The Need for Creativity in Media Relations: 9 Tips to Get The Media's Attention

In our previous blog, "5 Factors That Make It Harder to Break Into National Business Media," we discussed some of the challenges to getting ink in the national business media.
  
In this article, we will talk about three tips to successfully getting the media's attention.

1. Understand the mission of the media outlet you're pitching. Forbes, Fortune and Bloomberg Businessweek may seem similar but they are very different. Forbes is interested in investing opportunities and providing contrarian perspectives. Fortune is interested in management (as opposed to investing though it does publish investing-specific issues) and Bloomberg Businessweek provides more of a news snapshot of the world as it affects business. Pitching a Bloomberg reporter on a company as an investment opportunity won't work -- just as you have to expect a Forbes reporter to ask about a company's valuation even if that's not directly relevant to the story.
2. Study the sections and opportunities that each media outlet offers. Each newspaper, magazine and website has different sections and columns. And each section or column offers a different path into coverage. For example, the Wall St. Journal has sections for Chief Information Officers and another for Chief Marketing Officers. There could be a way to tell a client's story through the eyes of its CIO that might be very different from the CMO's. There's a Journal columnist who handles work-and-family issues, and your client may have a story there. Fast Company has a section in which executives can offer something -- an app, a book, etc. -- that they highly recommend. And various publications offer a look at an executive's interesting office. We look at all those sections for ways to get our clients considered.
3. Get to know the reporters and how they approach their articles. Too often publicists, who are juggling many tasks, pitch based on media lists assembled by a database. These databases are helpful in tracking down contact info and background. But they are often not-quite-accurate. Reporters move around a lot these days, so we've seen a Washington Post reporter still listed as working for the Wall St. Journal -- six months after she joined the Post. We've seen reporters listed as covering one topic when they shifted beats. And sometimes the coverage details are broad enough to not be useful. It's important to learn what reporters cover and how they cover it. A reporter will cover news differently from a columnist. It's not enough to respond to a single story; too often it might be a one-off story that's not relevant to the reporter's regular coverage. We look at several weeks' worth of coverage and what they post on social media to get a sense of their approach and interest before we pitch. And then we look at the elements that are frequently included in their articles so that we can make sure to offer up those elements, too.
4. Look for alternative ways in. For one client, we played up the CEO's racecar-driving hobby to secure local coverage, and we got a good response from a Forbes editor who shares racecar driving as a hobby (though that did not lead directly to coverage). That's something we ask of new client teams. For another client, we recommended the CEO post comments to articles published online by the company's key trade magazine as a way to engage with its community. In one case, the publication contacted him to ask if he would give permission to use his comment as a letter to the editor. Of he said yes, and we got a double hit in the print edition.
5. 
   Be creative get the reporter's attention. Look, this is from a while ago but a former colleague recently posted about this on LinkedIn, and it brought back memories. On behalf of RIM, we were trying to get attention of then BusinessWeek tech columnist, Stephen Wildstrom, to review a new product: The BlackBerry pager that offered email; one of the first portable email device available at the time. The question was: how to get Wildstrom's attention for a then-unknown startup launching a new product to compete against the Goliath of the day, Palm as it prepared to launch its Palm VII. My solution: I emailed WIldstrom several times during my commute home, always pointing out that I was emailing him while on the MBTA. After a couple of those commuting-time emails, WIldstrom requested review copies of the pager. The result: a terrific headline: "Close to Perfect Pocket E-Mail." For Stephanie Mehta, then a Journal reporter (who then went to Forbes and is now the editor at Fast Company) we pitched a story about the sector based on BlackBerry: "For Paging Industry, a Bet on Two-Way Gadgets."
   
   
   By the way, as a side note, back in those days, people on the T spent their commuting time either reading a newspaper, magazine or book. I was something in a pioneer -- taking the blame here -- for spending my commute time by staring at a device. These days, we look for other creative ways to get a reporter's attention. (We'd be happy to provide more recent case studies.)
   
6. Make sure the pitch is relevant to the readers. This might seem obvious but sometimes agencies and their clients forget about this. They're excited to pitch good news about the client that they forget that the news may not, by itself, interest readers. A Fortune reporter once said, "That's good news for your client but for readers who don't follow your client or their sector, there's not much of a reason for them to stop and read my article about them." So we always look for how our clients' news fits in to what the reporter and his/her readers or viewers are interested in. What do the readers (or viewers) want or need to know? Another question we ask: why should the reporter or reader care about this story now (as opposed to six months from now)?
7. Leverage interest in timely news via "newsjacking." Newsjacking is a term that means taking advantage of a current events or news to communicate your brand's message or your subject-matter expertise. Most news events are probably not appropriate so you have to look for a natural connection, and move quickly. For one adoption nonprofit, during the Ebola crisis we advised their PR consultant on pitching the media to help tell how the charity was helping to get children out of infected areas. Another way to newsjack goes back to the BlackBerry days: we contacted reporters we were sure to cover the Palm VII launch with a detailed fact sheet that compared the BlackBerry to the known features of the pre-launch Palm VII. More recently, we did something similar for a startup client's digital compression technology ahead of a soon-to-launched competitive solution from a much-larger company. In most cases, what you want to do is become a resource for reporters, to be someone who can provide reliable insight into a situation.
8. Use social media to work with reporters. We want to be careful about suggesting alternative ways to contact reporters, like using social media. Once, a reporter contacted us via Twitter to conduct an interview, and that was fine, but the reporter contacted us. Another time, we were trying to figure out the reporter of an Economist article on artificial intelligence for a client of ours. The Economist does not use bylines so we could not tell who had written a particular article; by searching for the article on Twitter, we identified the reporter, and then contacted him by email. We did not want to try to insert ourselves into a conversation with that reporter or to contact him directly on Twitter without any introduction. Contacting him the regular way helped us secure an interview for the client and did not alienate the reporter by being too aggressive. (Keep in mind one the key rules of social media: don't be creepy.) 
9. Think like a reporter. We look at clients and the stories they tell, and try to think like a reporter would, if encountering the client for the first time. It means taking an objective look at the organization, and asking, "Is this a story? Or is it a blog post?" Blog posts are valuable; they can help with SEO and drive traffic to your website to find out more about what you do. As a reporter, you're looking for something that will engage people outside the company, that tells a story readers didn't know, provides insight into something relevant to the consumers of that media outlet. That also means thinking through what a reporter will need to tell a compelling story -- what are the elements. For example, when pitching an NPR reporter, keep in mind they like natural sound so you need to give the reporter a sense if they can capture interesting/unusual sounds. Once you think like a reporter, you'll be better able to develop and pitch them a story that will work for them -- and you.

Let us know if you have any questions about these tips. Or let us know if we left out one of your favorite tips.

Bloomberg Businessweek Validates Our "Age of Anxiety" Prediction

Add to Bloomberg Businessweek the list that already includes the Wall St. Journal and the New York Times of publications that have validated our prediction that 2018 is the "age of anxiety."

Check out our prediction here but check out, also, this article by Bloomberg Businessweek's Editorial Board: "A New Year's Wish: Better Social Media:Why is everyone hooked on a product that makes them miserable?" (Original print headline: "Social Media Doesn't Have to Be Terrible.")

A key line:

Across Silicon Valley, insiders have lately been raising similar concerns, and fretting that the business model of social media may be undermining the well-being of its users. A growing body of research suggests they have a point.

Even more significant:

Among the young, social media may be playing a role in rising rates of depression and suicide. It seems to induce feelings of envy, anxiety and inadequacy. It appears to reduce self-esteem, inhibit sleep, interfere with schoolwork and (of all the ironies) encourage antisocial behavior. Some two-thirds of kids now say they wouldn't mind if social media didn't exist. And who can blame them? 

The problem is that it's hard to quit.

Welcome to what we’ve called the age of anxiety. The things that we rely on to get through our day, to connect to family, friends, colleagues, and our communities at large are the same things that undermine our sense of self and our happiness.

Worse – many of us recognize that our reliance on our screens and on social media is making us unproductive and unhappy but we can’t break the addiction. And this isn’t just a problem for teens; it’s a problem for everyone.

Bloomberg Businessweek’s Editorial Board suggests that “it’s up to social media business to make its products more humane and less exploitive” but we don’t think they are truly motivated to do so since making it easier to disconnect means taking a hit on their revenue.

Look, we don’t have an answer, either. And we continue to be on social media, too.

Hoping won’t make it so, but as Bloomberg Businessweek’s Editorial Board says about what social media tries to do – bring about human connection – “it’s worth reflecting on how to meet that desire (human connection) – without making everyone miserable in the process.”

Couldn’t agree with that more. Do you have suggestions for how to reduce our anxiety? Let us know.

Bloomberg Businessweek Validates Our Prediction about Unicorns

In our predictions for 2016, we said that we should expect that Unicorns -- privately held startups with valuations in excess of $1 billion, would find this year to be much more difficult. (You can check out that prediction, "Whither unicorns and their business models?") 

Already, we've seen articles in Fortune, Wall St. Journal, and New York Times write about Unicorns this year, all validating our concerns about unrealistic valuations and pressures. Add to it, Bloomberg Businessweek, which wrote, "Unicorns Aren't So Beloved Anymore" (Print headline: "The Last (of This) Unicorn?") about Zenefits.

Zenefits has quickly become the poster child for unchecked growth, with a CEO who was ousted and concerns that the company may have broken laws and did not maintain compliance.

This isn't to say that all Unicorns are or will face a similar phase -- but just that we continue to think that 2016 and beyond will be a tougher time for Unicorns.

Left unsaid in our predictions is what the impact of tighter money, lower valuations, etc. will have on smaller startups. We think it could be a tougher time for them, too.

What the Selling of Forbes Tells Us about the State of Business Media, Part II

(This post originally appeared on CommPro.biz: http://www.commpro.biz/investor-relations/selling-forbes-tells-us-state-business-media/. The companion piece can be found here)

Forbes Media, publisher of Forbes and other magazines, is running into roadblocks as it seeks to sell the company. Working with Deutsche Bank, Forbes was pursuing international companies to purchase one of America’s premier business publications. The problem: Germany’s Axel Springer SE says it is no longer involved in the bidding process while Singapore’s Spice Global Investments Pvt has “removed itself from the process” and China’s Fosun International Ltd. hasn’t held active talks for “some time,” according to a recent Bloomberg article, a Forbes competitor.

At the time when bids were due, New York Times media columnist David Carr, provided some insight in a column entitled, “Foreign Buyers Eying Forbes Magazine, a Chronicler of the World’s Wealthiest.”

Given the limited interest in acquiring a well-known global brand, here are some lessons learned, gleaned from the article and our experience:

• Establishing a strong brand is important but outsiders may not find enough value in it. Unquestionably, Forbes has a strong presence and brand awareness, including its annual Forbes 400 issue in October. Its journalism is respected and the magazine and its website continue to be relevant. But brand may not be enough – certainly at the price Forbes’ current investors and family are searching for. It may be worth noting that McGraw-Hill sold BusinessWeek to Bloomberg for a reported $5 million along with the assumption of $10 million in liabilities in 2009; and Newsweek, a once equally strong media property, was sold for $1 and the assumption of $40 million in liabilities in 2010.
• Standalone magazine companies are at a disadvantage to conglomerates that can spread costs and profits across a family of magazines, according to Carr. For the most part Carr is right — but Forbes actually publishes several other titles — ForbesLife, Forbes Europe, Forbes Asia as well as 29 international editions. (It’s probably not a good time to purchase advertising in Forbes Russia, Forbes Ukraine.) Forbes also runs a very popular website (more on that below) and RealClearPolitics.com family of website. Our point is: it’s not just publishing a range of publications — it’s publishing magazines that reach a range of readers. After all, if you put all your eggs in one high-value Birken bag, when advertisers pull back on your demographic, you could get hit 29 times.
• Sometimes selling isn’t a matter of making money but in preventing additional losses. The estimated asking price for Forbes is between $250 and $400 million. Elevation Partners paid $264 million for a minority stake — so their portion is likely underwater. Carr says the Forbes family is unlikely to make money from the sale. The question becomes: why sell? Seems clear that the reason is that it continues to be tough for media companies to build value.
• The value shoring up Forbes is not its popular website — but its conference division. The publication is probably generating tons of revenue from its growing number of conferences, including luxury cruises offering insights and access to top stock pickers. Conferences have re-emerged for Forbes and other publishers as a profit generation tool. Conferences may have been a difference in the valuation of BusinessWeek for $5 million (and the assumption of debt) when it was acquired by Bloomberg. The same for Newsweek, which had no conferences and was sold for $1 and the assumption of debt. The bottom line lesson: perhaps leverage a successful conference series and turn that into a multimedia property (which is what TED is doing).
• Forbes could generate more money by establishing a paywall around its content. Carr makes the point that others news outlets — including the Times and Wall St. Journal — have successfully boosted revenue by establishing paywalls around their content. Yet Forbes.com aggressively promotes the website in a bid to generate views that can translate into higher revenue. It has been very successful in developing a community of columnists (many of them people trying to position themselves as thought leaders). The bottom line here: there’s still no single, accepted way to generate sustainable revenue online — neither free access (and higher revenue from advertisers) or paywalls (and subscription fees from access) are really replacing print advertising revenue that will never return to pre-mobile/digital levels.
• Circulation is holding steady but it may not generate steady revenue. Last year, Forbes was offering print subscriptions for $10 — that’s a steep discount from prior years. Keeping circulation high is important to advertisers (and the amounts you can charge them) but discounting clearly hurts profits. And constantly discounted subscription offers tell advertisers the circulation figures may be clogged with subscribers who don’t spend much time reading the magazine.
• Forbes is very creative in finding revenue. It’s been a leader in pushing advertorials. It can sometimes feel like a 1/5th of the magazine is devoted to advertorials. But more significantly, Forbes is a pioneer in native advertising through its BrandVoice section on the website and in the magazine. Here’s how Forbes describes it: “Forbes BrandVoice™ is an integrated and by-invitation content-sharing platform …(that) is an innovative approach to integrating marketers’ content with Forbes’ editorial and users’ content — allowing marketers to demonstrate their thought leadership on the Forbes platform using the same tools as content creators.” What does it take to receive an invitation to be a Forbes BrandVoice partner? We’ve heard estimates of $800,000 in annual advertising just to get to the point of discussing BrandVoice. (In other words, BrandVoice spending is on top of a company’s annual advertising buy.)
• Not all ways of charging access are reader friendly. While Forbes doesn’t charge to access its website, it does charge for iPad access even if you’re already a print subscriber. Print subscribers still have to pay $9.95 for an annual iPad subscription.  When you consider Forbes’ $10 print subscriptions price, charging $9.95 to access the iPad version is the equivalence of a 100% tax increase.

Carr makes the point that it’s ironic that a magazine with a strong heritage of America-first is now being sold to an international company. I agree — but I also think that the sale (likely to an Asian company) makes sense because Forbes is more likely to be seen as a trophy property for companies based in Asia than anywhere else in the world. And yet, so far, interest from any part of the world seems less than anyone might have expected.

What Carr doesn’t discuss or speculate is how an international owner will change Forbes. For that, stay tuned.

Bitcoin Already a Hot Topic in 2014 -- Validates Another Prediction

In our annual trends and predictions, we identified Bitcoin as being a hot, ongoing topic in 2014.  We said:

Bitcoin and cashless payments will continue to generate interest. We’ve seen a rise in interest in bitcoins, and it appears bitcoins may be on the edge of going mainstream. We don’t think that will happen in 2014 but we do think the topic will get discussed.

But more retailers are evaluating whether or not to accept Bitcoins for payment, and already there's been a lot of coverage about bitcoins: such as:

• Yahoo Tech: "Okay, Seriously: What The Heck Is Bitcoin, And Why Do So Many People Prefer It To Dollars And Cents?"
• Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "Bitcoin Woos Washington to Ensure Lawmakers Don’t Kill Industry"
• Forbes: "Taxing Bitcoin: IRS Review Has Big Implications For Investors In Virtual Currency"
•  USA Today: "Ask Matt: Should I invest in Bitcoin?"

And those are just within two hours of when I was writing this post.

We still don't think most consumers will pay with Bitcoins in 2014 but more retailers will announce they accept it for payment in 2014 -- as a way to highlight their being on the cutting-edge.

Meanwhile, we also saw another story prediction get validation. In our list of ongoing tech trends we identified cognitive computing, led by IBM Watson, to score coverage. Here's a recent Wall St. Journal article: "IBM Struggles to Turn Watson Computer Into Big Business;Revenue Is Far From Company's Ambitious Targets."

Bloomberg BusinessWeek Validates Cybercrime Prediction

Cybercrime -- which we also predicted (see original column here) as one of the top ongoing stories the media will cover in 2012 -- continues to generate media headlines.

The latest is from Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "Life in Cyberia: A new brand of warfare is under way. Our five experts discuss the best defenses."

With news just this month of malware attacks on Lebanese banks (potentially to uncover links to terrorists; check out Forbes' article on Gauss) and airports (see a separate BusinessWeek's article), expect coverage of cyberattacks and cyber warfare to continue into 2013.

Even Comcast's CEO Talks about Cord Cutting

Beyond multiple articles in the Wall St. Journal, New York Times and other publications that have validated our "Cutting the Cable" prediction that people are moving away from cable, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts was quoted in a Bloomberg BusinessWeek interview addressing "cord cutting" by saying:

"So with all the press about cord-cutting, facts would say that [Netflix] has really been more additive. There are more multichannel video subscribers today than there were a year ago. People want more control, more choice, and more personalization."

Of course he'd say that cord cutting isn't an issue for Comcast. What else would you expect him to say?

And while I do think of Netflix as additive, today, I don't think that will necessarily be the case in the future. People do like the control of being able to watch programs on whatever device they've got or will buy, and if traditional cable companies don't provide that choice, people will cut the cord.

That will increasingly be the future of how we access the kind of content formerly known as TV shows. After all, in our always tethered to the Internet world, you really don't need cable as a transmission vehicle. Or satellite, either.

You just need Internet, which you're already paying for.

And if you access TV shows on a device, there are already many ways to connect tablets to your TV. All I'm saying is that cable is an easier way, today, to access that sort of content. But it soon won't be. I can access HBO shows on HBO to Go, its iPad/iPhone app, because I'm a cable subscriber. But I see no reason that I shouldn't be able to subscribe directly to HBO, and not have to go through a third-party like Verizon to get it.

Just saying that cord cutting will continue to gain momentum.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek Validates Post-PC Prediction

For the second consecutive week, Bloomberg BusinessWeek validates one of our predictions for 2012. Last week's cover story validated our prediction of Chinese corporate espionage as an important story the media would cover in 2012.

This week's "Opening Remarks" column, entitled "Why the iPad's success may spell the end of the computer industry as we know it" (the online version is called, "IPad: The PC Killer") validates the Post-PC prediction, in which we said:

We expect that Post-PC will be a term we’ll hear a lot in 2012, given the exploding popularity of tablets, especially iPads. 

Bloomberg BusinessWeek joins the New York Times (see yesterday's post).

Bloomberg BusinessWeek Article Validates Another Prediction

In reporting on Feb. 16th about Easier E-Books with Inkling, Bloomberg BusinessWeek validated a prediction we made Feb 1st: "E-books will improve their experience by providing new interactive and multimedia content." Check out our prediction here.

Mid-Year Trend Update

It's a bit early for our annual report card on our trends and predictions, but I wanted to take a look at one prediction: The battle between the iPad and the iPad Killers, the race for apps and the impact of tablet computing will be a main theme (you can find an extended discussion about this here).

We were right about the battle of iPad and iPad Killers -- every new tablet reviewed this year has been reviewed in terms of the iPad. The conclusion: a lot of good tries, a lot of misses, and no other tablet has killed off the iPad 2.


But there's one aspect to the iPad vs. iPad Killers that we missed. When it became clear that no other tablet would dethrone the iPad, the media shifted to another story angle: the iPhone vs. the iPhone Killer -- by which I mean, of course, Android. One of the first of these articles appeared in April's Wired, How the Android Ecosystem Threatens the iPhone. 

Other articles have appeared in other major outlets, including Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

It's a microtrend we overlooked, but an interesting lesson for those of us who pitch the media. The point is that the media often look for a backlash story, even if it's not a direct backlash. Even if the target is Apple, which generally gets very positive coverage.

The Need for Thought Leadership: Mayor Bloomberg's editorial initiative underscores the value

You might think that as Mayor of New York City, you might not need to think about thought leadership and expanding ways to communicate your thoughts to the public.

After all, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has access to the media on a 24/7 basis. And not just local New York media -- if the New York Times and Wall St. Journal can be considered local media. New York is, of course, the media capital of the US.

But that's not enough, apparently.

As I wrote last month (Bloomberg to Publish Editorials -- Welcome to the Blogosphere, Mr. Mayor), Bloomberg is launching an opinion section called Bloomberg Views to air his ideas.

Check out "After Business and Politics, Mayor Tests Opinion" in today's New York Times. For those who think thought leadership -- the concept of promoting your thoughts as blazing a path -- is not worthwhile or is just about ego, think again.

Bloomberg, a billionaire who can afford to lose money, still feels that thought leadership is important to maintain his visibility, which in turns enhance the reputation of his media empire.

My point: if Bloomberg feels he could benefit from thought leadership, so could a lot of companies.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek Validates Another of Our Predictions

In its article, "Hewlett-Packard Hopes to End the Soap Opera" (which appeared in the printed edition as "HP Cancels the Board and the Beautiful"), Bloomberg BusinessWeek validated our prediction that the business media would continue to focus on the battle of the tech giants.

Here's the explanation for the continuing battle among a decreasing number of players (that are increasing in size):

In the 1990s, enterprise computing companies including HP, Oracle, EMC (EMC), and Cisco Systems (CSCO) were content to make billions in their distinct niches. Those lines are now blurring. HP is stepping on Cisco's networking turf through its acquisition of 3Com. Oracle's purchase of Sun Microsystems threatens HP's line of servers and storage systems. Cisco has started selling servers that compete with gear made by HP and Oracle.

These companies sense the approach of an inflection point as business customers make the transition from older technologies to the new era of cloud computing, where software applications run in data centers and connect to PCs over the Internet. To take advantage of the cloud, businesses must upgrade to newer, faster equipment and applications. HP and its competitors are vying to be full-service suppliers that can fulfill all of a customer's cloud computing needs.

That's an excellent explanation for what's happening among tech giants, and why.

Two years ago, we made the prediction that the battle of the tech giants would generate a fair share of business media coverage, and we've reiterated that among this year's predictions. This is a story that's not going away.

But, for what it's worth, I liked the headline of the print edition of the story better.

Bloomberg to Publish Editorials -- Welcome to the Blogosphere, Mr. Mayor

Last month, the New York Times reported that Bloomberg, the news service, would start publishing an editorial page.

The article, "Bloomberg to Publish Editorials," also noted that Michael Bloomberg, New York City's Mayor and the founder of the news service, would have some input on the unsigned editorials.

Bloomberg is "accepting and embracing the privilege of a media mogul," a City University of NY professor told the Times, adding, "This is what we all do. We try to persuade the rest of the world we are right. Of course we don't have the vehicles to do so. The rich have the vehicles to do so."

Interesting point -- except that the rest of us do have some vehicle for offering up our opinions. It's called a blog. I guess one difference is that we don't all have access to printing our ideas in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. But the fact is we live not in the Information Age, but in the Opinion Age -- everyone has one and nearly everyone (including me, of course) is letting everyone else know!

Do We Still Need General-Interest Newsweeklies?

One of the reactions to the news that Newsweek will combine with The Daily Beast was coming up with a new joint name for the two money-losing-but-worthwhile publications.

In Newsweek Weds Daily Beast? Good Luck, The New York Times' David Carr clearly doesn't think that marriage can be saved. The print edition of the Times called the new combined outlet NewsBeast.

Which is better than the name that really symbolizes the problem: The DailyWeek.

Or the actual name of the new parent company, The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.

Given the estimated combined $35,5 million in estimated annual loses of the two combined companies, the more serious question is: do we still need general-interest newsweeklies?

Or, in blogese: 2010: The Year Newsweeklies Died. (That's because I see so many blog posts claiming something else we've all used has died, like email, press releases, etc.)

I actually don't think press releases have died, and I think email will be replaced by texting among people 28+ (those under 28 don't use email).

But I do think the age of the general-interest newsweekly has passed. Time is still around, but its circulation is half of what is was at the start of this century. US News is fading away. And while the print edition of Newsweek seems likely to continue -- for now -- its online version, Newsweek.com, will be shut down in order to drive traffic to the Daily Beast.

The only newsweekly that appears to be doing well is The Economist. I also like Bloomberg BusinessWeek and The New York Times' Week in Review section, that is published on Sundays. But neither The Economist nor Bloomberg BusinessWeek are general interest publications -- they're designed as overviews for people interested in business. There are some other weeklies, but they seem to have a specific political perspective (which puts them into a different category from general interest).

Yes, I know there are lots of other weekly magazines...like People, US, etc. -- but those are celebrity and entertainment publications, not general interest. Since we live in an age that seems obsessed with celebrities (including those whose names are known even if they seem to have no real discernible talent), I don't think the death of the general-interest newsweekly will impact People, US or the others.

In the end, I think it's difficult for readers to justify subscriptions to a general-interest newsweekly -- and difficult for advertisers to justify advertising in them unless they want to target an older demographic.

Meanwhile, the people behind a SaveNewsweek.com campaign -- seems like Newsweek.com staffers or former staffers, makes the following worthwhile points:

• What will be the ramifications for Newsweek’s Web presence in terms of SEO? For branding? For our partnerships with MSNBC and MSN? What happens to Newsweek’s (still-unleveraged) archives? How do you preserve a “national treasure” (as Harman has called it) without a Web presence bearing its name?
• By rolling Newsweek.com into The Daily Beast, the hope—at least according to the Times—would be to absorb the some of the 5 million unique visitors Newsweek clocks each month. But at least 60 percent of those visitors come in through the back door, through Newsweek’s partnership with MSNBC, links on MSN, Newsweek’s Twitter feed, its Tumblr, and elsewhere. If less than half of Newsweek readers log onto Newsweek.com’s actual homepage, how much traffic will really be gained? Certainly not five million uniques.

What do you think? Are newsweeklies dead yet or just going to evolve?

Ten Observations about Executive Profiles

The executive profile has long been a staple of business journalism. But given some changes to the media world itself, here are some observations about the current state of the executive profile and some lessons PR functions can consider.

1. Fortune has always favored profiles of well-known CEOs of large companies -- witness the deluge of cover stories on Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs. If Fortune does not profile a well-known company or CEO, it then turns to a lieutenant (they're always called lieutenants, never colonels, I don't know why). For example: "Warren Buffett's Mr. Fix-It."
   
2. Fortune does run articles on CEOs of smaller companies, though generally the company has to be a cool, innovative startup.
   
3. Fast Company profiles lesser-known executives with an interesting story to tell. It helps if the if they executive -- doesn't have to be a CEO -- works at well-known. Example: "How Nike's CEO Shook Up the Shoe Industry," which graced the cover of the print version under the headline: "The World's Most Creative CEO: Nike's Mark Parker Uses Elite Athletes, Artists & His Own Show Designs to Drive a $34 Billion Business."
   
4. The different headlines for the print and online articles provides a lesson into what might sell as a cover line for print as opposed to what you need for a good, search-optimized headline for the online space. The Online headline is shorter, mentions keywords faster (Nike, CEO and shoe) and avoids words that aren't search-relevant (artists, athletes, creative, elite, and Mark Parker).
5. Forbes runs profiles of CEOs at large companies to depict a buy or sell opportunity or profiles of small, private companies as an opportunity of what to watch and invest in if the company ever goes public. Fortune and Fast Company often write profiles that offer lessons learned or interesting case studies. Forbes often seems to select executives based on the magazine's contrarian perspective.
6. The articles are detailed and well researched, but they tend to show one aspect of the executive. Whether Fortune, Fast Company, Forbes, Bloomberg BusinessWeek -- all the profiles generally have a single narrative, no matter how lengthy. Fast Company likes creativity or innovation so their articles often portray those qualities. Fortune and Forbes like turnaround stories (but you really have to prove that turnaround has occurred (more on this, below). Forbes in particular likes to tell stories that have a lot of drama to them, a CEO undertaking a heroic struggle to launch or save a company.
7. Only after a downfall or misstep, will a follow-up story show a more nuanced portrayal of the executive. For example, Mark Hurd got tremendous, positive coverage (including a Forbes cover story) since taking over H-P in 2005. However, after he was pushed out last month, suddenly stories appeared that said a lot of employees did not like Hurd and that, while great at cutting costs, he was not a great manager, and made some short-term gains at the expense of long-term investments -- and that the alienation of employees and his own board were large factors in the decision to fire Hurd. (I'm not taking sides here, I'm merely pointing out that a different take on the impact of Hurd's management style came to light only after he had left the company.) The same is true for Alex Bogusky, the former co-chairman of Crispin Porter + Bogusky was cited in dozens of Fast Company articles over the past few years, with always glowing anecdotes, quotes, etc. It's only after he stepped down that we get a more complete picture. In "Alex Bogusky Tells All: He Left the World's Hottest Agency to Find His Soul," we find out thata Bogusky could be a tyrant at work (basically telling everyone in his then-Miami offices that the company was going to relocate shortly to Boulder, CO, and cutting out key members who stayed in Miami), that he fired a great copywriter one time to make the point that no one's job was sacred, etc. Some of the aspects of being a bad boss are not unique to Bogusky. But it didn't seem too difficult for Fast Company to find people who provided the Bogusky-as-bad-boss storyline after he stepped down.
   
8. The point is that if you do manage a high profile visibility campaign for your executive, negative stories could appear after that executive leaves the company. Usually those postmortem stories don't make the companies look that good (even H-P after making the decision to get rid of Hurd) -- so companies should be prepared that negative stories could arise at that time.
9. Telling a turnaround story to get the attention of the national business media is difficult. For public companies, you need to show a certain number of quarters of positive results -- and you need validation from analysts who go on record saying that the company has turned around. Sometimes organizations want to tell a corporate change story, but again, you need hard, objective facts to make that case to a reporter. (A decade ago, a client wanted to tell Fortune and BusinessWeek they had made a significant shift in their culture, exemplified by an increase in their US marketing budget of $10 million -- which could have been an interesting hook, except that their overall US marketing budget, which did not go to us, was already at $90 million; the story did not fly because the reporters did not feel a 10 percent increase actually represented a culture change -- a point we had made before contacting the reporters.)
10. You need to have a good story. This seemingly obvious point often gets overlooked. A good story could be a stock increase, entry into a new market, the success of a new technology or device. It often is not the fact that a company has signed a new partnership deal that has no dollar amount attached to it. It combines a good narrative with objective facts. And, PR functions need to figure out the payoff for the the reporter and outlet. By payoff, I mean: what will the readers get after spending time with the article: will it be an investment idea, a management tip, something for them to try or buy? Too often, we forget to think about what need for the reader that the story we're pitching will address and solve. But it's a key aspect that editors consider.
    

Points 7 and 8 may not be relevant for most PR functions out there, but I was struck by recent coverage at how much negative information about celebrity CEOs did not make it into profiles that had helped establish these CEOs as celebrities.

Let me know if you agree or disagree with these observations.

Small Business May be the Engine of the US Economy But Not According to Bloomberg & Time Warner

First casualty of 2010: the demise of BusinessWeek SmallBiz. According to a post card, SmallBiz's last issue was Dec. 09/Jan. 2010. This development follows closely the demise of Fortune Small Business (FSB).

Survivors include Inc. and Entrepreneur.

It's been commonly acknowledged that small business is the engine of the US economy. But not enough advertisers seem to believe that. Clearly there's not enough support for standalone publications directed at small businesses, at least according to billion-dollar publishers Time Warner and Bloomberg.

Of course, both Fortune and Bloomberg BusinessWeek said they will continue to maintain their respective small business web sites and will now integrate small business coverage into their main print publications. That means there will be less content for and about small business. What was particularly helpful about FSB and BusinessWeek SmallBiz is that they provided service journalism: articles that not only reported on current trends (which will likely continue) but also how-to articles, and it's the latter type of article that won't be included in Fortune and Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

That's a shame because small business owners are time starved but craving information geared just for them. The daily papers can't cover small businesses too closely; the Wall St. Journal and New York Times allocate a page -- about a story or two -- each week.

Of course, there's still Inc. & Entrepreneur. I hope they can pick up the advertising dollars left on the table after the demise of their competitors.

The Difference between BusinessWeek and Bloomberg BusinessWeek -- Part II

The other aspect of the deal was that Bloomberg said the acquisition was to extend the brand and reach an audience beyond subscribers to the wildly successful Bloomberg terminal.

This makes the firing of popular and well-known columnists like Maria Bartiromo, Jack & Suzy Welch and Stephen Wildstrom all the more perplexing. The personnel changes will help the bottom line, but won't necessarily help accomplish Bloomberg's stated goal.

The Difference between BusinessWeek and Bloomberg BusinessWeek

I read through the first Bloomberg BusinessWeek issue -- the one after most of the columnists and longtime reporters had either left on their own or had been pushed.

I'm sure I'll get used to the new bylines, but if the magazine were a real estate property, Bloomberg basically bought the magazine for the prestigious address. The new magazine has similar columns to the McGraw Hill BusinessWeek, but this new version is clearly different.

I'm sure most former BizWeek reporters will do ok. Steve Hamm has already started working at IBM. But there are a lot of reporters who still haven't figured out what they'll be doing. I wish them all the best of luck, and look forward to reading the articles in some other format and some other outlet.