So you think that some Internet advertising in intrusive? You can't get away from those ads that are popping up all over your screen?
The Daily Dog reports, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
I wonder how you pronounce "flogos" anyway - is it flow-goes? Or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, flog-ohs...
Over at the Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog, Brian Pittman interviews Eric Auchard, technology correspondent for Reuters. Read the whole thing, but the best quote:
"The best way for a PR person to deal with a journalist is to treat the reporter like a hungry teenager," says Reuters technology correspondent Eric Auchard. "We're impatient, we need things, we're on deadlines and we need to be fed. If we're not fed, we get angry and have tantrums."
And he even has good things to say about press releases...
I've written before about the information age dangers of providing bad service. At the risk of boring you, however, let me back my opinions up with some new statistics, courtesy of eMarketer. They say that more than 70% of US Internet users use social media at least sometimes BEFORE making a purchase, to find out what kind of customer service a company provides. According to eMarketer, "More than nine out of 10 respondents agreed with the statement, 'I have chosen companies/brands based on my customer care experiences.'"
Bottom line to would-be marketers, once again: if you're relying on advertising and PR to build your brand, and you're ignoring your customer service, you are in for serious disappointment.
The following is a note from Peter Shankman about a free resource that every PR person and journalist should know about.
Sharing with you today a great resource. You'll want to tell the PR people, marketers, publicists, editors, and journalists you work with about it too, because it's all about them and their needs.
If you're not already using www.helpareporter.com, check it out. It's a service much like ProfNet, but free. It used to be on Facebook, but grew too large for it. Once you subscribe, you receive about three (sometimes two, no more than four, ever) emails a day with reporter, editor and freelance writer queries, written so you can quickly and easily scan the topics for relevance.
If the topics do not apply to you or your clients, just hit delete. If they do, you may contact the reporter or editor directly, as instructed.
Note that Peter Shankman, the list facilitator, is very strict about helping out these reporters. Respond only if your information (or your client's info) is relevant and on target. If not, you'll get bumped off the list. Quickly. I've seen it happen. He's a big believer in good Karma, and he's also quite funny, and tends to also include a link to a fun site, or a funny story about his day in the emails. It's a nice refreshing change from the boring, non-funny emails we usually deal with.
Reporters can post queries at www.helpareporter.com/press, and sources can sign up at www.helpareporter.com - As I said, it's free. Peter asks that if you find it useful, then you make a donation to any animal rescue charity or animal hospital.
You can forward the queries to others who are a fit, but do not post any queries (or the editor/reporter contact info) on any blogs or public websites. I received permission from Peter to send you this note, since this is a private group and I'm helping to spread the word to both subscribers and media to sign up.
www.helpareporter.com - The more people who use it, the better it becomes.
The New York Times needs a little remedial help in understanding the relationship between public relations and journalism. At least, that's the impression I take away from its 7600-word article about sinister government efforts to influence news coverage about the war in Iraq. Why, would you believe it, the Times has discovered that the Pentagon actually seeks out favorable coverage from military analysts! Shocking!
Or maybe not. I've read a lot of hyperventilating stories about this in the past few days on both sides of the issue. I think the best response, from the PR side, comes in the Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog from Ronn Torossian, the President and CEO of 5W Public Relations:
For me, it's a given that all organizations (including the U.S. military) attempt to "spin" what the public sees and educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It's not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.
Right. Read the whole thing. I'm afraid I have to agree with John Podhoretz writing for Commentary Magazine:
I think, based on many years of experience working at various newspapers, that there is an explanation for the extreme length — 7800 words — of the story and the fact that it manages to find nothing more than an effort by the Pentagon to get good coverage. The Times thought it was on to something very big, ended up with something very small, and then took what little they had and tried to make a silk purse from the sow’s ear that was reporter David Barstow’s investigation.
Public Relations is an exercise in presenting the best possible face to the world. Favoring those who help you is part of the game. If the New York Times weren't wearing its ideological blinders, they would acknowledge it.
As promised, the Association for Downloadable Media has developed two sets of guidelines for podcasting. One document deals with advertising standards, defining and outlining the kinds of ads that may be available on any particular podcast. The other tries to define standards for the kinds of audience and performance measurement that may be available.
The guidelines were rolled out today at AdTech, in San Francisco, and the idea is to gather comments from as many people as possible inside and outside of advertising and podcasting. The documents are open for comment for 30 days, after which they will be refined, based on the comments and suggestions received. Take a look and please do comment.
Josh Chasin has some interesting thoughts today over at MediaPost's Online Metrics Insider blog about the fight over web privacy and targeted advertising. He points to the New York State legislator who wants to make it a crime for advertisers to use information about consumers in order to send them more relevant ads. Chasin's pretty sure that such a blanket ban is a bad idea, and, as I have said before, I agree.
Here's Chasin's argument in a nutshell:
Let's say you are a tall, dashing, smartly dressed Chief Research Officer at a major Internet audience measurement company, and you walk into Nordstrom's. A sales clerk you recognize comes up to you and says, "Hey, your wife's birthday is coming up in a few weeks, and we just got in those sweaters she likes. Should I put a couple of them away for you in her size and color?" Now let me ask you. Does this hypothetical Chief Research Officer perceive this to be: (a) an egregious violation of his privacy, causing him to immediately rush home and write his state assemblyman; or (b) another example of Nordstrom's world-class customer service?
I suspect that most of us would choose "b." I object to advertising when it is irrelevant and/or intrusive. I do not object to advertising about things which - based on my online visits and preferences - might actually interest me.
Take a look at Chasin's post - the comments are pretty interesting as well.
So what to journalists think about the changes taking place in their industry and in the changing nature of their roles? Today's Daily Dog from the Bulldog Reporter cites the results of a major new study sponsored by PR Newswire and PRWeek magazine which finds journalists saying, in general, they're working longer and harder, spreading their skills and talents over a wider variety of media, and becoming more aware of what might delicately be called the "commercial" nature of the business.
The link above has a pretty good summary of the findings. I was particularly struck by the fact that 73% of the respondents say they use blogs in their research - that's a huge change over the past several years. A significant number of otherwise traditional journalists are now writing blogs of their own, generally for their employers.
(Disclosure, although it's probably not relevant here: I spent several years working with PR Newswire's chief competitor. For what it's worth.)
Attention PR people and journalists: here's a Facebook success story for those of us who believe that PR people can actually be helpful to journalists.
Peter Shankman started a Facebook group a few months back called "If I can help a reporter out, I will." The idea was simple: journalists on deadline looking for information on a particular story idea would let Shankman know. He'd email or message the group. Anyone in the group who could answer the question - AND FOR WHOM THE QUERY WAS ON TARGET - would reply.
The results: (1) journalist got the details needed for the story, and (2) PR person made a good contact and quite probably got some additional publicity for a client.
The group has been successful - so much so that it is now a victim of its own success. The group has outgrown Facebook's limit on outgoing messages - that is, when a journalist's request comes in, it is being redirected to so many people that Facebook's spam filters kick in.
So Shankman has started a new site - http://www.helpareporter.com - where you can register to join a special no-spam list and keep this project rolling. Please read what's at the link. It makes a couple of key points, the main one being DO NOT SPAM REPORTERS, but that's something you already know, right? Journalists will also find instructions there on how to get a query sent to the list.
It's a great idea. There were nearly 1100 members of the Facebook group, and the journalists were getting what they needed and the PR people were finding themselves actually getting some respect.
Let's see if we can keep it going.
In Advertising Age this week, Dave Morgan, a former AOL EVP and now founder/chairman of Tacoda, looks at the possibility that a decline in "shared media," the experience of lots of people watching TV at once or watching a movie together in the theater, might "take away our water cooler moments."
Probably not - and, curiously, Morgan doesn't seem to think so either, despite setting up something of a straw man here. He notes, and I would note, the emergence of social media, which is very quickly becoming the way many of us share the experiences that interest us.
And, inevitably, the advertising, the marketing that will try to reach us will be turning to these new virtual water coolers as well - and they will do so with the ability to fine-tune and target their messages to people who are very likely to have a real interest in what they have to say.
"Central to the future of media will be a world where these tools and networks enable consumers to share their singular, on-demand media experiences with each other," says Morgan. And I think - and I'm pretty sure he agrees - that this is also central to the future of the advertising which provides the money to enable these networks.
Hat tip: IAB SmartBrief
