High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

An Epidemic of Poor Communication

Before I address Vice President Joe Biden's "doh!" moment on the Today Show this morning around the H1N1 Influenza A virus (I'm an animal lover, so I'm staying away from the popular name), I have to say that the choice of wording of current alerts from the World Health Organization (WHO) -- that we are in Phase 5 readiness for a potentially pandemic epidemic that is imminent -- may be spreading more alarm and doing more harm than the actual disease itself.  

If you dig below the WHO description in an MSNBC article, you get the real facts:  

"A phase 5 alert means there is sustained transmission among people in at least two countries. Once the virus shows effective transmission in two different regions of the world, a full pandemic outbreak — phase 6 — would be declared, meaning a global epidemic of a new and potentially deadly disease.

"It is important to take this very seriously," Chan told a news conference watched around the globe on Wednesday. But for the average person, the term "pandemic" doesn't mean they're suddenly at greater risk. "

Toward the bottom of that same article, the facts become even clearer:  

"Seasonal flu kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in a normal year, including healthy children in rich countries.

While epidemiologists stress it is humans, not pigs, who are spreading the disease, sales have plunged for pork producers around the world. WHO says eating pork is safe, but Mexicans have even cut back on their beloved greasy pork tacos.

Authorities have sought to keep the crisis in context. In the U.S. alone, health officials say about 36,000 people die every year from flu-related causes. "

It is all about how you communicate information like this. The media needs to help the cause by clearly reporting the news and serving the public good by relaying how people can protect themselves. They also have a responsibility, along with our government officials, to stop the panic that is inherent in wording, headlines and lead-ins to news broadcasts that use the phrase "imminent global pandemic epidemic."

It seems clear to me that Vice President Joe Biden agreed to a remote live interview with the Today Show's Matt Lauer this morning to follow President Obama's lead and advise the good citizens to not panic, but be safe.  He was doing well early in the interview, backing the President's assertion that closing the Mexican border is not what experts feel is required or helpful right now. Closing classrooms where there has been an outbreak to mitigate the spread of the disease in close quarters to other students makes sense, but that is very different from closing borders.

He got into trouble when Lauer threw out a, what he claimed was, "by no means a gotcha kind of question."  Right there, the alarm bells should have been going off for the Vice President.  A gotcha question is coming your way right now; get ready and hang onto your key messages!

Lauer:  "If your family said they want to go on a commercial airline to Mexico in the next week, would you think it is a good thing to go?"

Without a second hesitation, Vice President Biden declared: "I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- that I don't go anywhere in confined places right now. It is not that it is going to Mexico. It is that you are in a confined aircraft and when one person sneezes it goes all through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be suggesting -- if they have another means of transportation -- that they ride the subway. "  

He contradicted his earlier statements and seemed to suggest that not just travel to Mexico should be avoided, but all transportation in closed vehicles anywhere. The damage control began pretty quickly and a spokesperson told USA Today that what the Vice President meant to say was:

"The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways."

What we need right now is clear communication, from the WHO and government leaders, so the general public knows what is happening with this influenza outbreak and what they should do about it within reason. We don't need to sensationalize it or confuse and panic with wording that connotes higher risk than actually exists. And we really need to advise our government leaders to only agree to live broadcast interviews when they know how to stop themselves before going to town on an admitted "gotcha" question.   

 

 

RSA 2009 - bang or bust?

As the old saying goes, "if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The same can be said about RSA 2009, which took place last week in San Francisco. Arguably the biggest IT security show of the year, RSA typically arrives with much fanfare and a flurry of activity as security vendors, researchers and writers prepare to take in all that the show usually has to offer. I had the opportunity to experience RSA first-hand this year and I have to say - it was lackluster, at best. Without sounding like a broken record, it's quite clear that trade shows are more and more frequently falling by the wayside as a core tenet of marketing and PR plans in 2009 and beyond.

Besides the fact that foot traffic on the show floor was noticeably down and keynote sessions -- particularly Obama's cybersecurity czar Melissa Hathaway's session -- were uneventful, I was perhaps more surprised that social media chatter was relatively low. Given how many security pro's and reporters alike are all over Twitter and the blogosphere, I was certain I'd see a huge uptick in chatter across both areas. Not so this year -- at least not from my vantage point. All told, it certainly felt as though RSA was a figment of my imagination, had it not been for the slew of PR activity I was involved in on behalf of one of our security clients. No real trends or hot topics came out of the show this year, nor were there any major news announcements to shake things up.

To me, what this signals is an overall change in how companies are approaching trade shows today. Aside from reduced budgets allocated to events of RSA's caliber, companies are continuing to seek new ways to connect with users in smaller, more intimate settings - both live and virtually. This was reiterated by The 451 Group analyst Paul Roberts where he duly noted that:

"Anyone will tell you that the real business of RSA is happening off the show floor -- in conference rooms and hotel suites and restaurants, where companies are doing business: technology partnerships and strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions. Speaking personally, I've always found it ironic that the show, which started as a retreat for monkish cryptographers, has morphed into the back-slapping, business development Lollapalooza that it is today, but so it is."

So, I'd like to turn the conversation over to you. Do you think trade shows are relevant in the socially connected environment in which many companies are doing business today? And - if you were at RSA this year, do chime in - was it worth it for you?

Is the press release going through an identity crisis?

In the past, the press release was the one tried and true form of communicating to the press and the best way for a company to come to an agreement on the overall messaging around an announcement. It also served as a great proof point for harried sales people who wanted to document that they were signing on customers and making traction.  It wasn't a sale if a press release didn't make it official or hadn't gone on the wire. These days, though, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the press release has become many things to many people.

The most dramatic change in press releases came with the advent of the social media style release.  Less narrative in its form, this style release comprises of a bulleted sentence structure, product and/or executive images (via Flickr/YouTube), tags and social media links (i.e. Flickr, Delicious, Technorati, Digg, Slashdot, etc).  The social media style press release can pack in even more information than standard releases, such as a link to a short video from a new customer talking about why they chose a company's products.  However, it is less of a messaging vehicle, which is probably why journalists love it (less is more, as we always say), but marketing people still can be skittish about the change.

The format of press releases also seems to have changed from a strict adherence to AP-style to a much more relaxed tone.  Some releases even blur the line between pitch letters and press releases.  Lead sentences don't provide the news right away, but instead ask a question or create a word picture.  The writing is more colorful, certainly, than some of the staid releases that we all know and many hate.  However, there is a danger that as one of my colleagues asked recently: "I wonder about the media's response to releases that don't present clear, unbiased facts and let the reporters build the story.  It seems that standards and adherence to rules and procedures on press releases -- particularly in the consumer space -- have just relaxed to a point where anything goes." 

Is the press release undergoing an identity crisis?  Should it become the new pitch letter?  Is a press release irrelevant now that so many companies are publishing blogs themselves with great links to video, audio and written content like white papers?  Should the release of the past simply be an alert with pointers to the news that's being reported on the company's own blog -- shorter even than the social media style release and able to be shortened to a tiny URL to "tweet" out to everyone who is following your company on Twitter?  Or, is there still value in having a document that outlines a company's strategy and messages clearly and succinctly so news has a context and there is something solid to point back to as the company executes against its strategy?

Given the need to trim costs wherever possible and do more with less, it definitely makes sense to streamline the announcement process as much as possible.  It is also important to best serve and take advantage of new social media channels for communicating news directly to customers as well as to press and analysts.  If new approaches to press releases get the job done and avoid a long and costly review cycle inside a company for approvals, the time and resource savings alone may make them a more palatable alternative.

I would love to hear the thoughts of PR people, journalists and bloggers on this subject.  The press release certainly has been around for many years -- and has often been kicked around by the media during this time -- but its face is definitely changing rapidly.  With social media, texting and "tweeting" reducing communications in many ways to short bursts of information and abbreviations, what truly is the press release's purpose now?  Please do share your thoughts and concerns, as no one has the definite answer quite yet.

Simple answer to 'Why should I do social media?'

The most common objection or hesitation I hear from clients and others about why they should move forward with a social media program is that their customers are not using social networks and services to engage with each other or with companies.  This is thinking about social media along one dimension, however, specifically whether or not there will be sufficient interaction or participation around a blog, Twitter channel or other network.

I often respond to that objection by asking clients whether their customers use Google.  The answer usually is yes, as being high on Google search results is critically important to most companies.  If the answer is yes, then they need to leverage social media, and I proceed to explain why.  My rationale is very similar to that of Kevin Dugan, who has a great blog on Strategic Public Relations:

As marketers, however, we should be taking full advantage of the fact that Google sees all. We should be syndicating content across as many platforms as our customer community frequents. If they look for us in these 2.0 hot spots we want them to find us...It’s imperative that we make sure that everyone understands the implications of Google’s ability to catalog and cache seemingly all online activity. But we should also be deliberate in making sure Google finds our story in as many places as it makes sense. If we don’t? Google might find someone else’s version of our story instead.

Well said, Kevin.  It makes perfect sense.

How about you?  Does this make it easier to understand why social media makes sense?

Craigslist CEO "Feels Terribly" but tells CNN no real changes planned

Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster certainly has had better weeks.  When a Boston University med student was arrested on suspicion that he killed a masseuse he met on the Craigslist community bulletin board, he was quickly branded by the media as "the Craigslist killer" and the media began jumping on the angle of a killer using an Internet social media site to find his victims more than they were covering a murder. Buckmaster was video taped on CNN addressing the situation.  I pulled out the trusty Executive Communications Scorecard to see how he did under this enormous pressure.

Anchor Points:  Based on my viewing of the video, I think his "anchor points" were the following: we feel awful about this, people should use our personal safety tips, but we're not going to stop running these personal ads. His actual quote was not as crisp as I'm sure he would have liked it and it's ambiguous whether his primary regret was for the tragedy of the loss of life, or the association of his corporate baby with this murder: 

We feel terribly (sic) and it is quite sad that anyone would lose their life and it is horrible that Craigslist in any way be connected with a violent crime of this nature and it just causes us to redouble our efforts to try to get across to users to take a few common sense precautions that eliminate most of the risk.

Grade: B+   A crisper response would have raised this to an "A," but he stuck to his messages throughout and was consistent.

Sound-bites:  He didn't do as well here.  "We feel terribly" was under his photo when I first viewed the video and someone corrected it later to "We feel terrible."  The sound-bite that stayed with me and I don't think is what Buckmaster intended (I hope not, anyway), came later in the four-minute segment when he was asked how he feels about the fact that Craigslist is being used as a conduit through which predators can find prey online: 

We think quite the reverse is true.  Fifty million Americans are using Craigslist each month -- most several times during the month -- and anytime you have that amount of human activity there is always the possibility of something going wrong despite everyone's best efforts to protect people.  That being said, no incidents of violent crime are okay.  We are looking to see if there is anything to do to make it safer.

Okay, let's take this attempt at a sound-bite apart.  What I got from it when I first heard it was -- hey most of the 50M users each month are still alive and the occasional murder is to be expected, but what the heck, we'll keep trying to make it a safe place for everyone to use.  Do you think I phrased it right?  I don't think he really meant to say it like that.

Grade:  D

Anecdotes/Analogies:  He didn't really do much here.  An example of one he could have used was to refer to the personal safety tips referenced on the blog post he just did.   If the blog post itself had been shown on the screen, it would have reflected the company's concern about this sad event and its continuing efforts to safeguard its users.  He did talk about the push from users in 2005 to move ads for erotic services to a separate category and he made reference to them doing this, just as the Yellow Pages has done before them.

Grade:  C

Pace:  Buckmaster -- who reminded me of Thomas Haden Church from the movie "Sideways" in his open-collar shirt -- had a good pace, but a rather leaden, emotionless delivery.  Given the nature of the discussion, I think more voice inflection would have made us believe he truly did "feel terribly" about all of this.  Part of that may have been due to the fact that he was interviewed remotely and was wearing an ear piece and looking into a camera rather than talking face-to-face with his interviewer.  It is always hard to engage and be more human in your demeanor in those circumstances, which raises his overall grade.

Grade: B-

Pausing:  Since he was hampered by the remote interview issue of delay, he was forced to pause before responding. He didn't have uncomfortable pauses.

Grade: B+

Answer and Stop:  I think the run-on sound-bite I noted (and disliked) above could have been avoided if he had adopted this technique of answer just the question asked, concisely, and then stop and listen for the reaction of the interviewer and prepare to answer the next question.

Grade: C

Conciseness:  He was not bad, but some of his quotes would have benefited (as noted above) by being shorter.

Grade: C

Bridging:  He was clearly trained to try to bridge away from uncomfortable questions.  When he was pushed to answer why Craigslist just doesn't refuse to take these ads in the first place, he bridged, but it was an awkward place (in my view) that he bridged to. 

He said, "The great thing about Craigslist is when there is criminal activity, which we don't condone, it is easier for law enforcement -- they tell us -- to spot bad apples, root them out and get them off the site, which we really appreciate." 

I take that as a "no, we don't intend to remove these revenue-generating ads from the site," although he did stress earlier than "100% of net revenue goes to charity."  I guess I'm confused then.  He couldn't mean that it's okay because it helps charity and the police and most of the time no one gets killed.  Could he?

Grade:  D

His overall grade was passing, a hair higher than a "C." 

Given how charged and slippery this situation is for this company, combined with the fact that Craigslist seems to have no plans to rethink running the erotic services ads fingered in these incidents, I would have recommended a statement strategy, staying with the blog post, which was handled well, and saying "no thank you" to the live broadcast opportunity.  What do others think?

How to work with influential technology bloggers

About a week ago, I saw a tweet from Michael Krigsman (@mkrigsman) who blogs for ZDNet about IT Failures that said:

Software vendors need to learn to engage bloggers in a relationship that is straightforward and uncomplicated. 

In an earlier tweet Michael had singled out SAP as a company that really understands how to build this type of relationship.  In my never-ending quest to capture and execute best practices in communications for all of our clients, I contacted Michael to learn more about what he means by a straightforward and uncomplicated relationship with a blogger like himself.  We had a great chat last Friday and he was very helpful in outlining some specific tips for any company that wants to engage with a blogger like himself who is extremely deep and knowledgeable in a particular segment of the marketplace, but who essentially is not earning a living by blogging and describes his own blog as a "labor of love." 

Krigsman was careful to distinguish himself from broader bloggers who may cover a new product one day or Brittany Spears' Twitter feed another day.  "I blog in a narrow space that's completely focused on enterprise issues," he explains, adding, "IT failure is a touchy subject.  A lot of effort goes into trying to take an approach that is balanced and reasonable" 

In many ways, bloggers like Krigsman are like a special category of industry analysts who concentrate on a specific segment of technology or piece of the overall industry.  Like those analysts, he needs to stay abreast of industry developments, products and trends and the key players in the market. He admitted, "I am probably the most demanding type of blogger.  I expect a high level of attention.  I want to meet with high level executives."  

So what tips can he offer the rest of us that companies like SAP have learned?

• Make an occasional phone call to say "hello" and check in.

• Make your executives available for regular meetings and calls.

• Make customers available to meet and talk.

• Invite the blogger to key events and pave the way entirely -- financially and logistically -- to get him or her there.   This includes putting their hotel reservations on a corporate card rather than forcing them to bill back their costs and wait for reimbursement.  They don't have a staff to manage these things for them any more than they have a travel budget for events like yours.

Having hosted many journalists and analysts from around the world on behalf of many clients over the years, I know that the work our teams have done on this end to manage and streamline logistics like this for the media and analysts have always been greatly appreciated.  The most influential bloggers deserve the same treatment.

Does this guarantee you positive coverage from the blogger?   Krigsman is very careful to set clear expectations with the companies he covers, especially if they are funding his attendance at a conference.  He attends conferences purely because the topic or the conference itself is relevant to what he covers.  He is a prolific blogger and Twitter user, so it's likely he will write something when he spends time at a conference.  Whether or not it is positive, however, depends on the content you present him.  The key benefit of working closely with a blogger like himself is the greater degree of mind-share you will get from them about your own company and the issues you are facing.  Another benefit is feedback on the industry.  That blogger is closely watching all the players and can be a great sanity check for you.  It is fair game to ask them what they think of what you are announcing.

Many companies have what Krigsman describes as an "identity crisis" regarding bloggers.  They want bloggers to cover them and attend their events, but they don't really know how to treat the bloggers.  They aren't sure they want to spend the time it will really take to properly engage with that blogger as they would engage with a key analyst or technology reporter covering their space.  Krigsman believes companies must make a conscious decision regarding how much they want to invest in a relationship with him.  In return, they will receive his mind-share, ongoing attention, and a more nuanced understanding of them and presentation of the issues they face that will flavor his writing when he does choose to blog about them.

Our own social media expert, Ted Weismann, always counsels our clients about the need to look at social media in a strategic and planned way.  At the end of the day, that's what Michael Krigsman is saying that SAP is doing well and others should be copying.

The House that Pat Built

Last Thursday night, I went to the IDG Alumni Reunion in Newton, MA, a sold-out affair with 250 attendees and many more on a waiting list.  I worked for IDG from 1981 - 1983, starting as a staff writer for ComputerWorld and moving pretty rapidly to Senior Editor/Software.  Catching up with my old colleagues like Bill Laberis and Cheryl Gelb (now Eppsteiner) really took me back to my earliest days in the technology industry.  The editor who hired me at CW, Drake Lundell was there with his wife and former CW Editor Nancy French Lundell.  He actually hired me twice -- the second time at PCWeek (now eWeek).  There were folks from all of the various publications, IDC, and IDG itself.  The latter figured largely in a series of photos, which was kicked off by a funny 007 spoof that starred IDG founder Pat McGovern as "The Man from IDG."  McGovern spoke briefly and clearly was touched that all of these people who had fanned out from the company he founded many years ago had elected to get together in the middle of this crazy economic downturn.

A lot of the discussion involved comparing notes about the impact on business and jobs.  But one piece of the conversation, with my former colleague Catherine Marenghi, reminded me of McGovern's style of management.  I still have in my memorabilia some of the notes he used to send employees on the corny news-boy illustrated stationery that singled out the "good news" of something you accomplished.  As Software Editor, I got one that highlighted a great front page story I wrote.  And every year before Christmas, McGovern would personally hand each employee a bonus check, saying something specific about your contribution (after a quick side briefing by one of his team.)  He would tell me how important software was to the publication.  I knew he really didn't know who I was, but the fact that he still took the time to make the effort meant something -- the notes, the hand-shakes, the personal thank yous.

In these days of a struggling economy, it's really relationships, reputation and networks that will pull all of us through and help us succeed when things improve.  Pat McGovern certainly set a great example and people like me who got their start in the tech industry in the company he created are doing our best to honor his legacy and take it forward.

Thanks, Pat!

Should social media be regulated?

A colleague shared with me the other day the news that the Federal Trade Commission may regulate viral marketing and social media. It sounds ominous, but what's really at play is the fact that the FTC is updating its guidelines for the new era of marketing. It only took them 30 years to do so (guess they didn't think Web 1.0 was significant enough).

The nut of the proposal is that bloggers or others that are paid to endorse or write a review of a product or service on the Web are required to disclose that fact. If not, they'll be held liable along with the company, following similar rules that already exist for traditional advertising and marketing. I agree with the legal counsel for the American Association of Advertising Agencies (the 4A), Adonis Hoffman, that there should not be an overreaction to this.

In an e-mail to Ad Age, Adonis Hoffman, 4A's senior VP and legal counsel, said, "This does not have to put a chilling effect on the new methods of advertising, but it does put a responsibility on the advertisers and agencies to understand that the rules apply and to explain that to the bloggers, promoters and other viral supporters."

It's interesting that the notice from the FTC first came out two weeks ago, but the discussion on it really stoked up yesterday because of a Fox News report, which took a distorted view on it -- namely that the government is going after Mommy bloggers.

The important thing is that this won't stop people from discussing their experiences and sharing opinions -- both good and bad -- about a company's product or service. The unpaid endorsements or criticisms always carry the most influence and it's a slippery slope when companies try to control them by generating paid testimonials. As more and more consumers and buyers turn to their peers for information and opinion, it should be clear to them as to whether that opinion is genuine or not. The real power of word-of-mouth marketing lies in the trust it engenders in the minds of consumers. As hard as it will be for the FTC to enforce such regulations, it will help preserve that trust, and I agree with Jim Nail of TNS Media Intelligence, that this is a good thing. As he said in the Ad Age article, "If people start disbelieving word-of-mouth marketing as much as they disbelieve advertising, we are in deep trouble."

The other thing to understand from this is that it is yet another reason that social media needs to be approached with a clear strategy and management approach in mind.

What side of this issue do you fall on this?

SNW, what's to come?

It was about this time last week that the dust was beginning to settle on another Storage Networking World (SNW) Spring Conference. No signs of hurricanes to delay the arrival of attendees or speakers as in years past. No signs of some major sponsors as in years past, Dell being one of many conspicuously absent. Few signs of major news conferences from multiple companies, Brocade being one of the only to leverage SNW for a press event. Fewer signs of life in the bars. And, much discussion about how relevant SNW was/is/could be. 

It seems as many have noted that this year's event passed without much ballyhoo. The usual musings:  Was it worth my time? Did we generate enough leads from those end users in attendance? Did we get full value out of our sponsorship and commitments? Did we need to be there for as long as we were?  Was attendance impacted by the economy? Should we continue to come back? 

For many, some of those questions are still being answered, but it was refreshing to hear and see several positives come out of this spring's event.  Although, with the good comes the not-so-good. 

From the good perspective, social media was front and center in many ways at SNW. George Crump at Storage Switzerland gave us daily updates via his blog on Byte and Switch to each day's happenings.  Jerome Wendt at DCIG did something similar via his own blog.  And, the folks at the Wikibon Group took it one step further by tweeting updates from meetings as they happened real time. Also from the good, companies I spoke to and have the pleasure of working with, all noted that end user interest was up even if attendance was lighter than in years past. Demos were in full force which may speak to those that were attending were generally more interested and engaged. Speaking engagements were well received, some presentations were standing room only.  And, the weather was accommodating.

From the not-so-good category, not many companies chose to make SNW the center of their PR and launch effort, as George Crump noted. In fact, some media I spoke to recently were wondering why some companies like EMC waited to do their major announcement the week after SNW. Were they trying to send a message? 

Also, in the not-so-good category, the communication around one of the premier items at the show, the SNW Best Practices in Storage Awards, was less than ideal. Maybe it had to do with moving the event from a dinner lasting a few hours on Wednesday night to a more intimate gathering for 15 minutes on Tuesday morning at 10:00 am or 10:15 am depending on which invite you checked last.  Regardless, some people I spoke with that were genuinely excited about the recognition and had flown in specifically for the acknowledgment were left feeling disappointed.

Overall, and from my perspective, perhaps SNW was showing signs of what's made it successful in the past: a storage-focused venue where end users, companies, and pundits convene to have industry-- specific conversations. And, we all benefit when that happens. Perhaps storage is back. The networking is back....even if the world may just be a little bit smaller. Let's hope that's just a sign of the economic realities we all face though rather than a sign the conversation may be shifting to another venue.

How the demise of scoop-driven journalism will affect PR

Illustration Paul Gilligan

On Friday, my colleague Christine Simeone pointed out a very interesting piece by Jon Friedman of Marketwatch, which raises the question whether journalistic "scoops" still matter.  Despite the ego-stirring excitement of getting a jump on a story that I still remember well from my IT press days, Jon answers his own question about the relevance of scoops: 

Not so much, I'm afraid. With the exception of a Watergate-like bombshell, news exclusives don't mean as much as they used to, I'd argue, with hand over heart. 

How long does a scoop last nowadays on the Internet? Ten seconds, maybe?

 

In a post last week, I talked about the attempt by AP to protect their valuable content from being gobbled up by search engines, with no appreciable return to them, and to create their own portal where their latest valuable reports and, one would assume, "scoops" will reside outside of the Googles of the world.  Jon Friedman's contention seems to suggest that the speed and increasing anonymity of where the news comes from will make this irrelevant anyway, as no one cares who got it first.  In many ways, he continues, it is about who does the best job reporting on the news and puts it into context for the readers.  That news analyst may be from a major publication or may be from a tier one blog or an industry-specific or topic-specific blog that has a smaller but avid group of followers.

 

So what does this mean for companies who are trying to maximize the impact of their major news announcements?  Some of my LP&P colleagues offered the following:

 

Rick McLaughlin wrote, "What I found most interesting was perhaps new criteria in which we want to evaluate how we pitch/write ideas," based on this assertion in Friedman's article:

The Internet makes it possible for publishers and editors to measure a story's worth according to three criteria: most read, most emailed and most reader comments generated.

As if this new reality of digital publishing isn't unsettling enough for a reporter or a columnist to ponder, coming soon to a Web site near you: The powers-that-be will clamor to add a fourth variable. They'll be measuring precisely how much time readers/consumers are spending on each individual story.

Don Jennings commented that he's been hearing about these kinds of changes at some of the trade publications, where reporters aren't "measured on breaking news or investigative reporting; rather on being the 'Most read' story on the site."   He said that this approach can start to turn off the journalists when they see that the story covering what the Hogwarts IT department is doing rates higher than the latest new product introduction by an industry bellwether. 

Carol Hanko, one of our former journalists, thinks this approach of measuring journalists' articles by counting clicks isn't anything new.  "A hundred years ago, the most successful papers were the ones that attracted the most buyers due to the shocking stories inside.  Now we can just measure the specific stories getting the attention, versus the newspaper edition.  But the difference today is that people don't have the time to actually read these stories - we have more information coming at us that anyone could ever imagine. In journalism school, we were taught that readers never turned the page to read the rest of the story.  Now people don't read beyond the third paragraph (if a writer is lucky), which means fewer facts, less context and ultimately, more sensationalism.  For a PR person, this makes
things much more challenging.  If we want our clients to be included in these stories, spokespeople have to go out on a limb like never before."

I'm not sure where I sit on this matter, as a former journalist myself.  I can tell you as a PR person that scoops and exclusives still matter to journalists, because they still ask for them.  Clearly we in the PR and journalism fields are on shifting sands and are likely to be there for quite a while.  It sounds like the two sides of the desk need to collaborate more than ever, with the ultimate goal being the most accurate, complete and fair coverage that, as Carol notes, includes particularly interesting insights from our clients that will raise an article's value on the web.