word “lynch” in referring to Tiger Woods. Her use of the word in context was “young players who wanted to challenge Tiger Woods should lynch him in a back alley.” Tiger’s race, being an issue on the tour since he first set foot on it, made the remark a punishable offense and the network rightly suspended her for two weeks.
Since I started this post Shankman has updated his Twitter feed and let everyone know that the PR person has sent him a heartfelt apology:
At the very least Shankman owes everyone a heartfelt apology of his own for the consistent use of the word.
Everyone within the media industry likes to speculate on the “death of newspapers.” However, sometimes TV news outlets get placed into the conversation as an additional dying medium. Local news outlets certainly have had issues in maintaining viewership during the Internet age. However, if you plan to reach the masses with news (or a message) – national network television – remains the best place to target multiple demographics. At least that is what the numbers say. Pew Research Center’s biannual survey on news consumption, released Sunday, found that the largest group (46%) of news consumers still turn to their televisions (almost solely) for news.
Although Internet news consumption continues to grow it still represents the smallest group of news consumers (13%). This group is also the youngest demographic of news consumers, with a median age of 35; 17 years younger then the median average of the group reliant on TV news. The study does echo the general shift towards online consumption and away from print news outlets. 34 percent of those surveyed stated they had read a newspaper the day before – down from 40 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, 25 percent of those surveyed noted they go to the Internet for news at least three times each week – up from 18 percent two years ago.
In addition, another statistic that is always interesting to look at within the biannual Pew research are the “Believability Ratings.” Mediabistro nicely highlights the findings here and I’ve embedded below as well.
Not that surprisingly, the CNN brand carries credibility with viewers – scoring the top believability rating. However, I am surprised that it was graded higher by TV viewers than 60 Minutes. Although the study notes that almost every outlet has had its credibility marks decline over the last decade – these two aforementioned outlets have managed to stay relevant in most people’s eyes. Not so relevant is Katie Couric and CBS, who fell below Fox News in the ratings.
NBC News won the believability battle between the three major networks; another feather in its cap as it basks in the glow of its Olympic ratings triumph. Bill Carter and Richard Sandomir further illustrated just how successful the games have been for NBC, in today’s NYT’s:
The Games have drawn an average audience of about 30 million a night on NBC itself, millions more on NBC’s cable channels, 30 million unique visitors to NBC’s Olympics Web site, 6.3 million shared videos from the coverage streamed on the site and an ultimate profit that network executives project will surpass $100 million.
A successful multi-channel (digital and television) initiative – NBC may have figured “it” out.
Michael Arrington has chimed in, again, on if he sees a purpose for PR practitioners in today’s digital landscape. His post, which follows a post by Edelman’s PR guru Steve Rubel on his Micro Persuasion blog, brings attention to what PR’s true value is in this new digital age. In reading Steve’s post which I commented on here (#18), I formulated several counter opinions to Arrington’s post that I wanted to share on our blog.
First off, Michael is right. We (PR folks) are busy. The economy doesn’t seem to be slowing down business and we are very strategic in the clients that we bring on-board.
At Fortune Brainstorm TECH I ran into Steve’s colleague and big-boss Richard Edelman and we had a great conversation on the excitement around the changes in the PR space right now and what lies ahead; which continued via his blog and ours after the conference.
We both somewhat agreed with the a few points that Michael and Steve raise in their posts on a PR shift away from pure product publicity. For instance, companies like Facebook, Google and Dell don’t need our help building publicity for new products (any announcement they make will be greatly publicized).
However, today’s global landscape – where brand interaction occurs 24 hours a day – creates new opportunities for PR agencies to assist companies like these in building digital and physical communities of key stakeholders in support of specific campaign goals and issues. In essence, PR professionals must become part of client’s brand management/reputation teams (through our interaction with Google, blogs and other social communities), while also assisting our clients with building their own content. Every company is a media company. That’s where we can really assist in truly defining each company’s brand, moral purpose and corporate mission.
In addition, as David Carr eloquently noted in his Media Equation column on Monday, “We are all arbiters of the news.” Yes, reporters have always enjoyed the thrill of chasing a scoop. This hasn’t changed since the inception of newspapers. The change is that today they go to Twitter, FriendFeed, YouTube, Mashable and other online destinations to find the scoop or subject to cover.
There’s no reason we, as PR professionals, can’t be part of this “groundswell.” Rubel uses the example of Robert Scoble, as a blogger who finds joy in uncovering companies without the assistance of PR executives. However, while Robert may attest that PR practitioners are useless as he comes down from a high reporting a PR-less story; he also values PR folk that are informative and in-the-know.
When I ran into Robert at Fortune Brainstorm: TECH in Half Moon Bay, CA I knew he had a trip planned out to Boston. How? Because I follow his blog and his Dopplr feed. So I offered him the opportunity to connect with a group of start-ups that have sprung out of MIT – during his visit. Robert is a busy guy and he doesn’t have time to go through thousands of non-relevant emails. However, when I provided him with an opportunity to create more value during a scheduled visit to Boston for a speaking gig – he jumped on the opportunity. We can be a bridge not a roadblock.
While Racepoint may be at the forefront of understanding how to cultivate and manage these relationships with bloggers in new ways (mail-merges are dead), I think there is larger industry shift towards understanding this still fairly new communications’ vehicle. I’d argue with Arrington’s assertion that “Most PR people don’t read blogs and certainly don’t understand them.” Yes, I work within a forward thinking agency where everyone unconditionally does both, but I can’t lie and say we’re the only ones. The Larry Weber’s and Richard Edelman’s of the world know where this digital age is going – and the bus has already left the station.
Steve Rubel is right in asserting “We need to stop spamming,” and understand what will be most relevant to each individual blogger and journalist. We also need to practice what we preach and start using all the new communication tools that are available – Twitter, QIK, FriendFeed, Digg, etc. We need to invest smartly in technology that will allow us to become nimble content providers along with other technology that will accurately monitor what the influencers on the Internet and the mobile web are saying.
Finally, Arrington’s advice to start-ups on when to hire an agency is just flat out wrong. “First off, don’t hire PR help until the volume of inbound requests by press are simply too much to handle without help,” he says.
It’s tough for me to think of a case where inbound requests have become too much to handle internally, without any proactive PR efforts. Sling Media, Cuil, etc – would never have been household names without PR campaigns. The first launch of a product for a start-up can be one of the most critical PR points in the life-cycle of the business and I don’t know too many entrepreneurs or VC’s (with an interest in the start-ups’ success) that want to leave successful launches to the chance of in-bound inquiries.
Yes, start-ups need to have their product and business processes far enough along for PR to be successful. However, if everyone just waited around for in-bound requests to come in before starting proactive PR efforts – they’d have little chance to compete for space in an evolving tech news cycle that spends much of its time covering Apple and Facebook in every angle possible. In order to increase your valuation you need people to see your product and eventually know your brand. Without incorporating communcations’ efforts into core business plans this is increasingly difficult (especially in today’s fragmented media landscape).
Noel Hidalgo was walking around Tiananmen Square in China on Saturday when he came across a free-Tibet protest. He decided to Twittertheprotest, and also broadcast it live over Qik.
It turned out that the live broadcast ended up being his ticket home.
Chinese authorities deported Hidalgo as a result of the live video streaming, sending him back to the United States. So while it has been reported that many Chinese have been very eager to please visitors during the Olympic Games, it turns out that anything involving Tibet is crossing the line.
Back in the olden days, say 2001, musicians would scamper to MTV’S TRL studious in Time Square and discuss the launch of their new music video with Carson Daly or some other nail polish wearing hipster. That’s what worked and that was the standard formula for dropping a new video. That’s not so hip anymore.
Today, Kanye West has the blogosphere, Twitter and YouTube a buzz, by dropping his ninth video off his 2007 Graduation album as an online video. NEON, the media group which directed John Legend’s “P.D.A. (We Just Don’t Care)” produced the video. In the video Kanye takes on the role of a puppet and is competing as a track star in the fictional “Unified Games.”
The video was rolled out earlier today on Kanye’s official blog and is making its way across the Internet and YouTube land. No doubt in my mind that it will build buzz from the ground up and be a feature story item in the mainstream media over the next couple days. That’s the value of a well produced and timed (the strategy around timing for the Olympics was well choreographed, make no mistake) viral videos. Kanye has always shown a flash for marketing and creativity and it’s on full display here.
Scoble goes inside NBCOlympics.com with Eric Schmidt, director of media and advertising evangelism at Microsoft, who is working on the site with NBC executives. He reports in the video that they are getting 4,000 unique visitors per second.
Ah, the Internet. I never managed to turn this around for yesterday, so who’s stopping me from putting it out today? Why wait a week? If only the Philadelphia Inquirer understood that.
In the spirit of the Olympics, an event that not only transcends sport but also the very meaning of competition (Bob Costas is rubbing off on me), it seems appropriate to spotlight the media industry competition that has become a pseudo Shakespearean subplot to the Beijing games.
A wiser man passed along this week that Herbert Hoover once said, “Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress.”
It’s hard to argue against the fact that competition in the technology and media sectors has changed the way the Beijing Games are being covered; leading to a progressive viewing experience that seems to be sitting well with viewers.
“NBC’s decision to delay broadcasting the opening ceremonies by 12 hours sent people across the country to their computers to poke holes in NBC’s technological wall — by finding newsfeeds on foreign broadcasters’ Web sites and by watching clips of the ceremonies on YouTube and other sites. In response, NBC sent frantic requests to Web sites, asking them to take down the illicit clips and restrict authorized video to host countries. As the four-hour ceremony progressed, a game of digital whack-a-mole took place. Network executives tried to regulate leaks on the Web and shut down unauthorized video, while viewers deftly traded new links on blogs and on the Twitter site, redirecting one another to coverage from, say, Germany, or a site with a grainy Spanish-language video stream.”
NBC, obviously concerned that breach could tarnish viewership for its primetime broadcast and alienate advertisers, may have uncovered something about the new media landscape along the way. Early results, including the numbers for the opening ceremony – 34.2 million viewers – indicate that this year’s games are drawing more viewers in the states for an internationally hosted Olympics then ever before. David Carr nicely summed this up in his Media Equation column yesterday:
“You might assume, along with NBC executives, that the jail break of information damaged NBC’s precious choreographed broadcast. You would assume wrongly, by the way. According to Richard Sandomir of The New York Times, the four-hour opening ceremony attracted an average of 34.2 million viewers, the most ever for an opening ceremony not in the United States. I was one of them, in part because as the day wore on, I saw all manner of oohing and ahhing on the Web from bloggers and friends who had peeked in and found themselves awe-struck. By the time the broadcast rolled around, my daughter and I had been nicely primed by the Web fanatics for what was, after all, a kind of epic movie made in real time that was best enjoyed on a big screen with good resolution.”
His insight, underlines another way in which technological competition has transformed the way we watch this Olympics. For me and many others the Beijing games will likely be remembered as the first HD games. For the Torino Olympics NBC produced 50 percent of the events in HD. This year, for the first time, the Olympics are being produced entirely in HD. For borderline Olympic watchers (like me) this makes a huge difference. In Boston, Comcast has dedicated HD Olympic channels that broadcast basketball and soccer 24 hours a day in HD. This weekend, I found myself cultivated by the Brazil vs. New Zealand soccer game in HD and ended up sitting through the Ivory Coast vs. Serbia game after that – only because it was in HD.
Fox Business vs. CNBC: Leave it to Fox Business to create a negative ad campaign around Olympics’ coverage. The somewhat seedy network has bought local airtime to run commercials on CNBC, during their switch-over blocks to Olympic programming, which call out CNBC for dropping its business coverage. Phil Rosenthal of the Chicago Tribunereports that they have bought airtime in local markets including Chicago and New York.
He also reports that commercials go something like this:
“In just a couple of minutes, CNBC is going to drop their business news programming,” the Fox anchor Liz Claman says in commercials that will run on CNBC in Chicago, New York, and other major markets beginning today. “Switch to the Fox Business Network,” she says. “Real business news and no games!”
I have to admit, it’s hard to take your eyes off of Fox Business. Kind of like it’s hard to take your eyes off a train wreck.
Wall Street Journal Vs. Washington Post: Ron Grover, BusinessWeek’s venerable LA Bureau chief became the latest to weigh in on Rupert’s charge to take down the New York Times last week. What got Don to finally address the issue? Here’s what:
“The day after General Motors announced a stunning $15.5 billion quarterly loss, the Journal which Murdoch has controlled for a year, led instead with the more tantalizing story of a federal scientist’s suicide while under investigation in the anthrax case.”
Today’s Journal, interestingly enough, leads with the Georgia and Russia conflict. It also includes a separate page 1 story that analyzes how Vladimir Putin has drawn a line in the sand for the West. Murdoch’s Journal has made political and world news a leading priority in recent months. Even back in late March, Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz detailed how the Journal was making political coverage its business.The percentage of political coverage on the front page of the Journal in the first four months – following Murdoch’s takeover – versus the four months previous to his takeover, jumped from 4.8 to 18 percent.
However, a funny thing has happened along the way as Murdoch continues to set his aim at the New York Times – the subplot with the Washington Post has become more interesting. It’s no secret that Murdoch had a heavy hand in showing Marcus Brauchli the door and now he’s competing as editor-in-chief at the Post in breaking poltical coverage. With Brauchli working closely with Washington Post publisher, and newly anointed media mogul Katharine Graham, it must’ve been a little chilly at this party in Beijing. Here’s hoping they didn’t cross paths.
Flying these days is a huge pain, and there is really no way around it. The airport is filled with long lines, the planes are small and crowded, and you get nickeled and dimed your entire way through the flight.
But, now you may also have to worry about your privacy.
As technology continues to advance, it’s becoming easier and easier for your privacy to be invaded. I’m not talking Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Google searches either. I’m talking about ‘involuntary’ invasions of privacy that will be required in order for you to board your next flight.
The Boston Globe reports that Logan Airport will soon begin using technology that will allow security officials to see through passenger’s clothing to make sure they aren’t hiding liquids or other items that aren’t allowed on flights. Passengers who refuse to go into one of these machines will be subject to a ‘pat-down’ which may or may not be more invasive.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program, says these full body machines are “The equivalent of walking naked through a room with a bag over your head while somebody peers from the balcony above you,” and says that most passengers would be horrified if they saw the images the machine produced.
While these new security measures seem inevitable, it’s interesting to watch as technology has allowed us to become more connected (iPhone) but has also started to place severe limits on our privacy through social networks and now body-scanners.
What do you think about having this technology at airports?
For months the Valleywag has speculated over who is potentially dating the “most eligible bachelor in technology” (i.e. Pete Cashmore). It seems we can finally put the speculation to rest.
Now we really know what caused the infamous fight between the Owl and Mozilla’s Firefox – another man.
If social media is on your radar, you’re obviously familiar with Mashable and its founder Pete Cashmore. The blogging network, designed to cover Web 2.0 and launched by Cashmore in 2005, brings in an estimated $166,000 in monthly revenue through sponsorships and advertising. Racepoint Group was in attendance (with more then 400 others) at Mashable’s SummerMash Boston tour stop on Tuesday at the Roxy and had the chance to sit down with Cashmore.
Here is a piece of the interview that my colleague and RaceTalk correspondent Erik Milster had with him:
Although Cashmore wasn’t willing to fully disclose what’s in the pipeline for the rest of this year and moving into next year, it’s clear that the site will continue to be a must read for those involved in Web 2.0 and social media. According to Compete.com, in July the site nearly hit 1 million unique visitors – falling just short - with 977,328.
