« Three Points of Light on World AIDS Day 2006 | Main | Business Media Strategies Diverge at Year-End »
December 8, 2006
The Information Haves and Have Nots
I was flying back from Nashville yesterday and the flight attendant on Jet Blue asked for the newspapers and magazines that I had discarded on the adjacent seat. When I handed her the stack, she said, “You know, I haven’t read the papers in a while. There is too much depressing news in them. I would rather not know.” This reinforced a statistic provided by Richard Lambert, former editor of the Financial Times (subscription required), in a recent column, which noted that 25% of American high school graduates do not read or watch any media on a daily basis.
Daily newspaper readership is dropping even for those in their 50s and 60s. According to The 2006 “State of the News Media Study” which is funded by the Pew Chartable Trusts, 62% of Americans age 55-64 are reading newspapers in an average week. In 1999 it was 69%.
The number of people watching network TV evening news is down from 60 million to 30 million in the past two decades, with viewers at an average age of 60. Free sheets are increasingly taking share of market from newspapers, especially in Europe, now coming in other regions so the news is delivered in short form.
Some of the change is attributable to the rise of subscription media, gradually taking share from advertising supported media. The Veronis Suhler study of media forecasts that in the next decade, subscription media will grow at an average rate of 9% per year, while ad supported media will decline at 3% per year. Subscription media would include cable and satellite TV, print content behind a pay wall (NY Times Select or WSJ.com) or pay per view.
The news format that seems to be working combines fact, opinion and entertainment. FOX News was the first to recognize the value of a clear ideological bent in its programming. Now CNN has followed suit, with Headline News, which has seen a 58% viewership increase during prime time in 2006 because of the addition of personalities like Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. Ask any teen where he or she gets political news, the answer is sure to be the Daily Show or Colbert Report.
How is a corporation to communicate serious information in a world of shrinking news holes and tuning out? We have to reconsider our approach to media relations, which has largely been premised on pitching stories to reporters. This is part of the top down model of communications, where the news agenda was determined by elite media (the TV network news, the top newspapers, newsmagazines, business magazines). It is a one way flow of information, from the top of the pyramid of influence down to the mass audience, with local newspapers and broadcast repurposing the content to give a neighborhood feel. This is the vertical axis of information with complexity and depth of content with elites while advertising plays the key role in delivering simple messages to consumers.
To reach those who have tuned out mainstream media (my flight attendant on Jet Blue), the corporate sector must have other ways to communicate. The new axis of information is horizontal, the continuous dialogue in peer to peer media. But companies should not assume that the entire horizontal conversation is premised on humor and short form visual content. Substance that had been available solely in mainstream media may no longer be accessed. A company must participate in conversation on very niche sites such as Dogster for dog owners or Vox for the older generation. And a company must make the content available in easily accessible fashion on its own web site. It’s all about adding value to the conversation.
A good example of this type of work is our current campaign for Avent, maker of breast pumps and all things for new mothers. We have formed the Avent Sisterhood Six, who offer expertise to mothers either from professional credentials (one is an MD, another a Doula, another a writer expert on breast feeding—all are paid by Avent but this is fully disclosed) or from personal interest (three new moms who get no money but receive products from Avent). The site averages 5,700 visitors a month and each stays for an average of 11 minutes.
A few bloggers advocate that companies and their public relations firms should stay out of the blogosphere; stay out of "genuine" conversations because they're intent on relentlessly advocating a position and are not really engaged in dialogue at all. I was recently chatting with Paul Holmes and I think he accurately explained that companies are not operating in a zero-sum game, where they either win or lose or any issue. They’re involved in building long-term sustainable business and relationships, and it’s in their self interest to listen and contribute to the dialogue. The blogosphere should welcome and encourage companies, their employees and all stakeholders, to participate in transparent, open and genuine way. PR executives are central to helping companies do this correctly.
Posted by Edelman at December 8, 2006 2:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/289
Comments
Richard,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments here, and I think we, the collective profession not just you and I, are partly to blame.
Firstly, we need only look at what many people consider the natural emnity between PR's and journalists as a catalyst for the "Bad News Times". While we all endevour to produce good news for our clients, the sceptecism of journalists ultimately skews this good news into something else, if only an underlying cynacism. This doesn't need to be the case, however. By fostering good working and personal relationships with the media we can work, not only to turn around the negative news scenario, but also improve the validity of our messages and the avenues that we can pursue.
I also think that we need to actively apply this principle to the blogging community in order to improve our standing with the online community in general. The issue here is the same as with journalists, our profession does not inspire trust from the masses. However, there is no reason why we cannot participate in the "genuine" conversations that exist within blogs. All we need do is declare ourselves as PR's before providing the disclaimer that the information we're disseminating is company sponsored, but no less relevant than Joe Blogs heavily emotive testimony. Our Publicity, in the information dissemination sense, may even promt a more "genuine" discussion than previously possible.
However, old or new media, we cannot as a profession afford to stand aside from these media. We have already lost control of the conversation, we need now to regain an active and credible part in its future.
Cameron Beresford
Edelman, Sydney.
Posted by: Cameron Beresford at December 11, 2006 11:25 PM
Richard, your post highlights further the great paradox for big media and large companies that rely on big media as the dominant communications platform. Much like the younger generation who often has difficulty communicating in real world settings using clear sentences, despite their outrageous salary demands, big media and large companies don't know how to initiate and participate in "horizontal conversations"—it might as well be Mandarin to many corporate marketing heads and executives.
I am excited about the future because you can begin to see companies swirling around more intimate ways to communicate. The problem is that large enterprise MUST contend with shareholders and Boards of Directors that are singularly focused, so it becomes difficult in spite what they say in the annual reports.
The real adaptation will occur as younger board members (under 50) start to dominate in all industries. This is when a real floodgate of horizontal conversation will take place--and it will be global and it will be real. We're coming with the solution in February 2007.
Posted by: Lafayette Howell at December 14, 2006 9:13 AM