Force For Good Communications

Can reporting co-ops save the local newspaper?

Newspapers simply will not survive under their existing business model. Readers and advertisers are leaving in droves. Newspapers are losing out to competition from alternative news sites--including aggregators such as Yahoo! News and Google--delivering pithy electronic news bites to on-the-go consumers. Newspapers' own websites are increasingly displacing the printed word, but they haven't been able to sufficiently monetize content as on-line readers resist having to pay for content and advertising hasn't delivered enough revenue.

In the six months from April to September, the top 400 newspaper in the U.S. saw their weekday circulation decline by a staggering 10.6%, and that followed what had been considered a horrific circulation decline of 6.1% the previous six months, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation's latest data.

Unless something changes quickly, you can write the newspaper's obituary.

Along with similar pressures facing traditional television news operations, the death of the newspaper could spell the end to strong, competent news reporting. Who will provide the reporting for the news aggregators to collect and distribute? Or will hard reporting largely go by the waste side, largely replaced by entertainment fluff and gossip? And even if a few strong, national news organizations--such as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today--survive, who will do the indispensable but not very lucrative work of reporting on local issues?

One possible remedy to this dark picture could be provided by local news co-ops. The New York Times has begun publishing a local edition in San Francisco and is moving ahead with plans for a Chicago edition as well, stepping into voids in those markets caused by newspaper bankruptcies. The Wall Street Journal has similar plans. While these localized national papers will put additional financial pressure on truly local newspapers in those markets, they also are spawning news co-ops that may be the future of serious local news journalism.

In Chicago, the non-profit news co-op will be headed by James E. O’Shea, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times and a former managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, and other well-regarded journalists will step into key reporting and editing responsibilities. The co-op will provide content for the NY Times' Chicago edition as well as for Chicago public TV and radio stations. It will compete with the news organizations of the Tribune and Sun-Times, both in bankruptcy, at least as long as those newspapers continue to exist. 

In smaller markets, perhaps non-profit news co-ops will supply reporting for all of the area's newspaper, broadcast and web news outlets just as pool arrangements today cover national news stories that are either prohibitively expensive or are not conducive to being covered by the full circus of dozens of camera and sound crews.

Whenever a full complement of news organizations are replaced with a single reporting operation, the worry grows about compromised or less than fully objective news coverage. But as the economics of news organizations grows increasingly dismal, it may be the only local alternative.

P.S. - Nearly three years ago, I posed the question here: "Does the newspaper have a future?" But I certainly did not foresee the dire situation newspapers find themselves in currently. In fact, the lead of my post was: "Reports of the death of the newspaper have been greatly exaggerated."

- Jon Harmon

FCC moves forward on needed net neutrality rules

(update of previous post...)

The Federal Communications Commission appears to be moving ahead in establishing regulations that would enforce so-called "net neutrality" on Internet providers.

"The FCC voted 5-0 to begin the rule-making process, with the agency's two Republicans dissenting with parts of agency's initial findings," reported MarketWatch.

Once the rule-making process begins, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the regulations will be enacted. That's a good step forward in maintaining an open Internet. Under net neutrality, Internet providers would not be allowed to block access to users of competitive Internet providers.

The FCC appears to be wisely allowing for exceptions--as long as they are openly disclosed--for providers to block spam or other unwanted content, such as child pornography. (Any reasonable step taken to limit child pornography, as well as minors' accidental exposure to pornography, is certainly positive. And consistent with the "Blogger Power" initiative championed here two years ago that gained a groundswell of support from around the globe. Blogger Power achieved some small success in highlighting the issue but we always knew that government action was required for any real victories to be declared. A special thanks to Michigan Congressman Thadeus McCotter for his leadership and support.)

- Jon Harmon

Net neutrality versus the coming mobile meltdown

"Net neutrality" is a concept often taken for granted. It is assumed to be a sacred right -- isn't in the Constitution somewhere? But net neutrality may be rapidly becoming untenable in our mobile world as streaming video to handheld devices puts huge new strains on available wireless capacity.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that an internet provider should always allow its users to connect with the users of other internet providers, and should not block the applications and content of other providers. It also has become an article of internet faith that net neutrality means unlimited usage (as opposed to surcharges based on consumption of wireless capacity).

But Holman Jenkins argues in today's Wall Street Journal that unfettered usage is leading to a "mobile meltdown in the making."

Consider: A single You Tube viewing consumes nearly 100 times as much cellular bandwidth as a voice call. In Asia, some 200 million people already watch video on their smart-phones...AdMob reports that mobile Web page requests grew 9% from July to August--a 180% annual growth rate. And Motorola recently went public with worries that a handful of mobile Sling-box users could wipe out cell service in a whole neighborhood.

... the biggest political scrum in the near future won't be over classic net neutrality at all--it will be a battle over usage-based pricing, which is one of the few demands to keep excessive demand in check.

Jenkins calls on the Obama Administration to take steps to free up more wireless spectrum, allow mobile phone operators to merge and to "relax about net neutrality."

But don't expect champions of net neutrality and free, unfettered usage to go quietly in the night.

-- Jon Harmon

I'm trying to adapt to social media, but spare me the inane tweets

A couple of interesting pieces in the WSJ this week provide some useful perspective to social media mania.

In The New-Media Crisis of 1949, Terry Teachout, takes a look at the havoc new media is wrecking on today's traditional media -- including television programming, the music industry, as well of course as newspapers. And he compares that with the mortal blow television struck on radio. Lest we forget: "Video killed the radio star." The lesson from Teachout (is that really his name?) is that those who don't adapt to the new media will be made irrelevant. But those whose skills can be adapted to the new media will continue to shine, some brighter than before.

Resisting change is futile, he says.

Americans of all ages embraced TV unhesitatingly. They felt no loyalty to network radio, the medium that had entertained and informed them for a quarter-century. When something came along that they deemed superior, they switched off their radios without a second thought. That's the biggest lesson taught by the new-media crisis of 1949. Nostalgia, like guilt, is a rope that wears thin.

The second piece comes from Elizabeth Bernstein's On Relationships column "How Facebook Ruins Friendships." She takes a shot at inane Tweets and Facebook postings:

I don't give a hoot that you are "having a busy Monday," your child "took 30 minutes to brush his teeth," your dog "just ate an ant trap" or you want to "save the piglets." And I really, really don't care which Addams Family member you most resemble. (I could have told you the answer before you took the quiz on Facebook.)

Too much annoying detail can poison your opinion of friends and, especially, casual acquaintances. And she opines that quick responses can be dangerous to relationships at times, when a cooler, more thoughtful response might be better.

I wrote earlier this summer that Twitter was "growing up" providing useful insight and access to information from on-the-spot citizen reporting. But there is still plenty of room for restraint. Wouldn't it be great if we were spared all the stupid, boring Tweets from even the trusted-to-be-newsworthy people we follow?

I continue to promise to Tweet only when I have something to say. Followers will be spared details of my breakfast this morning (cold cereal and a banana for those hanging breathlessly -- NOT! --  on worthless detail).

- Jon Harmon

Social media key to professional outreach

At the end of my last post, I asked, "How do you identify VIP influencers among social media? and How do you cultivate a relationship with them?"

Kris Schindler, managing partner at Start Thinking, provides this well-thought-out response:

If you know who the VIPs are, search for them on Twitter.

If VIPs you currently have a relationship with are on Linked In, connect with them.

At conferences and business meetings, when someone says something interesting, see if they are on Twitter and if so, follow them.

Have to miss a professional meeting? If the speaker or panelists interest you, look for and follow them on Twitterand contact them after their presentation to see if the presentation was recorded or if it's on SlideShare.

Read an insightful article online or in print? See if the author has an online presence–blog or Twitter.

When you meet and connect with someone at a conference or business meeting, connect with them on LinkedIn.

When you find the people you are following on Twitter are interesting, see who they are following.

People using social media are putting themselves "out there." If you have a relevant response to their posts, let your voice be heard. Almost all social media outlets have controls for privacy settings. If someone doesn't want feedback form people they don't know, they'll adjust those settings accordingly.

Make it easy for people to follow YOU by including links to your online outlets in your e-mail signature. People are putting their Twitter handles on their business cards now too.

If you aren't getting what you need/want from your online circle of friends, join another clique.

Now, same questions but applied to using social media to spread buzz or news about a product or event.  Let's pick that up with the next post.

-  Jon Harmon

Media relations is a relationship business; how to keep it real with the 'new media'

The rise of new media is both a blessing and a curse to the corporate communicator.

A blessing in providing a direct channel, unfiltered by cynical (or even antagonistic) journalists; a curse in the proliferation of so many diffuse channels to the market.

Media relations is a relationship business. Successful PR people know the handful of journalists most important to their companies and industries. They know what the key journalists' interests are, what their pet peeves are and they have forged at least some level of rapport with them. It's relatively easy to identify your VIP media, those with the biggest circulation numbers among your target audiences plus those who have an out-sized influence on the thinking of other media.

Bloggers, those using Twitter or Facebook, etc. will likely have much, much smaller numbers. But scoring a hit among an influential inside a social media conversation that's spot on to your product or service can be more important than a positive mention in a large-circulation newspaper. It's not just how many people you reach, it's who you reach and in what context.

It also depends if you are trying to create awareness for a new brand (go for the highest number of potential customers) or are trying to advance favorable consideration or address a concern about your company or product (look to help shape the most in-depth conversations relevant to your objective).

So how do you find your most important social media influentials? And how do you cultivate a relationship with them?

More on my next post.

- Jon Harmon

Hope for reform in Iran rests on social media

Repressive official forces in Iran, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put a stop to wide-spread protests of disputed official results of the country's presidential election. It appears a 10-day cooling off period is being enforced, after which reform-minded protesters may have sufficiently lost momentum to prevent substantial opposition being voiced to the clerical regime.

In the meantime, officials in Iran have shut down Facebook use and cell phone texting transmission, and confiscated cell phones protesters have used to capture and post video of the protests and police brutality in suppressing them.

Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has long used social media himself, as noted in my post here in 2007. Ahmadinejad came to power as a populist who at the same time made it clear to the ruling clerics that he was their man. For a time, Ahmadinejad breathed new life into the clerical regime's sagging popularity. But his hardline ways have been rejected by increasing numbers of citizens, particularly women and young people.

For his part, opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi has quite limited credentials as a reformer. A hard-liner himself, Moussavi was included among the four candidates the ruling clerics allowed to be placed on the ballot from 200 initial candidates. But only when he began to modify his rhetoric to express some support for reform did his "green" campaign catch on, with women and students his most vocal supporters.

Photo: AFP

It seems unlikely that the entrenched powers in Iran will allow any real scrutiny of the highly suspect election, The bigger question is whether large numbers of reform-minded citizens will continue to openly push for truly Democratic change in Iran. Hopes rests firmly on the power of social media to connect Iran's citizenry to each other and to supporters around the world. Call them citizen journalists or the Facebook generation -- they are the best hope for lasting change in a repressive nation.

Are we about to witness a historic moment in Iran, similar to the popular unrest in Eastern Europe in 1989 that led to fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Bloc? Or, more likely, is Tehran similar to Tiananmen Square the same year, where student protests captured the world's attention but did little to erode the repressive hold of the Chinese government?

- Jon Harmon

Twitter grows up, just like blogs did way back in 2006

Do you Tweet? Or are you annoyed by the gushing attention paid to faddish Twitter?

Don't be too quick to dismiss Twitter and the legions of Twits as passing silliness. Just like blogging before it, Twitter is quickly morphing from the exceedingly banal to the (sometimes) indispensable.

Twitter poses the question "What are you doing now?" and asks for an extremely brief response to be beamed to your "followers." At first, this prompted Twits to provide frequent updates of their participation in boring activities. Just like the first bloggers who famously (or apocryphally?) posted about what they had eaten for breakfast.

But (some) Twitter use has grown up -- providing eyewitness accounts from the scenes of breaking news stories or allowing a smart business executive to Tweet substantive yet casual updates of true interest to followers. And to spark debate among a virtual community on some topic of interest to them.

Like the Blackberry and the cell phone text message, Twitter is also forcing prolific note writers to get quickly to the point. And for that we can be thankful. Brevity rules.

- Jon Harmon

Own up to your company identity when joining in an on-line conversation

For public relations people looking to stick your toes in the ocean of consumer-generated media: remember that participating in the blogosphere requires full disclosure.

An active chatboard, blog or Twitter discussion centered around your product or company, or at least your industry, might benefit from the perspective of someone knowledgeable. Chances are good you have something meaningful to add to the conversation. But tread lightly, introducing yourself candidly as a spokesperson for your company. Don't get argumentative and certainly don't belittle those who you don't agree with.

In other words, don't follow the example of Raymond Ridder, PR Director for the Golden State Warriors, who anonymously posted pro-management comments on a chatboard that had gone negative on those running the Warriors.

Ridder follows in the disgraced footsteps on Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and the "Wal-Marting Across America" floggers. Being outed as an insider posing as an outsider leads to instant vilification -- as identity transparency is a crucial expectation of ethical behavior in an on-line community.

Ridder threw ethics out the window when he noticed Warriors fan site WarriorWorld.net going starkly negative after a management conference call. So he logged onto the site as "FlunksterDude" and tried to steer things to the positive. Check out this story on CNET to understand why that didn't work.

Ridder is taking full responsibility for his actions. But he doesn't yet understand that he did anything wrong. This well-stated excerpt from fansite SportsRubbish makes clear what was wrong -- and what the implications are for the PR community:

There unfortunately are plenty of P.R. “professionals” who think it is perfectly acceptable to pose as a regular fan to get their message out. Keep this in mind any time you read, well, anything online. If something is too positive or too negative, it quite possibly could either be that company or a rival making that post.

There is nothing wrong with team executives interacting with fans and taking the pulse of fan sentiment. If they do want to post on a team message board like Warriors World, they should just be up front about it, rather then attempting to hide behind anonymity.

- Jon Harmon

 

Future of journalism? With newsrooms shedding jobs, where are j-school grads going to work?

The lasting effects of the credit crisis-fueled recession are widely over-stated. Too often pundits and others with a microphone (or mouse-pad) extrapolate conditions from the past quarter or two into the infinite future. In most cases, they will be proven wrong when they say that changes in behavior are permanent.

Time magazine's cover story, "the New Frugality," argues that tough times are changing forever the way Americans spend and save. We'll see. It's a little too early to say just yet. Remember in early March when we were told by every financial authority that stock-market dynamics had changed for good and that we should get used to lower annual returns when the bull market returns -- and don't expect to recover losses for 10-12 years? Six weeks later the S&P 500 is up 25% from the March 9 low. (But don't take that as a sign that big returns are back for good, either. This morning, a big selloff is sweeping the market. That could change by this afternoon ... or signal the Bear is back, maybe even for a whole week or more.)

The change you CAN believe in are fundamental shifts that were already underway Before the Fall of Lehman Brothers (BFLB). The auto industry, for example, was dealing with over-capacity, high commodity prices and other increasing costs including massive legacy health care obligations. The twin blows of very sharp spikes in fuel prices last summer followed by the liquidity crisis knocked the wheels off the auto companies -- and then the recession spread and sales really dried up. The result is a tremendous acceleration of change throughout the industry. And, this we can be certain of, the auto industry ISN"T going back to BFLB.

Another trend that the recession has accelerated is the demise of the newspaper. Craig's List and similar sites had already taken away the lion's share of a newspaper's most dependable revenue -- classified advertising. Circulation numbers were already in free-fall. But then the recession led to wide-spread cuts in corporate advertising dollars that have devastated display ad revenues, along with further reductions in subscriptions brought on by consumer's "new frugality."

In 2008 alone, 15% of newspaper newsroom jobs were eliminated, according to the NY Times in "J-Schools Play Catch-Up." The article details how journalism schools have added courses on the future of journalism in the Internet age including how-to courses such as "Multi-Media Story-telling." (Not sure what took so long. Force for Good readers will recall "Next Practices: Story-telling Wins Out," from March 2007).

The J-school's new-found emphasis on the future is long-overdue. Enrollment numbers continue to be strong at most university j-schools; many show increased enrollment since the economic clouds rolled in. Where are all those j-school grads going to work?

The next generation of grads are going to have to help find new solutions -- both in monetizing on-line news sites of major news organizations and in creating new outlets for professional journalists. And time is running short.

The future of news media is uncertain, to say the least. But, safe to say, it is never going back to the old way.

- Jon Harmon