I will learn to effectively use:
-Photoshop
-InDesign
-CSS
-HTML
See you all on the other side...
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
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.
"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.
Friday, December 12, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)