Roller Derby Messaging

by Roger Pynn

Seth Duncan’s interesting commentary at Context Analytics on the relevance of Mainstream vs. Social Media raises the interesting question of where conversations really begin.

He posits that most of the highly influential conversations going on via social networks actually get their start in the traditional world of news releases and … OMG, yes: newspapers. Face it. People still read them. They are still the leading influencer for much of the rest of the coverage. After all, other than stories they grab from their police scanners, how much hard, in-depth news originates at local television stations?

They are followers, not leaders.

Duncan’s description of the “long tail” of the conversation is intriguing. In some ways, we’re throwing a pebble in a virtual pond and seeing the ripples continue to infinity because the lake has no shoreline. Open your mouth and the echo could be endless.

And if you’re adept at working social networks, you could keep your message going around and around like a game of roller derby … whipping it past roadblocks and through static, picking up momentum on the straight-away and passing your competition in curves.

What if You Said Nothing?

by Roger Pynn

I usually hate long blog posts, but this one on the ROI of social media from Socialnomics is important on several fronts.

It establishes not only that social media should not be viewed as just another channel, but – with that pulsating music we’ve come to know them for – the latest video from Socialnomics demonstrates that the world is neither flat nor round but more akin to whatever shape water is.

As I typed the last paragraph, I took the time to teach Microsoft Word that Socialnomics is a word. I added Socialnomics to my dictionary because Erik Qualman and the gang get it. You have to wonder if one day you may just be able to get a degree in Socialnomics.

This post also reminded me of the debate that’s raged for years about quantifying the return on investment of public relations. People in our field have wrestled with the question of how to measure the impact of what we do. Far too many PR people have succumbed to the pressure and tried to apply advertising measurement tools, which left them totally focused on the publicity factor of our work … rather than the broad scope of communications necessary to manage reputation.

We’ve always chosen to say – as Qualman said in his post – that relating to those who have an interest in your organization is simply an extension of good management. In fact, I’ve stopped explaining the ROI of public relations and choose instead to ask “what do you think the cost would be if you failed to communicate with your stakeholders?”

Re-ordering the “Five W’s”

by Dan Ward

The transformation is complete. With its coverage of the Ft. Hood tragedy, my hometown paper has officially accepted that in a 24-hour news cycle, print newspapers no longer “break” the news.

The lead on the front page reads: “The suspected lone gunman in the shooting rampage that killed 12 people and wounded 31 at Fort Hood in Texas was a mental-health doctor apparently terrified that he would soon face the same horrors of war that patients had described to him.”

The story assumes that the reader of the print edition is already aware of the tragedy, having learned about it either through the online edition or some other source. Instead of beginning with the What, Where and When, the story leads analysis of the Who and the Why.

Only on page three do you see the traditional news lead: “In an act of violence that sent shock waves through the American military establishment and raised questions about base security, an Army psychiatrist armed with two handguns opened fire Thursday afternoon on the grounds of Fort Hood, Texas, military officials said.”

I’m ambivalent about the change in direction. I can understand how in today’s world, a majority of readers might be expected to have already heard about major news such as this. At the same time, I miss picking up the paper and seeing the traditional, hard-news lead that I learned to write in my journalism classes so long ago.

The Cost of Copy Editors

by Dan Ward

It’s not enough to say that the Internet and social media are killing newspapers.  Newspapers are also killing themselves by neglecting the quality of their product.

When copy editors are shown the door in increasing numbers, how can any newspaper expect to publish a quality product … a product that not only contains accurate and useful information, but is also free of glaring errors and typos that affect the readers’ experience?

Not to bash the Orlando Sentinel, but since it’s my hometown paper it’s the most convenient example.  The Oct. 29 “Sports Daily” section contained a number of errors:

•  From an article on the Orlando Magic:  “Fans hated to see Lee traded after his promising rookie season, but Carter, an eight-time all-star authored a solid, if not spectacular, in his homecoming at Lee’s old shooting-guard position.”  Huh?
• A Mike Bianchi column stated that Rashard Lewis had been suspended for the “first10 games.”  Might be a space-bar mishap there.
• The next paragraph in that column ended without a period.
• The same column asks us to “just as” instead of “just ask” the team’s biggest fan.
• An AP story about the tragic murder of a UConn football player was so strong that the Sentinel chose to run two differently edited versions of it, on the same page, under different headlines.

Mistakes are always going to happen, and not every typo will be caught.  But when newspapers cut their editing staff to the point that quality suffers, their demise can no longer be blamed solely on the Internet.  The cost is evident in the latest Editor & Publisher report on circulation, which shows yet more double-digit declines.  Quality always matters, no matter the product.