As to what version they choose to push onto the wires? That strikes me as a case-by-case kind of thing. I argue that companies aren't ready to switch *wholesale* to a new format, though they do seem to understand that format's value and the need to explore its possibilities.

Amanda,
 
Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact that you're able a comment here actually makes my point -- the approach we're taking here is more "social media" than "news release."
 
(And if your real identity is anywhere close to what many suspect it is, your accusation of simply rebranding "the hard work of others" is particularly humorous.)
 
I've given respectful nods to those who have contributed to the industry effort, which seem to have been appreciated.

And I'm willing to take critics and supporters on a level playing field.

Ben,
 
Fixed. Thanks.

Jason,

Thanks for the note. We'll make sure that's worked in.

Paul,

Interesting thoughts. Of course, we could load in links to any social media resource. (And I doubt any news release, social or otherwise, would invalidate memeorandum.)

Dee,

Good points, but you'd be surprised (or not) about how thin-on-the-ground IT teams can be, decent or otherwise.

Mike,

Don't you think there are a number of "True Beginners?"

As to the language used... Saved and noted.

Russell,

There's a big difference between a template and a mechanism used to publish something to that template. It's also hard to "rip off" something that was communicated as free to everyone for playing around with. (The direct quote from the SHIFT announcement says: "The template is 100% open to the PR/marketing community. No copyright baloney. We hope it can serve as a helpful guide to kickstart thinking about how we can evolve the PR sector.") Check out my blog... I've given plenty of nods to the people and organizations who have worked on this.

Mary,

The message of fill-in-the-blank is one for communicators, though your humor has some

Patrick,

Thanks for the compliment. Please leave your URL next time!

Ross,

Thanks for the drop-in. Now that I look, it is a bit unclear. Since the publishing mechanism is separate from the presentation one, that's easy to fix.

Brian,

As Timothy points out, the release was created using StoryCrafter. It's also not a software product for download. It's a hosted service, but not a public one. As to casting aspersions on one's intelligence, I'm sorry you opted to muddle your points by descending into namecalling.

Dominic,

Please describe what's wrong with offering a proprietary means to produce something that conforms to an accepted presentation standard (e.g., Todd Defren's open template or Social Media Club's recommenations). As I'm fond of tech examples... As long as the wireless Internet chip in your laptop conforms to IEEE's "802.11" standard, for example, the maker of that chip can innovate any way s/he pleases, right?

As to validation... You'll find that most pages don't validate anyway. (Yahoo. CNET. Yours.) And, even when they do validate sometimes they behave differently from browser to browser. While I'm not cavalier about the importance of standards (see above paragraph), the question is: Will it look good and deploy easily? In any case, chances are it'll get better easily over time. We'll try harder in the next rev. Frankly, I'd like us to adopt a "release-early, release-often" mode.