« Where Have All the Cowboys Gone? | Main | It's The End of the World As They Knew It »
April 8, 2005
Over the Wall
In the past week, I have attended five panels on blogs, new media and 21st century media relations. The first was organized by Reuters, the second by the 21 Club and the other three by the Arthur W. Page Society. The panelists included: David Weinberger, a fellow at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School; Leslie Stahl, host of CBS' 60 Minutes; Brooke Gladstone of National Public Radio; Michael Wolf of McKinsey; Gordon Krovitz of Dow Jones; Martin Nisenholtz of the New York Times Company; Garrett Graff, contributing editor of Fishbowl who is first blogger accredited to cover White House press briefings; Jon Carson of Buzzmetrics; John Fund, author of "Political Diary" for OpinionJournal.com; Halley Suitt, author of weblog Halley's Comment.
Here are some observations:
1) The "walled garden" is not a sustainable business model. Nisenholtz was quite persuasive in explaining how the New York Times footprint has spread through its on-line ventures. Specifically, the NY Times is insinuating itself into conversation. Blog meters always rank the Times #1,2 or 3, with 16 million people coming to nytimes.com each month. Even the Wall Street Journal is making available some of its on-line content to bloggers to provoke conversation (which is not commonly known)
2) There is great consternation on part of the traditional media about the tone and accuracy of the new media. Leslie Stahl attributed the lack of civility in politics to a more caustic tenor in media. She said that cable news delivers shouting, partisan coverage. Bloggers deliver an even more developed form of focused hysteria. She suggested that bloggers add content around ideas, and that most big stories are broken by mainstream media. There is no center because cable viewers and new media readers are only getting one point of view, which is consistent with their own believes. Leslie believes in the concept of unbiased journalism, with trust extended by viewers over time because of objectivity.
3) The traditional media believes that it offers a unique set of attributes that are vital in an age of information overload. Specifically, Krovitz points to a greater reliability and quality of the traditional product, crucial to those in financial markets. This is why the Journal has a very high penetration of "business news junkies," Krovitz said. He noted further that Dow Jones is pushing new forms of distribution, such as the Blackberry version of wsj.com, now available. Gladstone of NPR took issue with this idea of a "trust advantage" for traditional media. She contends that Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is the most trusted newscaster because he is transparent, mixes news with entertainment and because his bias is quite evident.
4) The advantages of the new media are conversation, personalization and on demand. Marcus Molitas of DailyKos, a blogger, may write only 2000 words but 250,000 words appear on this blog daily through additional postings.
5) There is real ability to mobilize through blogs, whether employees or volunteers in a political campaign. This week the NYTimes reported on the impact of a blog written by a resident in Minneapolis on allegation of corruption in Canadian politics. Weinberger recounted the effectiveness of Matthew Gross, the official blogger of the Howard Dean for President campaign, in "engendering loyalty, creating a sense of community, and offering an authentic voice." There is more credibility in blogs written by a mid-level person in an organization—Robert Scoble of Microsoft is cited as an example.
6) If everybody knows everything, how can a company have any control? Wolf suggested every private space is now public--note the number of people mourning the death of Pope John Paul who took digital photos as they passed the bier. Carson of Buzzmetrics offered further insight into this issue. Buzzmetrics' review of mentions of the 20 top global brands indicates that corporate generated content is responsible for only 12-14% of search results, while consumer generated content is 26%. The consensus is that a company's goal should not be CONTROL, it should be AWARENESS of what's being said and fast RESPONSE.
6) There is tremendous power in peer-to-peer recommendation. David Martin of Interbrand said that only 15% of car buyers cited advertising as a reason they were purchasing a specific brand. He contrasted that to the power of Amazon, CraigsList or Tribe to aggregate comments by purchasers.
7) The traditional media will not compromise its "journalistic principles" either by hot links from editorial to advertising or by allowing its reporters to be overly opinionated. Krovitz said, "Trust is the essence of our business."
Ok, going beyond recitation of other people's facts and views, here is some of my advice for PR people trying to adapt to a fast-changing environment. We have to be operating in parallel universes, continuing to do a great job with traditional media, while engaging with new media. We should help our clients create original content, and advise them to engender conversations on-line but be honest about our inability to control outcomes. We must be on top of the breaking news in companies, because news is being filled by the person who has the newest information. The coverage of tsunami initially came from survivors with cell phones or mini-cams, and delivered across the Web. Our tone in new media must reflect the different expectations of the audience, which is to demand authenticity, individuality and transparency.
We partnered with Intelliseek and David Weinberger to create a white paper on the impact of blogs in order to help our own staff, as well as clients, better understand how to engage new media. If you do download it (from the insights section ) I'd welcome any feedback since it is the first in a series.
One last thought and this one comes from Lee Rainie, director, Pew Internet & American Life Project. He said, "Be Not Afraid."
Posted by Edelman at April 8, 2005 5:36 PM |
Comments
Thought you might be interested in my commentary on the subject from last Sunday's Los Angeles Times:
ABSTRACT:
The silly 'are bloggers journalists?' debate continues to rage. In this Los Angeles Times commentary, Rory O'Connor suggests we should be debating instead how our newly
transformed news environment can best function.
Call Them What You Will, Bloggers Won't Shut Up
By Rory O'Connor, Rory O'Connor is president of Globalvision, an independent international media company.
It's nothing less than astonishing that the mainstream journalistic community continues to debate the silly question: "Are bloggers journalists?"
Such online analysts as PressThink's Jay Rosen and Slate's Jack Shafer declared the debate dead months ago, but David Shaw's recent Media Matters column in The Times
raised it from the grave. Shaw grumpily declared blogging "a solipsistic, self-aggrandizing journalistic-wannabe genre" that is not entitled to 1st Amendment rights enjoyed by "professional" journalists. If courts allowed bloggers "to invoke the privilege to protect confidential sources," Shaw puffed, "the public will become even less trusting than it already is of journalists."
And the courts are addressing the issue, which is at the core of a trade-secret suit filed by Apple Computer: Must bloggers who write about leaked product data disclose the identities of their sources at Apple or its contractors?
Corporate-media types contend that bloggers are inaccurate and irresponsible -- true in some cases. But what worries self-styled professionals most, I suspect, is the possibility that treating bloggers as journalists would either lower the profession's standards or make it easier for them to topple more Dan Rathers.
The inaccurate reporting of Rather and CBS News on President Bush's Air National Guard service --initially revealed by bloggers -- and the careless comments of CNN's Eason Jordan about U.S. troops "targeting" journalists in Iraq -- also unearthed by
bloggers -- did more damage to the profession than any blog I've read. And the fake journalist Jeff Gannon/James Guckert would still be lobbing softballs at Bush's news conferences if it weren't for such blogs as daily kos and AMERICAblog.
I'm a practicing journalist with three decades of experience -- who also blogs regularly. When I recently revealed on my blog (www.roryoconnor.org) that the corporate culture of the Swedish media firm Metro International is racist and sexist, and questioned why the New York Times Co. would join such a firm in a multimillion-dollar partnership, was I a journalist or a blogger? The story was picked up by Associated Press and carried in numerous U.S. dailies, crossed the Atlantic and appeared in the Financial Times and Le Monde, and led to the
resignation of two top Metro executives, so it really doesn't matter.
What to say to the threatened members of journalism's professional priesthood? "No one owns journalism," blogging pundit Jeff Jarvis wrote on BuzzMachine. "It is not
an official act, a certified act, an expert act, a proprietary act. Anyone can do journalism. Everyone does. Some do it better than others, of course. But everyone does it." Jacob Weisberg, writing for Slate, suggested that we "disregard all such
self-interested whining. If you don't like this raucous clamor emanating from cyberspace, you're not really comfortable with democracy."
Rather than fruitlessly debating whether bloggers are journalists, we should ponder how our newly transformed news environment can best function. Newspapers have a huge stake in this debate. Young people no longer get their news exclusively from the
morning papers, evening network newscasts or other traditional outlets. Increasingly, they go online to find news ó and read bloggers that professional journalists deem so dangerous.
Posted by: Rory O'Connor at April 12, 2005 5:05 PM
First, thanks for taking the step and getting out there. For some reason I prefer to contribute to someone else's blog rather than start my own. I will take off on a poignant comment someone added to your post of April 5: "The PR world needs more than just ethics, it needs new blood and some new symbols."
Public relations is about control - controlling the message, the method of delivery, the environment, the spokesperson, etc. We cannot control the result but our job is to control everything that we possibly can.
Blogs are about loss of control. Richard posts thoughts, I comment, I can say anything (thanks for the opportunity). Corporate communications is still largely under the illusion that it has the same manner of control that it used to. Not true. Employees - current and ex (I did work for Edelman, among others) - share information in a free flowing stream. That information gets to reporters and bloggers. There are few secrets anymore and that trend will only accelerate.
That said there is still an important role for traditional public relations and traditional media. Most bloggers still react to news that breaks through mainstream media. Bloggers add an essential and intimate reflection of that news - witness the great blogging that came out of Iraq at the onset of the war. I can't imagine that I will ever tire of reading the print versions of The New York Times or Wall Street Journal, even though I get constant email updates from them in the course of the day.
So, how does PR lead this communication revolution rather than just idly comment? First, we jump into this new medium and expose ourselves, as we ask clients to do. Then we give up control. Knowing your message and how to deliver it is not about control. It is about preparation and leadership. Jump five years into future. Can we say that the way we have practiced public relations for the past 50 years will still be relevant?
Posted by: Mark Rose at April 14, 2005 1:55 PM
Rory,
This is really a terrific and passionate piece. Blogging and traditional journalism are not antagonists. In fact they should be mutually beneficial. Blogs give first person connection--note the coverage of tsunami. Blogs are also additive--each additional post is a stone in the wall to create a building. Instead of the Leslie Stahl take on the blog world--that they are causing polarization, less factual reporting than traditional, why not be open to change? Quote the blogs that are credible. Make them a source, not an enemy.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 18, 2005 10:35 AM
Mark,
Thanks for writing
No question that PR people will have to adapt. Question for me--will we lead the change or be rendered irrelevant. We have to move our clients toward a more activist position, where they take the risk of participating in the dialogue, rather than waiting to respond to a negative. As you note, we must move away from a control mentality.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 18, 2005 11:07 AM
Richard--I was at two of the events you mention and you have not only done a great job relating key points, you've set an exciting model for other communications professionals to follow.
Congrats, Susan Mernit
Posted by: susan mernit at April 25, 2005 11:37 AM
Susan,
Thanks for writing.
I am trying to prove the validity of blogs!!
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 25, 2005 12:21 PM
Richard,
Me, too! As a former big media exec turned blogger and consultant, I also want to see blogs integrate into the mainstream and be used in a way that plays to their strengths--having someone with your scope disuss the issues makes a huge difference.
Thanks for writing.
Susan
Posted by: Susan Mernit at April 25, 2005 3:21 PM