New year's resolutions 2009

I will learn to effectively use:

-Photoshop
-InDesign
-CSS
-HTML

See you all on the other side...

Hatin' on PR - Michael Arrington is done with news embargoes

Michael Arrington posted on TechCrunch Wednesday that he would no longer honor news embargoes, noting that his competitors already break embargoes regularly, hurting his readership. But even Arrington recognized the benefits of news embargoes done right. From TechCrunch, on "embargoed news":

"A lot of this news is good stuff that our readers want to know about. And we have the benefit of taking some time during the pre-briefing to think about the story, do research, and write it properly. When embargoes go right, we get to write a thoughtful story which benefits the company and our readers."

News embargoes are agreements between journalists and PR folks not to run a story until a certain date. They're more relevant to national stories that will garner a large amount of coverage: say, a multi-million dollar merger or an upcoming release of an innovative product by a major company.

Arrington blames PR firms for sending emargoed news stories to bloggers who aren't likely to honor embargoes - and he's right, this is a problem - but it's just too easy to extrapolate the actions of a few hasty, desperate PR people to the entire industry. I mean, are all PR people guilty of this?

Well, Arrington does mention that Microsoft and Google enforce their embargoes by denying known embargo-breakers releases. It's a splendid way to enforce an embargo - if you're a massive company that can throw its PR weight around. Smaller companies don't have that luxury.

Is there a solution? Well, it shouldn't be to throw out the news embargo entirely, as Arrington has done. News embargoes are valuable to both PR people and journalists. They help PR people get maximum coverage and journalists create well written and researched stories. What we need is to make sure PR people understand the blogs they're contacting.

News embargoes are likely to be respected by newspapers and magazines, but an obscure blogger who's eager to get some attention is much more likely to post a hot story early. The problem only gets worse when credible bloggers break embargoes.

For more insight, check out this post in POP! PR Jots, which also discusses Arrington's recent criticism of Lois Whitman and HWH PR.

Change.gov: a special blend of Internet and politics

A new tool on Barack Obama's Web site, Change.gov, lets anyone post a question in an open forum where users vote on their favorite questions.

The most popular question?

"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"
- S. Man, Denton.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a step back. This Web site raises more questions than just the ones posted by users. Can a Web site really bring about true transparency in government? And, to step back further: can a Web site enable serious dialogue between a nation and its elected officials?

First, a dialogue requires communication by both parties involved - in this case, the Obama administration and our nation. In media, we are sometimes tempted to think that by allowing an open forum on the Internet, we can reach everyone.

But this isn't necessarily true. According to an August 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 75% of adults use the Internet. This is a large number, but it isn't everyone. (As an aside, the numbers go up yearly. Check out this poll from 2006.)

And more important than who is represented in that 75% is who isn't. According to the same poll, 83% of 18-29-year-olds use the Internet, while only 33% of those in the 65+ demographic use it. Only 49% of those who make $30,000 or less per year use the Internet, while 93% of those making $75,000+ do.

Those with higher education are more likely to use the Internet; white people are slightly more likely to use the it than minorities; men are slightly more likely to use it than women.

The distribution of non-Internet users is not even across demographics - we miss sizable chunks of the population when we put any campaign entirely online.

Also, we should consider who is likely to visit Change.gov. I'd be willing to bet more Obama voters than McCain voters, more liberals than conservatives, more young people than older people.

Which brings us full circle: how did a question about legalization of marijuana end up at the top of the question rankings when only 36% of adults in the United States support legalization (versus 60% against legalization, according to a 2005 gallup poll)?

When you stack up the demographics of people who are online against those of people who support legalization, you see young people heavily represented in both groups. The question is ranked highest because of the skewed user base.

Back to defining the dialogue - can elected officials respond to Change.gov users' questions in a satisfying way, especially considering the skewed user base of the Web site? Supposing Barack Obama's campaign really did want to work toward legalization, it'd be interesting to see how much progress he could make.

He'd have to work with Congress to get federal drug laws repealed. He could also try to dissolve the DEA, which is a function of the Department of Justice. In the end, though, the laws themselves are in the hands of the legislature.

Obama will run into similar issues in trying to satisfy other concerns of Change.gov's user base. And if Obama disagrees with his constituents and does not fulfill their wishes, has he betrayed his own principles of transparency and open government?

Let me be clear: Change.gov is not a bad idea. It's a good idea. Transparency and open government are noble causes. But some people are expecting more than they're going to receive.

Big media treading water

There's a special kind of irony that comes when a major newspaper reports on its own bankruptcy. It's not comedic irony - it's a quietly disturbing irony, foreshadowing drastic changes in the media world. The Tribune Co., which owns the LA Times, KTLA-TV Channel 5 and other newspapers and TV outlets, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection yesterday. They're not alone in their financial trouble.

NBC recently cut 500 jobs in its plan to cut $500 million from their budget next year. Viacom announced that it was cutting 850 jobs in an effort to save between $200 and $250 million next year. Even the New York Times is over $1 billion in debt right now.

Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling case for the imminent death of print media. He says bloggers have filled the gap in reporting to some degree but can't support true journalism like a newspaper can. And he's right.

But it's not all doom and gloom - newspapers are still in a transitional phase between print news and online news. We're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel already, with many newspapers stepping up online content and exploring the possibilities of online advertising. The survivors of this tough time will come out with tight new online business models.

Some trends that have come with an economy in recession and the transition to online news include:

- smaller newspaper staffs,
- consolidation of independent newspapers or studios into media conglomerates,
- and increasing reliance of news outlets on press releases and news agencies.

Check out this New York Times article for some more insight into the economic side.

What does this mean for journalism? Well, I can't really say - but I do think the worsening economy can only hurt investigative journalism, a cornerstone of any free society.

But for every column that can't be filled by a reporter, someone in PR might be stepping up to the plate with a release or story pitch. Bittersweet for us PR people. But more bitter than sweet.

The only Good thing at Starbucks

I normally can't be bothered to stop at a Starbucks, but halfway between Gainesville and Pensacola with the sun sinking low in the sky, the promise of caffeine was the only thing keeping my eyes open. So I stopped at a Starbucks in Tallahassee because, well, I do kind of like the Doubleshot on Ice. Starbucks has good espresso; everything else there sucks.

While waiting for the barista to dissolve unhealthy amounts of espresso and sugar into far too little milk, I picked up a copy of the Good Sheet, a fold-out newsprint magazine about the size of a CD case. A Starbucks exclusive, I might add. Here it is pictured.

I'd never heard of the Good Sheet before. I'm holding issue No. 11 in my hand. According to a short description on its inside cover, "Good is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. We make a magazine, produce videos, curate a website, and host events around the country." Good's magazine and website operate under a Radiohead-esque pay-what-you-want subscription policy, 100% of which goes to the non-profit of your choice.

According to the VP of Marketing at Starbucks, the Good Sheet started as a way to get people to talk about election-related topics like health care, education and gas prices. Now that the election is over, this issue attempts to spark discussion about our consumer culture (it's titled "Holiday Economy").

But this trendy, cute magazine got me thinking about something else. It caught my attention because it's small, strange and simple. Its design calls out to the Internet generation--my generation. We like colors and short blurbs and pictures. We don't want to analyze; we want the gist, the meat. And this magazine--littered with ASCII art, diagrams and ten-word captions--tries to satify our information-addicted society's hunger for instant understanding.

Also, I can put the little guy in my back pocket and take it with me. Like an iPod.

Nissan tightens its belt

Nissan canceled its plans this evening to participate in the 2009 Detroit and Chicago Auto Shows. The company explained that the shows would not be the best use of the company's "marketing dollars."

Nissan isn't the only automaker tightening or reallocating its marketing budget. Mitsubishi canceled plans to attend the same shows, as did Ferrari, Suzuki, Rolls-Royce and Land Rover. General Motors recently canceled plans to advertise during the Super Bowl and Academy Awards and ended a contract with Tiger Woods. Some fear the Big 3 may end their partnerships with NASCAR. General Motors also pulled out of this year's Los Angeles Auto Show (the same show where Nissan unveiled the third generation Nissan Cube, pictured here, which seems to have evolved to look more like other toaster-shaped successes, the Scion and the Element).

So what counts as a good allocation of "marketing dollars?" Depends what you want those dollars to do. An auto show is a chance for the movers and shakers of the industry to show off new products and cutting-edge prototypes to investors and the press. This might be a good idea for a company that's trying to promote a new concept, but even Nissan admits that they don't have anything new left to unveil in 2009.

Nissan is focused on moving product right now because an automobile is not an "impulse buy" anymore. During the tech boom and growth of the housing bubble, middle and upper-class families had room in their budget for a second, third or fourth car. But things are changing.

Any new car purchase is likely out of necessity. Nissan knows it needs to focus on the customer--the Wall Street Journal mentions that Nissan will put its marketing budget towards local campaigns. Good call, Nissan.

Here we go!

Hey all. I'm Alex Wise, a PR undergrad at the University of Florida. (Chomp)

I know I've started blogging a little late in the game. I'm spitting in the ocean. But I think the best way to learn about the world of social media is to dive in headfirst. And the best way to understand a changing world is to be a part of the change.

So this is my blog. I want to talk to you (and with you!) about public relations, marketing, business, news, and maybe a few stray posts about music. I'm excited that you're reading this. Let me know what you think!