To me, this is just another incomplete argument for pay models from a newspaper executive.

Do you really think people will start paying for standard news? I don't think they will. When people can get it anywhere else, why wouldn't they ignore a place that charges them just to read the content? If newspapers can concentrate on adding some sort of value for their readers, or added service, perhaps they could charge for that. But not just for content, in general.

In terms of quote # 4, isn't there huge potential for advertisers online? Regarding traditional media, advertisers were forced to shell out dollars for all the eyeballs in a given circulation or audience, even if half those eyeballs would never care about the product. Online, they can target people right down the individual, only showing the ad to people who are interested in their product. Even better, why not only pay for the eyeballs that actually click on the ad.

Patrick

I feel like these are arguments in support of vertical media, such as much business journalism. The WSJ is in a fairly unique position as a business paper containing tradeable information that business people must have, even if they pay. The position of the NYT or other general interest paper, however, is much more precarious. I don't see people lining up to pay for general interest news.

I do, however, echo many of the concerns about the decline in value of the information raised by Thomson and Adler. There is real danger if the news media goes bust.

Richard, this seems like an attempt to "pitch" a new business model and throw the blame at consumers and new technology for the loss of newspaper revenue in a digital age. I have a few suggestions.

1) As Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Thomson should first and foremost remember that he's a journalist by focusing on readership and then think of revenue. Of course, newspapers have to make money to survive, but frustration or complaints are not going to cause technology to stop advancing, nor will users wean in their usage of and participation in it.

2) Every point that I read seemed to plead the case for premium news services, but where is the evidence that shows how satisfied the subscribers are? If the product being sold is not satisfying the customers who receive it, then changes and adaptation need to be made to fit consumer needs. Thompson mentions how important it is to pay attention to his audiences, yet if he was paying attention, he might notice that his audience (both potential and current) are shifting their behaviors in either viewing or writing about the news.

3) Hire a public relations practitioner or agency instead of fighting and criticizing them. This is a great opportunity for Thompson to see the value of public relations. As a PR Coordinator at my campus newspaper, I was able to stimulate much interest by paying close attention to comments and suggestions made by readership and sources in articles. The "flacks" that journalists don't give much credit to could actually be the key to saving the newspaper industry.

Happy Birthday Shout Out-For Mr Edelman.
I am now 73 at 55 it is all uphill from now for you !

Happy happy birthday. I love this list!

Thank you for sharing - this is a great list. Hope you have a very happy birthday!

Richard,

Your personal post is reflects the words of the influential American psychologist, Carl Rogers:

"What is most personal and unique in each of us is probably the very element which would, if it were shared or expressed, speak most deeply to others."

Best wishes for 55 more.

Well said, and done, Richard. Happy Birthday.

Happy B-day, big guy. You're still my hero!

Hi Richard

Happy birthday. Your comments reminded me of my first presentation at an Edelman managers' meeting in Chicago more than 30 years ago when I was asked to list my priorities in life. They went something like this:

1. Family
2. Friends
3. Colleagues at work
4. My soccer team
5. My dog (long gone)
6. Clients

My reasoning was quite simple: If I didn't get Nos 1-5 right, I wouldn't be able to deal with No 6.

Fondest regards to you and your family, Ruth & Dan.

A belated Many Happy Returns of the Day, Richard, and thank you for a very powerful piece! All your six points touched a chord deep within me. Yes, family comes first and friends are very important. And keeping the inner child alive in us as we get older. And being a student for life! I am going to forward it to all my friends turning 40! Thank you for sharing. May you have many years of a good, healthy and happy life with your family - and more such pieces from you!

"Fourth, put your family first..." Huh? Anyhow, happy birthday from a fan.

Here's to reading about and learning from rules 7-12 over the next several decades. Happy B-Day, Richard.

All the best for your birthday,Richard.
A lot of health and luck for 55 more.
Come to Croatia once and enjoy with us a good fish and wine.

Great post, and happy belated. I'm just getting started in my search for a job and having recently been 'knocked down', your words have served as comforting encouragement. This list is just as applicable to GenY as said middle-agers.

You mentioned having been knocked down health-wise, but I also assume you've experienced these setbacks throughout your business career. Have any tips for 'getting back on the horse' in this sense?

A very good post. Hope your birthday was a good one and that you have a nice Father's Day weekend!

Well said Richard! Onward and upward.

Well said, Richard. Inspiring, as always. Happy Birthday

Richard, congratulations on your birthday and the professional and personal triumphs of a landmark year.

Great guidelines, so many confuse simple with easy! Keeping it simple raises the probability of success with maximum effort in every channel of effort.

Best,
Barry

Always enjoy your insightful posts on this must-read blog. A belated happy birthday.

Bravo

As a truly engaged influencer :) that received your content via other even more truly influencers I may thank you deeply for this summary on ongoing 3.0 developments, spiced up with your excellent PR knowledge and insight. Regs from Berlin!

It is Darwinism at its finest. Seriously though, the industry is changing and we must stay in (or ahead of) the game. Using social media isn't going to cut it.

Richard - The industry has needed to hear this message from your level for some time. I've shifted my firm away from traditional media relations and towards creating partnerships and relationships that make sense. Not sure there's much of a future for firms which won't make this evolution. Keep charging.

Thank you for this article! With more than a decade in the PR and Marketing industries, I completely agree with you on all points. Now, how do we convince the C Suite?

Well done, as always. It's exciting to think about where all of this is headed. Those who ignore it will find new careers but it won't be as part of the future of PR.

The messages "be everywhere, be consistent, be engaging" are messages we've been successfully sharing with prospects for a few years now. Clients are beginning to trust that counsel and it's nice to see industry colleagues of your influence further demonstrating the ROI of such ideas.

Christine Perkett
http://www.twitter.com/missusP
http://www.twitter.com/PerkettPR

I watched two of the live webcasts from the event.

Thank you for tipping us off about it and for making access free to external audiences.

The content provided excellent food for thought.

I was particularly inspired by comments from Edelman's Insight guy in the last session of the day - very insightful, fresh thinking.

The problem is that business schools adhere to and teach the PR = publicity stunts and coverups myth. Until PR gets serious about educating the freshly minted MBAs coming out of business schools (I should know, I suffered through one of those outdated models) it's not going to happen.

Dear Richard,

I like the concept, "democratic and decentralized". As a poli sci grad and soon to be PR practitioner, I can see the value of this - corporations will have to be more transparent and I think this is a good thing.

It's obvious that Edelman is taking a leadership role in new media. l am sure the cross between new media and academia at the summit at Georgetown University will help bring credibility and understanding to this important social phenomena.

This is a very insightful article. As a student of public relations graduating this fall, it is a very interesting time to come into this industry. Although I am not making a career adjustment from ‘the way it used to be’ to adapt to social media, it is the same learning curve to understand and make the best use of the new mediums. It is the role of a PR practitioner to not only be apart of these changes but to lead clients, bosses, or other management to accept the concept of decentralized control and embrace the opportunity to engage with an audience on the same playing field.

As a current public relations student I am finding what you are saying to be true. PR must not, and cannot afford to be, one dimensional. With all of the social media tools to utilize, and with the economy in the current state it is in, practitioners and firms must seek new and creative ways to evolve communication and its relationships. Kudos for being a leader in this change and for making the message heard.

Beautifully written, concise summary of the decentralization of information today. I love the idea of de-"silo"-ization of the PR function to meet the way information flows today (up, down, and sideways). I know PR can and should have an expanded role within our organizations and with our clients, and I was saying to someone today nobody can say we can't - because there is no degree in social media. Who is to say PR is not just as qualified as anyone else to speak with clients, customers, shareholders, policyholders - the very people we've been trying to reach thru the media for our careers? They are no longer declared off-limits to PR and it's great. I think PR gets it. We know we get it. But how do we convince our ad agency bosses and clients that the role of today's practitioner has changed? I'm evolving but feeling held back by employers who still think of PR as press releases and clip books....

Richard, as you know I would agree with your outlook on such matters, but what I notice is that compared to last year, the diagnosis and the Rx are pretty much the same.

These days the ‘implications for PR’ discussion is getting stale, in part I think because a lot of the self-styled social media ‘PR 2.0′ punditocracy who occupy a center stage that owes much to their just having been online using the new technology first…to be much admired from a pioneering perspective) weren’t in a lot of cases really on the PR industry stage before then. They weren’t ‘PR 1.0′ people or even practitioners during earlier analogue days in the early/mid-90s. There are some exceptions, but much of this crowd is so into the technology, they can’t map the latest cool new app to the real consulting world.

Then, on the other hand, a lot of the more experienced true-blue PR pros just don’t have the innate grasp of the technology, which changes in a more nimble way than the manner to which they have become accustomed. Most of these folks know that social networks are important, and may even be skilled rhetoriticians making exciting speeches about the brave new social media world, but they aren’t personally comfortable with the pace or the processes demanded by digital communications.

Because many of the people within these two solitudes often don’t talk to each other or understand what the others are really saying at the ‘unconscious’ level (and the generational divide plays a role here), we’re not hearing a lot of fresh analysis lately - especially of the contrarian variety as there's this tendency for busy people to simply remember and then repeat the latest breathless buzzwords.

As always, the backbone of our industry - the 20something account executives on the front lines of publicity - will take matters into their own hands and shape the future as they can fuse their consulting savvy with social media know-how into a new PR DNA.

Richard,this is a completely new dimension and new strategy direct approach platform for PR industry itself and clients,excuse me - incoming partners. Now it is our turn and historic role to convince our new partners that the things are going to function in this way. Congratulations and rgds from Croatia.

Bob,

I do feel that I have taken steps in this speech beyond last year’s concept,
specifically the focus on search, the use of corporate embassies in social networks, distinction between influencers and amplifiers.
But of course you are correct in pointing to need for education of our PR team; that is why we are concentrating our Edelman University resources on this evolution in FY 10.

Richard

Richard,

Your speech at the New Media Academic Summit and this posting is a step toward your 2/20/09 goal:” We Will Prove You Wrong”, responsing to Jeff Jarvis’ contention that lawyers and PR people cannot evolve their business models “because they have clients. I am not holding my breath, till lawyers even attempt to modify their business model.

Richard, I was at Vision in Vancouver last year and heard you speak about the future of PR in the face of new media. It was inspiring then and your work now is a great reference to take to those whom I work with who are reluctant to adapt to new realities. Thanks for being so open with your resources and diligent in your research and education of the engaged and listening.

Great blog. How many would sign the document if they knew they would lose their degree and ability to work if they engaged in inappropriate behavior -- just as a physicians and attorneys lose licenses? Ask them to put their signatures where their money is.

Are you going to take an oath to safeguard the interests of your coworkers? That means that you could never work on starting a competing company at night. Since that would be a direct violation of safeguarding the interests of your coworkers.

Are you going to take an oath to seek a course that enhances the value your enterprise can create for society over the long term? This means that you could never start an enterprise which merely creates value for society over a short period. For example, you'd be restricting yourself from purchasing a video rental store since that might cash flow in the short term but obviously won't create any value for society over the long term.

Are you going to take an oath to guard against decisions and behavior that advance your own narrow ambitions but harm the enterprise and the people it serves? This means that you need to guard against the decision to leave a company if you think the company will be harmed by your departure. The decision to leave obviously only advances your own narrow ambitions.

Are you going to take an oath to observe EVERY single law in existance? This means that you are taking an oath not to J-walk, etc. unless you also seek a means of reforming those laws. This one is probably the worse issue with this oath. This point CLEARLY pushes this oath beyone the spirit of good faith observance. This point clearly forces signers to observe all laws to the letter regardless of the spirit of ethics involved, therefore, this oath can't be signed towards the intention of merely following the "spirit" of the oath. This point makes is clear that this oath must be observed to the letter.

Are you going to take an oath to develop all managers serving under you? This means that you must continue to put time and energy into developing all or your employees (no matter how bad) if they happen to be a manager.

Are you going to take an oath to strive to create sustainable prosperity worldwide? This means that you'll be violating your oath if you are only striving to create regional or national prosperity. By the way, I don't know what exactly environmental prosperity is.

Richard,

In the spirit of your “The MBA Oath” posting, I find the following relevant to; ethical behavior, stakeholders and self-interest, respectively:

Ethical Behavior - Warren Buffett Quote

"I look for three things in hiring people. The first is personal integrity, the second is intelligence, and the third is a high energy level. But, if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you." --- Warren Buffett

Stakeholders – Excerpts from The Unbounded Mind: Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking

Stakeholders are any individual, group, organization, institution that can affect as well as be affected by an individual's, group's, organization's, or institution's policy or policies. Figure 8.1 (omitted) shows this in a schematic way. Notice that a double line of influence extends from each stakeholder to the organization's policy or policies and back again-an organization is the entire set of relationships it has with itself and its stakeholders. An organization is not a physical "thing" per se but a series of social and institutional relationships between a wide series of parties. As these relationships change over time, the organization itself changes. It becomes a different company. The failure to grasp this has prevented many an organization from seeing that it is not the same because its environment, that is, its external stakeholders, has changed even though internally it looks the same. Since we are dealing with a system, a change in any one part potentially affects all other parts and the whole system itself.

--- Ian I. Mitroff and Harold A. Linstone, The Unbounded Mind: Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking

Self-interest - General Motors’ Success Factors, Circa 1970

• GM is in the business of making money, not cars
• Success comes not from technological leadership but from having the resources to quickly adopt innovations successfully introduced by others
• Cars are primarily status symbols. Styling is therefore more important than quality to buyers who are, after all going to trade up every other year
• The U.S. car market is isolated from the rest of the world. Foreign competitors will never gain more than 15% of the domestic market
• Energy will always be cheap and abundant
• Workers do not have an important impact on productivity or product quality
• The consumer movement does not represent the consensus of a significant portion of the U.S. population
• The government is the enemy. It must be fought tooth and nail every inch of the way
• Strict centralized financial controls are the secret to good administration
• Managers should be developed from the inside

--- Larry Wilson, Between Trapezes Thriving in Discontinuity