Audience Size Matters

Just got your latest offering, and before I even finished reading it, I wanted to tell you it is fabulous.  The look is very appealing, and I especially liked the headlines enticing me to read on. Great job, Terry.

(In a later email, she wrote:)

Ironic ....I just read the article about the newsie wannabees.  My son thinks he wants to be a journalist.  Should I start saving for his inheritance now??
Carole Nannes

Your opening headline is tasteless, especially when viewed on computer e-mail screen with so much junk mail that conditions us to crud.  Your business deserves better.

I know you folks, too.

Move past it and do great things this week.
Tom Boyle

Editor’s Note: Thanks Tom. But don't be surprised by future headlines or story content.  If making the point requires tweaking the modern day concepts of "good taste," you can count on us to prefer tasting good over good taste any old day.

About Online Pressrooms

I agree with Jed.  Online pressrooms are important to completing a well-strategized web presence.

My company is in the process of revamping the website and a pressroom will be included.

Thanks!
Craig Heighton, APR

On Eschewing Broadcast Media

Well written.  You are an expert.
Wade Medlock

D. Ashley Lee (CFO of Kennesaw, GA-based CryoLife, which is struggling with a crisis of corporate confidence) obviously needs media training for broadcast interviews.

That's simply a case of being more confident with print media b/c one can sometimes edit or recall or clarify something before it's printed; one can't take back a syllable once uttered on the airwaves.  With proper training, however, this person would gain confidence — not to mention knowledge — of how to gain a measure of control over what he/she says "live."
Judy Crawford

Thanks for the info. I enjoy reading the analysis you've been sending me

One note of interest in this writing...there is a complete misunderstanding by companies who will speak to the local media, I guess thinking that's a friendly venue, while ignoring national or international media.

I'd guess the reasons they don't want to talk to network TV, or local TV for that matter,  is the penchant for TV to select the sound bite they want to use for a story and the possibility that sound bite will be used out of context.

What most organizations aren't aware of is most electronic media outlets now will put long portions of an interview on their websites. The news organizations are looking for content and long interviews provides them with content. A corporation can even ask the electronic media if they will use longer potions of the interview on the websites...most organizations will.

Another bonus, in the age of digital technology, many on-camera (interviews) are downloaded in their entirety. Internet users with DSL or cable modems can click on the interview and see/hear the whole interview.

You’re dead on accurate about corporations not being able to get their message out to the masses. A real shame when you consider how easy it is to get that message out with little effort.

Cheers,
Larry Register

Good article and good points. But there still is a judgment call regarding whether to interview with a news agency known for its yellow journalism. 60 Minutes is a prime example. There is a reason that the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have refused to do on-camera interviews for this production for several years.

I read a good article last year that analyzed 60 Minutes reporting of defense-related issues. Of the twenty something pieces they did since inception, not one was considered balanced.

In earlier GD/LM cases, I know they did hatchet jobs - stories were written before they did interviews, and they just were after a few juicy sound bites from the military or defense contractors. They are slick, and I wonder if they ever do balanced pieces. I do enjoy Andy Rooney, and he helps their credibility.
 Mike Nipper

Critiquing 9/11 Anniversary News Judgments

My disappointment with media exploitation of 9/11 is focused on newspapers. I find newspapers exploit anything and everything they reasonably may in order to sell advertising. If a local institution celebrates a significant anniversary, the newspaper sells ads in a special "salute" to that entity. However, the institution benefits little compared to the revenue benefiting the newspaper. This is a common scenario.

Relative to 9/11, I'm aware of several newspapers putting together special sections to commemorate the event. They ask advertisers to please use good taste by not hawking products/services in the issue, which is appropriate. However, in at least one instance, the cost per column inch for the special edition is nearly twice the normal rate. Once again, it's the newspaper's opportunity to make out like a bandit, while appearing to support an honorable cause.

It makes me wonder if all efforts by media, especially newspapers, to commemorate anything at any time are purely profit motivated. I don't begrudge the media making their profit, but what I find distasteful is the constant hype of "special focus" advertising opportunities. Every occasion is an occasion for more advertising, and in the end, nothing becomes special. That is, the year-round conniving to drum up special reasons to induce advertisers to support their "salutes" and congratulatory efforts tends to cheapen the same call when it's done for a worthwhile effort. And when the price of doing so is higher, even for the rationale that they're limiting advertiser participation, one tends to suspect there is little sincere motivation to do anything but make money.
Pat McWhorter