Six Reasons PR is Not Dead...Yet

There are a lot of people who like to predict the death of things.

Long after TV was supposed to kill off radio (as depicted in "Video Killed the Radio Star," the first video aired by MTV), pundits have been declaring the deaths of LPs (that's what came before CDs for those born after 1982), VHS and VCRs (replaced by DVDs), DVDs (replaced by blu-ray), landlines (replaced by cellphones), incandescent light bulbs (to be replaced by compact fluorescent to be replaced by LEDs).

I know I left off fax machines, but most people seem to have forgotten about faxes.

What's interesting is that not all those technologies have died as predicted. But that hasn't stopped people from continuing to make similar predictions about other things.

Like PR, for example.

At a panel on PR and social media that I moderated for the New England Venture Network (which we cosponsored) as part of BREW Boston (Boston Regional Entrepreneurs Week), the question of PR's death came up right away.

In fact, the question came up earlier that day on Twitter as people discussed that night's panel.

Half the panel -- comprised of blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- came prepared to say that PR is dead.

I think that PR as it was conducted in "The Sweet Smell of Success" circa 1957 is dead. And PR the way it was conducted 15 years ago or even 10 years ago, is, if not dead, certainly not doing well.

But PR as it can be practiced today is not dead. It has evolved, however, just as advertising and journalism have evolved.

In fact, I think that PR, advertising and journalism are all in the boat, and that we all need to figure out new ways of operating.

Here are some reasons why PR is not dead:

1. Despite the hype, a lot of companies still are not fully engaged on social media. For those companies, especially, PR is still an effective way to communicate their story.
   
2. The media is certainly evolving, but it's still important to work with them. PR still handles this best.
   
3. The press release continues to be a useful tool, the panel declared. Even if it is no longer the most important component for making announcements, it's still part of the announcement process.
4. Advertising can still be very expensive, and not just for startups. Public relations can be a much more cost-effective way to market a company. Paul Alexander at Liberty Mutual recently told the Ad Club of Boston that PR is great, cost-effective resource to handle social media.
   
5. Advertising functions and agencies can position a company and find key differentiators, but they don't necessarily know how to work with editorial, reporters, etc. (For that matter, we wouldn't know how to create and place ads.)
6. As this year saw, thanks to BP, Toyota, H-P, poor communications can make crisis communications worse. PR can be best positioned to plan for and execute communications during a crisis.

On the other hand, the sole reason that PR is dead is because of the rise of social media.

Let me know if you think I left out a reason why PR is not dead. Or if there are more reasons why PR is dead.

Here are some other articles that discuss whether or not PR is dead:

• Is PR Dead? and The Role of PR Firms in Social Media and Inbound Marketing by HubSpot
• Is PR Relevant? by InkSpot
• How to Bootstrap Your Public Relations by Inc. Magazine
  

Newspapers Are Not Dead Yet

If flat is the new black when it comes to corporate profits, than a small decline in readership is the new fashion for newspapers. The print editions, anyway.

While the WSJournal saw an 1.82% increase in its circulation, the rest of the top 25 saw a modest decline -- which is good news, actually.

Check out the Journal article here or check out the poorly formatted list (below).

Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspapers
Newspaper Name Total Paid Circulation M-F as of 9/30/10 As of 9/30/09 % Change
The Wall Street Journal 2,061,142 2,024,269 1.82%
USA Today 1,830,594 1,900,116 -3.66%
New York Times 876,638 927,851 -5.52%
Los Angeles Times 600,449 657,467 -8.67%
Washington Post 545,345 582,844 -6.43%
New York Daily News 512,520 544,167 -5.82%
New York Post 501,501 508,042 -1.29%
San Jose Mercury News 477,592 N/A
Chicago Tribune 441,508 465,892 -5.23%
Houston Chronicle 343,952 384,437 -10.53%
Philadelphia Inquirer 342,361 361,481 -5.29%
Newsday 314,848 357,124 -11.84%
Denver Post 309,863 340,949 -9.12%
Arizona Republic 308,973 316,873 -2.49%
Minneapolis Star Tribune 297,478 304,544 -2.32%
Dallas Morning News 264,459 263,810 0.25%
Cleveland Plain Dealer 252,608 271,182 -6.85%
Seattle Times 251,697 263,588 -4.51%
Chicago Sun-Times 250,747 275,641 -9.03%
Detroit Free Press 245,326 269,729 -9.05%
St. Petersburg Times 239,684 240,146 -0.19%
Oregonian 239,071 249,164 -4.05%
San Diego Union-Tribune 224,761 242,693 -7.39%
San Francisco Chronicle 223,549 251,782 -11.21%
Newark Star-Ledger 223,037 246,006 -9.34%

How Has Social Media Impacted PR? Boston Panel to Discuss

It's obvious that social media has impacted PR, and a panel of expert journalists and bloggers will discuss the changes they've seen in their own work lives and in how their interact with companies.

Join me at "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," hosted by New England Venture Network (NEVN), the largest network of young venture capital professionals on the East Coast.

Panelists include:

• Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers (2007), Secrets of Social Media Marketing (2008), and Social Marketing to the Business Customer (co-authored with Eric Schwartzman, January, 2011).
• Gregory T. Huang, National IT Editor and Editor, Xconomy Boston.
• Galen Moore, staff writer, Mass High Tech & Boston Business Journal.
• Dan Primack, senior editor, Fortune.com.

"Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup" is scheduled for Oct. 13 at the offices of Cooley, LLP at 500 Boylston St., Boston Cocktails start at 6:30pm, followed by the panel at 7:15pm. Admission is free, but attendance is limited.

To register, click here: http://nevn.eventbrite.com/.

Should Publicists Be Reported On in News Stories

A recent exchange in the New York Times touched on the role of publicists in the journalism process, following a New York Times Magazine profile of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. that mentioned his publicist (though not by name) nearly a dozen times in the article.

I can't remember a publicist getting so much mention in any celebrity profile before. The unnamed publicist was part of a key and controlling theme in the profile.

And that sparked the issue: "A strong ethical argument can be made that the reader should be made aware of the circumstances under which an interview was conducted. Isn’t the reader entitled to be aware of these conditions?" asked Larry Bloomstein, a reader from Dix Hills, NY.

The response from the Times was also interesting. According to Philip B. Corbett, standards editor:

"There are no clear-cut rules for when such interactions (by a publicist) should be noted in a story. My rule of thumb would be simple: If the information would significantly inform the reader’s understanding of the story, we should probably include it. The same goes for other details of how an interview takes place.

The Times' Public Editor or ombudsman, Arthuer S. Brisbane went on to suggest that:

"Publicists and other handlers should be more visible to readers, and perhaps not only to enhance readers’ understanding of a story. Some readers want to know when a third party is actively working to obtain or shape coverage for a news subject. Unfortunately, this activity takes place largely out of the view of readers. I believe that news organizations, including The Times, need to be more transparent and let readers see behind the scenes. The penalty for failing to do so is to invite suspicion that coverage can be manipulated."

We live and do business in an age of transparency, but would reporting on how publicists arrange interviews be useful information for readers or would that information serve as a distraction to the larger story?

Check out the entire exchange here.

What's the Most Important Type of News for Morning TV News?

Based on the promos that run on local stations for their local news programs, you might think that the most important type of news is breaking news. All across the country, local TV news stations talk about how they cover breaking news -- first.

But breaking new is not the reason people tune in for morning news -- despite the "If it bleeds, it leads" catch phrase that has been the overall mantra of local news. And the morning news directors know that -- even though they don't usually run promos for the things that people do tune in for: weather reports.

Watching the morning news today, I noticed that after a brief, 2-minute intro or welcome to the stories they plan to cover over the next half hour, the first thing each national morning show cut to the national and local weather.

After we get the weather report, we then get the so-called important stories of the day.

That shouldn't be surprising, but people pitching morning news programs often forget the priorities that news producers have.

Don't believe me? Here's Alex Beam in the Boston Globe writing about the formula for the new 4:30am broadcast news programs:

Here is the formula that every station manager has adopted for this time slot: WEATHER/newsfiller/newsfiller/newsfiller/whiffofsportsorbusinessreporting/advertising/WEATHER/newsfiller/newsfiller/whiffofsportsorbusinessreporting/advertising/WEATHER.

Weather is so important, that the New York Times and other papers list the weather each day on the front page, above the fold, even above other headlines.

On radio, the only thing as important as weather are traffic updates.

Sure, they get to the other stuff, including local sports, but people truly tune to morning news for the weather. Yet, the only time stations promote their weather expertise and latest in Doppler technology, is before, during and after an expected storm or Nor'easter.

The important aspect for PR functions here is to understand the structure of morning news programs so that you can set reasonable expectations for coverage. Of course, that could change if you have a strong weather-related story!

Meanwhile, check out Alex Beam's article about the very early morning news here.

Boston Globe to Get Paywall

Add the Boston Globe to the list of print newspapers building a paywall, according to the Boston Business Journal article.

Not a surprising move given that the Globe's parent company, The New York Times, just announced another quarterly loss -- and that it will establish a paywall for nytimes.com in 2011.

The real question is what model of a paywall will the Globe have. And the second question is what affect will having articles behind a paywall have on the readers accessing Globe content. And if the numbers of readers declines, what happens to ad revenue?

This is a question not only for the Globe but for other similar newspapers in other markets.

How Not to Give an Interview or An Example of Why You Need to Be Careful with the Daily Show

Last year, Time Magazine famously asked, "Now that Walter Cronkite has passed on, who is America's most trusted newscaster?" The answer: Jon Stewart, host of the "fake news" program, "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. A majority of people responding to the survey in 36 states voted for Stewart ahead of Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric; and in the 14 states that ranked Williams (11 states), Gibson (2) or Couric (1) first, Stewart was consistently ranked as the second most trusted newscaster.

Even though he's a comedian.

The fact is that Jon Stewart isn't afraid to ask tough questions of his guests, whether Republican or Democrat. And he calls people on it when they're hypercritical or when they don't answer the question. And he does it while being funny, too.

I'm a big fan, but the reason for this post is a clip from an interview on Monday's show.

Look, if you're trying to take a serious stance on an issue, I don't know why you'd give an interview to the Daily Show -- especially when you represent the other side of an issue that the Daily Show is likely to support. I see it all the time, and I keep wondering if those people have seen the program before? I assume if an organization is involved that it does not have a PR person on staff because the PR person should be advising them not to agree to an interview.

But if people are going to ill advisedly agree to be interviewed by the Daily Show, PR functions should at least learn what not to do -- because these segments offer very funny examples for media training classes.

Case in point: a segment available here about the United Food & Commercial Workers of Nevada, Locall 711, a union that employs non-union labor in its protest against Wal-Mart. The spokesperson is asked if he knew that non-union members were protesting on behalf of the union.

He looks visibly awkward as he pauses before saying, with the cameras rolling, that he's trying to figure out how to answer the questions. This happens a couple of times during the segment.

And then the spokesperson is surprised to find out that the people the union is paying to protest low wages, no benefits and no job security complain that they themselves are getting low wages, no benefits and have no job security as they protest Wal-Mart on behalf of the union.

Just when you think it can't get worse, the union spokesperson blames Wal-Mart for setting a standard that other companies are following....That's when Aasif Mandvi "nails" the spokesperson, by pointing out the union is also following Wal-Mart's lead by offering low wages, no benefits and no job security.

A great segment. And a great lesson in why spokespeople need to be media trained.