My column in Ad Age

Advertising Age published my opinion piece this week talking about the similarities between public relations campaigns of the past and blogger-based marketing campaigns of today.

The techniques you use to influence the influencers really haven’t changed all that much from the tactics that worked with mainstream media. It’s just that the audience has different motivations. Once you understand how to influence these people, you can build a groundswell of favorable opinion that is impossible for the mainstream media to ignore. See examples.

Interview with Trib's new owner barely mentions digital media threat

Kevin Allen, a smart young writer who works for Ragan Communications, knows my rather strong opinions about the future of newspapers. He sent me a link to this story about Sam Zell’s acquisition of the Tribune Co. and asked for a comment. Here’s what I said:

“I would never want to be quoted questioning Mr. Zell’s wisdom or insight, since he is clearly a very successful investor. I was struck, however, by the fact that neither the Tribune article or the video interview went into any detail on the challenge that digital media presents to newspapers. In fact, I could find the Internet mentioned only once in the Tribune article, in the first paragraph.

“This seems curious to me, since online competition is clearly the biggest challenge facing newspapers these days, particularly in their classified advertising businesses. Longer term, the newspaper’s value proposition as a timely source of information is under siege. This article seems more interested in the Tribune’s ESOP plan and ownership stake in the Cubs than in the serious long-term problems facing its industry.

“It’s been my experience that people of Mr. Zell’s age are almost incapable of relating to the culture and lifestyles of today’s digital youth. This is not their fault, for it’s almost incomprehensible to someone who grew up in the 50s or 60s to relate to the always-connected, always-interacting lifestyle of today’s teens. It’s hard enough for me, at 49, to understand it. I would think that anyone buying a newspaper today would have to look at what they’re going to do to court this next generation of consumers, who have almost no affinity for newspapers. The fact that this critical issue was not addressed in the Tribune interview or video is a glaring omission, in my view. I can’t believe the editors didn’t bring it up.

“Apparently a lot of them aren’t even paying attention to it. As reported last week by MediaPost, “The first Newsroom Barometer survey–conducted by the World Editors Forum and Reuters–found that a staggering 85% of editors and news executives of 435 polled were optimistic about the fate of their publications.”

“As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt :-)”

Dan Rather underwhelms

I didn’t expect much out of Dan Rather’s appearance at South by Southwest and so wasn’t very disappointed that it didn’t deliver. It was a missed opportunity, though. There was the chance to question Rather about all sorts of things that the audience cared about, including the relevance of mainstream media in market with millions of voices, the low public perception of the media in general, the future of citizen journalism and the relationship between social and new media.

Instead, the moderator, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, opened the one-hour session with a question about Rather’s confrontation with Richard Nixon more than 30 years ago. That was an event that I suspect scarcely 10% of the audience even remembers, much less cares about, and it got the session off to a bad start. The rest of the hour proceeded through a short series of relatively tame questions about the state of journalism, along with rambling answers by the newsman (this may not be the moderator’s fault; sometimes interview subjects put restrictions on topics they’ll address). Rather had some good messages for journalists, but they weren’t his audience. The issues that I believe the audience really cares about weren’t even raised until a brief Q&A.

The highlight was Rather’s pointed criticism of what he called “access journalism,” or a style of reporting that trades off aggressive reporting for access to inside sources. Journalists too often protect their sources in order to become part of the inner circle, he said, and political and business figures willingly exploit this weakness. He blamed this trend, in part, on the decline of media competition as media ownership consolidates and the increasing distance between news operations and their parent companies.

“Very often the source is using the reporter and the reporter is using the source, but when the source begins to believe that the reporter can be part of the team, that’s when things get dangerous,” he said.

Rather said that journalism needs a “spine transplant,” a return to its role as an independent advocacy for truth and disclosure. The role of the journalist is as a watchdog, he said. A watchdog barks when it suspects danger but doesn’t lie down or attack. It’s a warning system that keeps those in power on their toes.

“Do we still believe that the documents of government belong to the people and not the people in power?” he asked. “The president is not a descendant of the Sun God. This person is elected by the people and part of what [journalists are] expected to do is check on them.”

Rather’s message was a welcome call for a return to the values of Edward R. Murrow, whose name he invoked twice. But I think the audience was interested in hearing more about social media. Rather’s own knowledge deficit in that area – he didn’t mention YouTube or podcasts once and appeared awkward using “Google” as a verb – was painfully evident. As someone whose CBS career was arguably brought down by bloggers in the Rathergate incident, you’d think he would have more to say. But the question about Rathergate, like so many others, never came up.

USA Today redesign continues reader involvement trend

USAToday debuts a new site design incorporating user comments on news stories, a recommendation engine, blogs from external sources and links to news on other sites. The most distinctive feature appears to be the inclusion of reader comments directly on news story pages. While this isn’t a new idea, USAToday is the largest mainstream media outlet that I’m aware of to take this approach.

The innovation I’m waiting for is when a major news site starts inviting readers to actually contribute to the reporting process. That doesn’t mean deputizing citizens as adjunct reporters, but could involve them contributing background and first-person sidebars. I still think mainstream media could learn something from Wikipedia.org and its much weaker companion Wikinews.org. Wikinews, in particular, is a fascinating idea, but the site doesn’t have enough traffic or contributors to really work. Could a site with USAToday’s throw weight make a companion news wiki successful? Somebody’s to figure it out one of these days.

Murdoch sees media power fading

Rupert Murdoch on the new world:

“It’s so pluralistic. We all have less power, much less.”

“Government now has to be much more open” because of the Web.

On what media should do: “We just have to let this go. We can’t reverse it.”

He advised media organizations to look at social media as an opportunity, though he wasn’t specific about how to do that. I don’t think many media organizations will ever see this as an opportunity.

This is an interesting article because of the blunt language it attributes to Murdoch: media power is sliding away and it isn’t coming back. Get used to it.

The New Journalism: customized reporting

Andy Abramson, a PR guy who is also one of the most widely read journalists blogging about VOIP, has posted an interesing essay about Creative Video Blogging and The New “Instant Journalism.” His thinking mirrors my own in many respects: in the future journalism will be an amalgam of input from a variety of linked sources. The consumer will have the option of drilling down for more information on almost anything.

One view from inside the newspaper industry

I’ve had quite a few e-mails from people about my theory that newspapers are entering a death spiral, but none as compelling as this one, which just arrived. The sender is anonymous, so I have no way of verifying who he says he is. Read it, though, and judge for yourself.

“Hi Paul……I’m a Delivery Foreman for the NYTimes, union, of course. I make 90k a year without overtime. My drivers make 60k+ a year. The Times signed a new contract with us (NMDU) this spring that’s “guaranteed” through 2016. With diesel fuel approaching 3 bucks a gallon, newsprint costs, warehouse rent, insurance, pension, workers comp costs, etc. etc. etc. how long is this a viable model? Answer….not too effing long, that’s for sure. I tell my drivers, “We’re like the dinosaurs after the first meteor hit………we stick our heads up above the weeds, and think, ‘hey, it’s getting cold out…’…….and they don’t want to hear it. I’m really curious about what Sulzberger could have been thinking when he forced us to re-open our contracts and gave us the guarantee. Does he know something that the rest of us don’t? Anyway, I retire soon. I’m more than ready for a buyout, but the younger guys ….well, good luck with that ‘guarantee’. If one lawyer can write a contract, another one can break it……………. “

By the way, you can now download my article, “How the coming newspaper industry collapse will reinvigorate journalism” as a PDF.

Marketers react to newspaper death-spiral proposal

BtoB magazine published my monthly column under the provocative title “Newspaper death spiral has begun” this week and linked to a 3,500-word manifesto that I assembled to further argue my point. If you read this blog regularly, you’ve already read the salient points, but the essay on the BtoB site packages everything up neatly.

I’ve received a handful of e-mails from BtoB readers about the column and not a single one has disagreed with my position. Perhaps my argument isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. One writer asked whether I thought magazines were going to suffer the same fate as newspapers. My position on that is that magazines are a different issue entirely and it really depends on the type of magazine. High-end, lifestyle mags will be just fine (Cigar Aficionado, Golf, Travel & Leisure). News magazines have been in trouble for a long time and I think their situation will worsen. Trade magazines will be a mixed bag. I expect very few computer magazines to survive, for example, but CFO magazine or vertical journals in non-tech areas may see little change.

The economic model of magazines is very different from that of newspapers. Newspapers have huge fixed costs for production and delivery and that’s why they’re so vulnerable. Once they cover their fixed costs, the margins are great, but if they ever become unprofitable, the whole model starts to fall apart. They don’t scale down very well. That’s why I believe the collapse of newspapers will be so rapid. Remember that in many markets, newspapers operate as essentially legal monopolies. If they can’t make money operating from that position of strength, their situation is very dire indeed.

Another writer asked about the prospects for community newspapers. In fact, I believe those publications have a bright future. My expanded essay refers to resurgence in community publishing enabled by cheaper production costs. Small-town and community newspapers are well positioned to take advantage of the trend toward more localized publishing. They are the least likely to be marginalized by online competition.

In short, I think the rapid collapse scenario will be limited to metropolitan dailies. National papers will probably be okay and community papers could actually get stronger. But I’d hate to be the Detroit Free Press right now.

Late-night news feeling the squeeze

Washingtonpost.com reports on the precipitous decline in viewership of late-night newscasts in its region: more than 10% on average compared to last year. Such dropoffs are unheard of in the relatively stable media world. The culprit is apparently declines in the quality of prime-time network programming, which typically swings viewers into the late news. As networks have cut budgets in response to falling viewership, a domino effect has taken hold and now the local affiliates are hurting.

Is this the beginning of the end of television news? The average age of an evening news viewer is now 60. Late-night has been the one salvation of the broadcast business, but even that may fall by the wayside. News has always been a low-margin business for TV stations. In the future, will they even bother to offer news any more?