Editorial Vs Advertising: Blurring the Lines

Thu 17 May 2012 @ 14:45

Affect's Melissa Baratta discusses the fine line between editorial and advertising...

Over the last 10 years, the line between journalists and readers has grown significantly shorter. From blogging to commenting to online sharing, the swift rise of the Internet and social media has allowed the consumer to be the producer in a way that was never before possible. The line between editorial and advertising has also always been a sticky area, and as a PR professional I’m trained to view pay-for-play media opportunities with a bit of a wary eye.

Social media enables the proliferation of news at the speed of light, which is a great thing. But now, media outlets are recognizing that readers often find their stories through a friend’s tweet or Facebook post, and they are looking for ways to capitalize on the trend.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times Co. announced it was closing the gap between editorial and advertising / journalist and consumer even further by launching Ricochet, a program that the WSJ says “lets marketers pick a select number of stories from Times Co. properties…that are relevant to their social media audiences and create special links for sharing those stories. Anyone clicking on the social media links will see the marketer’s ads next to the stories for a specified period of time.”

This new ad program has raised a few eyebrows, but NYT has assured everyone that they will keep the barrier between editorial and advertising strong by using a few stopgaps.

  1. Advertisers have to wait seven days before sharing any stories about themselves.
  2. Advertisers won’t be able to share negative stories about their competitors.

The program is aimed at enabling brands to connect better with their consumers, and truthfully users may not notice much of a difference at all.

The question now is, as the media world becomes ever more connected, will programs like Ricochet enhance the experience for everyone, or further blur the roles between reporters, consumers and advertisers? Only time will tell.

Permalink

On V-E Day, Four Lessons from a WWII News Embargo

Wed 9 May 2012 @ 10:23

As the anniversary passes, Sterling PR's Lisa Hawes discusses the repurcussions of Ed Kennedy breaking the V-E day news embargo and the key points of embargo management that arised as a result..

Yesterday was the 67thanniversary of the official end of hostilities in the European theater of World War II. The unconditional surrender of Germany was announced on May 8, 1945.

The Associated Press correspondent who filed his V-E Day report on May 8 — a full day before competing media outlets — also violated a news embargo imposed by the Allied Command. As a result, the US military expelled the reporter from France and briefly banned AP dispatches from Europe. The AP then fired the reporter, Ed Kennedy, in spite of the enormous scoop he had handed his news agency.

This story has resurfaced in the last few days because the AP president, Tom Curley, has issued an apology to Kennedy’s family. While Kennedy died in 1963, his family recently published his memoir with an introduction penned by Curley. As part of the publicity push, the AP filed an engrossing article on Kennedy’s tale that has appeared in many newspapers, spurring discussion of embargo management.

The proper way to manage a news embargo is a topic of endless interest within PR agencies like Sterling Communications. Online media sites such as TechCrunch imposed a death sentence on the embargo as far back as 2008. Embargoes are now frequently violated even by old-line media such as the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker, provoking furious arguments on Twitter. As soon as one outlet publishes the story, the other dominoes will fall. Sometimes disagreements arise even with a single news organization, where online news staff or wire staff may violate an embargo time established for the print edition.

In the case of Ed Kennedy, there are four key points about embargo management that bear comment:

(1)  The 17 reporters who were offered the chance to witness the May 7surrender ceremony agreed to embargo the news until authorized by Allied headquarters to file their stories. However, this was originally understood to be for a few hours only. Censors later extended the blackout to 36 hours.

Embargoes are normally set for a specific amount of time. The US military may have the power to extend an embargo time past the original agreed-upon time, but don’t expect that a civilian company can. (Well, maybe Apple.) In any normal situation —which the German surrender was not — a reporter shouldn’t be relied upon to hold the story once the embargo time has passed. The PR representative can certainly try to call in favors with reporters who have the story, but shouldn’t expect the new timeframe will stick, especially if the news is truly noteworthy. Reporters want their scoop!

(2)  German officials announced the surrender by radio during the extended blackout period. Kennedy then requested the American censor lift the embargo, since the news was out, but his request was denied. That’s when Kennedy made his fateful decision to go rogue.

 It’s S.O.P. now for a reporter to ignore an embargo if someone else has already violated it. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if the embargo hasn’t held, the reporter derives no benefit from keeping to it, as long as he/she can point to the earlier story. Ideally, the reporter will notify the PR contact that the embargo hasn’t held. However, a military embargo is not the same as a corporate one. Kennedy knew he was running a huge risk.

(3)  Kennedy dictated his story directly to the AP’s London bureau, which issued the story on the wire within minutes. He did not first discuss the dilemma with his editors.

 This is where Kennedy failed. This type of lone cowboy behavior is an example of short-term thinking. Yes, he beat his competitors with the story, but he created a lot of hurt for the AP in the long run. Woodward and Bernstein didn’t run their Watergate accusations against the White House without first securing Ben Bradlee’s approval, and Bradlee solicited his publisher’s advice. It’s possible that Kennedy’s editors would have reined him in — and as his employers, they had a right to do so. However, if they’d given him the go-ahead, he’d have kept his job.

(4)  The 16 war correspondents that continued to honor the embargo were furious, and later signed a protest letter requesting the military ban on the AP.

You can’t blame them. Kennedy flaunted the rules and won a huge scoop for the AP, while the correspondents who stuck by their pledge were shut out for another day. Unfortunately, the AP had to bear responsibility for the actions of its employee, even though they had not condoned it.

Ed Kennedy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. His reluctance to honor an embargo on a piece of news that was public was understandable, but he sabotaged himself when he bypassed his editor. There were mistakes on both sides. It’s a story rife with cinematic possibilities — take note, Leonardo DiCaprio!

Permalink

French say ‘non’ to election Tweets

Wed 2 May 2012 @ 15:48

Ahead of the French exit poll, Johnson King's Mike King points out why the French authorities will not succeed in banning Twitter users from discussing the results...

The French often like to take their own path and, when it comes to social media it seems they are no different. In a move that brings to mind King Canute, French authorities are attempting to stop people from using social media to discuss exit poll results on election days. This strikes me as being as ridiculous as trying to stop people chatting about politics in the pub on the day of a general election.

In particular, the French authorities are reported to be targeting those Twitter users (and there were many of them) who discussed exit poll results before the 8pm deadline in Sunday’s first round presidential election because the law in France bans the publication of exit poll results before all polling stations are closed. And it isn’t just Twitter users in France who are under fire. In a move that reinforces stereotypes of French arrogance, the authorities were also reported to have begun attempts to prosecute media outlets in other countries, in particular Belgium, for breaking the same law. Why newspapers would have to do anything other than adhere to the laws of the country that they operate in is beyond me.

Amusingly, to get around the restrictions in France, Twitter users adopted code names for the various candidates when tweeting about them. The candidate with the most votes after round one, Francois Hollande was frequently referred to as The Flan and the current president Nicolas Sarkozy as Platform (a reference to his stacked shoes).

It will be interesting to see what action is taken and what codes are used when the second round of voting takes place on May 6th. One thing’s for sure, there’ll be plenty of people Tweeting about it, including the exit poll results.

 

Twitter France

Permalink

A Picture Tells a Thousand Words

Thu 12 Apr 2012 @ 9:55

N2N Communications discusses what the increasing dominance of pictures and video means for PR...

Ever since the dawn of time, pictures have been used to convey messages.  From stone age cave carvings, Egyptian hieroglyphics or indigenous Australian depictions, pictures tell a story.

It’s always been an important part of the PR armoury, but today has renewed relevance.  Why? Our good friend social media.

Pictures and video dominate online.  The explosion of social media and the fact everyone now has a voice (and a camera phone) means if your messages aren’t relevant you won’t get cut-through.  In a very short time, we’ve gone from micro-blogging in 140 characters to showing the world what we’re doing through pictures and video.  YouTube is the world’s second biggest search engine and Pinterest, where pictures dominate, is the fastest growing social media site ever – it’s not even out of beta yet.

Australia has the second highest smart phone adoption after Singapore and now most of us have access to high quality camera phones, it’s incredibly easy to share visual experiences online.  From a cultural perspective, social media taps into our innate desires to show and tell.

And then there is the infographic phenomenon – a hugely effective way to share data visually, and when combined with social media can have enormous reach.

What does this mean for communications?

As ever, PR must consider how to engage in meaningful and relevant ways using all the tools at our disposal, especially video and pictures.  But its more than just a product shot – we need to think creatively about how best to convey the broader story we are trying to tell. Pick up any paper and you’ll find a story of questionable merit accompanied by a great picture.

It’s about striking the balance between visuals and words.  In many cases visual communication can be very powerful and most people retain information much more effectively when it is presented visually; in others the written word is still the best vehicle. This infographic shows the impact a cleverly placed visual can have on readership:


In general, the formula is simple: text + images + video = greater engagement.

In practice, working out the weighting for each variable depends on the channel, audience, topic, complexity, objective and budget. And while these variables will constantly change, one thing is clear, the power of the picture cannot be ignored.

Permalink

The Art of Story Hijacking

Fri 30 Mar 2012 @ 14:31

Kate Ryan from Affect discusses how story hijacking needs to be a fundamental element of any PR program... 

It’s a problem many companies may be familiar with: We have no news. Our product roadmap has been delayed. We don’t have any customers willing to talk about our product or services.


As a PR professional, it’s not uncommon for me to hear any (or all!) of those statements from both current and prospective clients – regardless of how big or small the company may be. Enter a little something called “Story Hijacking.”

Story hijacking may seem like a simple enough concept (you may have heard it called Rapid Response or Proactive Pitching), but I’m always surprised at how often companies ask me about it. Basically, it’s the art of monitoring for breaking news that may not be directly related to your client, and “hijacking” it by taking over the conversation and offering an immediate response (or a counter opinion) that adds richness or depth to a reporter’s story. It takes a popular story and adds the “this is what it means” for a target audience.

Here are a few quick examples of “story hijacking” in action:

Story hijacking should be a fundamental element of any PR program. Here’s a few tips on how to get it up and running at your business:

  • Set Up Google Alerts – for any and every topic related to your company, under the “as-it-happens” code
  • Be Ready to Have An Opinion – float trend ideas or news stories by stakeholders to get their pulse on key issues (and keep their thoughts on file for when the moment is right)
  • Have A Rapid Response Plan in Place – know who your spokespeople are, have access to their calendars, and be ready to get them on the phone when a story breaks
  • Cultivate Relationships – build credibility with writers through an ongoing PR program, so that they’ll trust your opinion during a breaking news situation

Permalink