Goggle writing PRSA's PR Tactics recently reminded us that Google has changed both purpose and methodology for headline writing.
"What happens when writers optimize Web headlines for Google," PRSA writes, is that "we move proper nouns, keywords and full names to the front of the headline, crowding out wit and whimsy."
Here are four tactics that they suggest for writing effectively for both Google SEO rankings and real people. Full PRSA suggestions here.
1. Remember that "your title tag and URL get more emphasis from Google than your headline."
2. "Put the literal, search- and click-friendly headline on the content page. Place a feature headline on your own home page or sub-indexes."
3. "Use the headline for the literal story and the deck for the creative or benefits-focused one."
4. Be clever and clear.
Print savings Everyone wants to be frugal without losing quality; here’s a way to achieve both: Change fonts.
Printer.com tested 10 fonts with 11 point Arial as the baseline. The frugal quality winner was 10 point Century Gothic, saving a whopping 31% over the benchmark Arial.
That's about $20 a year for individuals printing 25 pages a week — sounds like about one ink cartridge a year.
Wisebread.com lists 10 other ways to save on printing costs.
Role reversal among the media The “nastiness index” for the media keeps rising as they “now seem to be both the purveyors and often the targets of ugly attacks,” writes Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. His citations:
> Salon calls Fox News racist.
> Fox says mainstream organs Obama lap dogs.
> E-mails wish death to Limbaugh.
> Others say Fred Barnes is racist.
> Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone accused a lapse in journalistic ethics in McChrystal story.
> Defenders accused of being military lackeys.
“It's journalism as blood sport, performed for the masses,” Kurtz wrote.
Makes one yearn for the good ole days of the Spanish American War, when New York Journal publisher William Randolph Hearst told his artist Frederick Remington, "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war!"
Edit30 authority Edit30 brings more than three decades of corporate, marketing and investor communications expertise to the blog arena. We provide the insight executives need, but may not get from insiders or retainers. Find out more on our "About" page.
|
Appearances matter, but matters of fact matter much more. Therefore, we believe that relationships between the media and business executives are often touchy and sometimes dangerous. Relationships between the media and government officials — especially at the C-Level — are always touchy and almost assuredly dangerous, especially when they involve close family members.
Similarly, a lot has been made of the media’s alleged love affair with Obama, dating back to his first campaign days nearly a decade ago. Many Obama apologists regularly push aside such criticisms as mere Republican envy or attempts at trouble-making. Regardless of such denials, an objective observer would be hard pressed to honestly say the media has covered Obama as closely and critically as it covered previous — especially Republican — presidents.
Now it comes to light that a very cozy relationship between the media and the Obama government — at the very top levels — is indeed fact, a very disturbing fact.
We believe, these insider relationships support the charge of media bias favoring the Obama Administration in terms of what it defines as newsworthy, if and how events are covered, and preferential treatment — and positive spin — given the Obama Administration by ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.
Here are three media-government relationships that are questionable at best and ultimately untenable. We believe these unholy alliances support our claim of media favoritism toward Obama, which should end – immediately.
This is all far too close for comfort, and needs to be corrected immediately. And all other such media-government conflicts of interest should be searched out and ended.
Peggy Noonan got it absolutely right in her WSJ column in which she expressed revulsion at Steve Kroft’s unprofessional interview of Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. Noonan characterized the half-hour session on “60 Minutes” as a disgusting example of the continuing “mainstream media fawn-a-thon toward the current president.”
“The Kroft interview was a truly scandalous example of the genre. It was so soft, so dazzled, so supportive, so embarrassing. And it was that way from the beginning, when Mr. Kroft breathlessly noted, “The White House granted us 30 minutes.” Granted. Like kings,” Noonan wrote.
“What followed was a steady, targeted barrage of softballs. “Why did you want to do this together, a joint interview?” Because, said the president, she’s been one of the best secretaries of state ever, and theirs has been one of the greatest collaborations in history. Also, “I’m gonna miss her.” No reading of the tea leaves here, pressed Mr. Kroft. We don’t have tea here, Hillary laughed.”
With the exception of Fox News and most on-air talent at CNBC, major media in the US have been on a mindless love binge with Obama since his presidential campaigning began in 2006. As disgusting and unprofessional as their behavior has been, what’s worse is that the same media deny any pro-Obama partisanship.
This sort of behavior, we believe, is antithetical to everything that used to be taught in journalism schools, beginning with Reporting 101. But it appears fairly obvious that J-schools haven’t taught objective reporting in years.
Here’s the link to Noonan’s WSJ column, which begins with a justified note of positive recognition for the Dodge ad “So God Made a Farmer,” which appeared during the Super Bowl and as a broadsheet wrapper for the weekend USAToday.
Communications is the art of sales — even among journalists, who often see themselves above such pedestrian pursuits.
In Forbes, Carmine Gallo tells us that a Medill journalism school professor admonished him always to ask, “Why should my readers care?”
A CEO boss regularly reminded me that effective marketing communications must answer three questions: “Why should I buy this? Why should I buy this right now? Why should I buy this right now from you?”
 And a veteran ad executive colleague lives by the belief that all worthwhile campaigns must “touch me, affect me, make me care.”
Now comes entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson to define the successful pitch (to a client or to the board) even further, and bases it on five essentials.
- What’s in it for them: What can an investor/buyer expect in return?
- Be concrete: Forget hope and luck; what is and will be your business reality?
- Be disruptive: How are you going to be better then your competition?
- Prove sustainable growth: How do you plan stay ahead of the pack?
- Demonstrate bench strength: Why are your people the right people?
Branson “shares the wisdom and experience that have made him one of the world’s most recognized and respected entrepreneurs” in his new book, “Like A Virgin: Secrets They Won’t Teach You at Business School.”
Gallo writes about the book in a column in the current Forbes (10-23-12).
We all know the cliche of about “too much of a good thing” is, well, too much. And, in our opinion, that is exactly the case with one piece of the Romney-Ryan signage. Repetitious shapes or, in this case, alphabet characters provides a too-tempting target for some graphic designers.
The repeated Rs in the Rolls Royce logo are an obvious example, where such an effort is executed perfectly. The characters are simple and clear, work harmoniously together, and optimize an elegant font. They yield an iconic logo, and one that others should not attempt to replicate. (Contrary to another cliche,  imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery, or of good taste.)
Not to be confused with the Rolls Royce logo, you have the situation with the RR of the Romney Ryan tag team. That’s a big, obvious temptation. And Republican graphic designers could not, and did not, resist the temptation to run them together.
Actually, we think, standing alone the double-R has something of an echoing feeling to it; and standing alone, it is not too bad. (Indeed, it is our belief that the RR logo was originally intended to give a waving-flag effect to the sole R in the name “Romney.” Then, of course, Ryan came along and the two Rs just became far too much for some designer’s will power to overcome.)
 The outcome is an RR logo that is terrible when married with the remaining letters of the two individuals’ names. Kerning is nonexistent, leaving the reader to discover that s/he’s confronted with a whole new political team to consider: Mr. Omney and his Asian running mate, Mr. Yan.
Big mistake! But, that’s just our opinion… without any political overtones.
 Social media surpass newspapers – not surprisingly – as the primary source of daily news for individuals under 30. TV is a roughly-equal news source. This according to a just-released study by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and reported here by Poynter.org.
- 33% of young adults get news from social networks;
- 34% watch TV news; and
- 13% read print or digital newspapers.
Among the social media news consumption:
- 19% of all Americans get news from the likes of Facebook, Google+, or LinkedIn;
- 9% was the number in 2010;
- 36% of those using social media get news there;
- 11% of the sample get their news from Twitter; and
- 17% get news on a mobile device.
The Pew study was based on 3,003 telephone interviews during May and June and has an overall margin of error of 2.1%+/- and varies for smaller subset samples.
Image source: Pew Research Center.
Savvy communicators recognize that the KISS Theory (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) is one of their most important creative fundamentals when developing client messaging. That’s why Bill Taylor’s current Harvard Business Review column, ”It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Believe,” is so gratifying.
The reference company is Apple, whose products are uniquely successful in masking extreme complexity with unbelievable simplicity of operation.
While Taylor uses an Apple vignette (from Adam Lashinsky’s new book Inside Apple) to illustrate his point, he admits that he computer gizmo maker is not alone; others that live by the same precept include Southwest Airlines, USAA, Cirque du Soleil, the Marine Corps, and Pixar among others.
The instructive anecdote goes back two years to the time when CEO Tim Cook was chairing his first investor conference call after Steve Jobs announced his medical leave of absence. It was the first analyst’s first question; he quizzed Cook about what would be different at Apple if Cook were running the company instead of Jobs.
Jobs responded with an impromptu, as-if-scripted statement, “as if [he were] reciting a creed he had learned as a child in Sunday School.”
Cook’s response:
“We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products, and that’s not changing.
“We believe in the simple not the complex…We believe in saying no to thousands of products, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us…
“We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in ways others cannot…
“And I think that regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.”
Anyone who has ever used an Apple product will agree that the company does “innovate the way others cannot” and that Apple products “just work,” unlike any others.
The journalism profession has been facing an identity crisis for quite some time. But the challenge has never been more daunting than it is now with the social media birthing “citizen journalists” and reporters seeking to tweet the world.
Unfortunately, our friends at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary don’t help matters much with their conflicting definitions of “journalism.”
- Journalism is “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation;” and journalism also is…
- “Writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.”
Definition one provides the journalism boundaries previously accepted by traditionalists: Journalism is not designed to mold opinion, though that may be an outcome. (What an anachronistic thought!)
Definition two aligns more with the current practice of journalism in that it is “designed to appeal to current popular taste….” Translation: Cater to an audience by saying or writing what they want to hear, and thus grow your market.
To confuse the journalism-versus-social-media issue even further, now comes Ragan.com, which tells business communicators that the way to gain credibility is to practice a hybrid called “brand journalism.”
Ragan says that this “new form of communications for business [is] rapidly emerging as the digital revolution continues to evolve… [because it is] more aligned with this era of engaged conversation and transparency. It showcases authenticity.”
Ragan gets really wound up in this brand journalism thing, stating that it is “harnessing all of the appeal and credibility of news — and tapping into people’s curiosity about what’s really behind a company. Brand journalism brings a new dimension to the interactive and social media power of the Internet. It enables companies and organizations to tell their own stories and become trusted information resources for stakeholders and the media.”
Ragan lays out six fundamentals to achieve this; with the ringer coming at the end, of course.
1. Feature stories and profiles can “call out the uniqueness of a company’s products, services and people.” (All great points.)
2. Third-party thought-leaders. “Regular columns by industry analysts, experts and trade association leaders.” (Nothing new here. Third-party endorsements are one of the fastest ways to gain acceptance.)
3. Brevity. ”Keep stories short.” (The KISS theory is Journalism 101.)
4. Authenticity. “Keep things real by shining a light on employees who are making a difference.” (Personalization is always a good idea: Tried, true, proven.)
5. Balance. “A steady flow of industry news through excerpts and live news feeds underscore balance.” (Another Journalism 101 basic.)
And heeeere’s the ringer:
6. C-suite buy-in. “It’s one of the most essential elements. Without a commitment to having an authentic and balanced website, any brand journalism effort is likely to wander into promotional terrain.”
Here Ragan’s description of “brand journalism” meets a headwind. When push comes to shove, every CEO and CMO we’ve ever known is paid to sell product. If supporting a blog, wiki, Website, social network, YouTube post, whatever sells product s/he is in favor of it.
However, when it comes to a public unbridled, factual, complete assessments of his/her products, comparing them to competitors’ and the relative merit each offers, that’s another story.
CEOs and CMOs are not journalists and to expect that level of candor from them is unrealistic. They are in the business of promoting, not reporting.
That is not to say that they want to lie, intentional mislead or withhold vitals facts. It is to say, however, that every product has shortcomings, unfinished facets, or features that could be more robust.
“Journalists” who write reviews or news reports should be aware of these and report them according to their relative merit. That’s what they are paid to do, and that is why journalists should exist (as defined in Webster’s definition one above).
Corporate communicators are not “journalists” and while they may often use the methods of journalists — Ragan’s top five points — they cannot be expected to be detached from the businesses they are in. Like CEOs and CMOs, they too go to work every day to sell product.
To set for corporate communicators the unattainable goal of acting like journalists is to assure them frustration followed by certain failure. Corporate communicators are part of a corporate team, not a newsroom; The two are poles apart and have widely differing objectives; confusing their respective goals serves neither well.
To better understand the differences of these two interests, corporate communicators would do well to reread our 10 Media Relations Rules.
——————
About Ragan: Lawrence Ragan Communications, Inc., has published insights and suggestions on communications, public relations, and leadership development newsletters for more than 30 years. The firm began as The Ragan Report in 1970 and now includes 16 communications related newsletters. The company also produces conferences, workshops, and forums.
Strategies for effectively dealing with the media are at once simple and complex: They are simply stated fundamentals of caution that executives should adhere to, yet they are complex in their execution because of basic human traits.
Among those complicating behaviors are a person’s eagerness to chat, to fill any sound void, to be congenial, even to reveal inner feelings.
 France's Sarkozy, Israel's Netanyahu, America's Obama (Sources: Wikipedia Commons and White House Website) All of those are character traits that can get you in trouble when dealing with the media — as we have pointed out in our 10 Media Relations Rules.
The real-life example of such an embarrassing situation occurred last week in an exchange between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama. Here’s what they said off-camera, but not off-mic.
“I can’t stand him anymore, he is a liar,” Sarkozy commented to Obama in describing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a G20 news conference in Cannes.
“You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,” Obama replied, according to the French Website Arrêt sur Images and later distributed globally by the AP and Wall Street Journal.
(Here is one of several YouTube videos of Sarkozy greeting Obama before the misstep.)
The unfortunate exchange violates both the third and fourth Media Relations Rules:
- No communication with a reporter is casual. Interviews are not chats. They are business discussions; treat them that way.
- Regardless of what you may be told, nothing is off the record. If you say it, expect it to be reported.
In addition, this situation creates what can be called The Sarkozy Corollary: “Always assume the mic is open.”
Not only did the French and American leaders assume far too much — that their mics were inoperative at that moment — their staffs trusted the media to comply with an embargo of audio translations being provided them.
The Journal reported:
“Even though the two presidents were still in a separate room, they were already wearing microphones for the news conference and aides to Mr. Sarkozy had distributed translating devices to a small group of journalists. Reporters were told not to connect headphones until the news conference started. Those who did, however, heard the exchange.”
Now, in addition to Sarkozy Corollary (assume the mic works), we have a further caution: You trust an embargo at your own peril, as the Sarkozy staff discovered.
[Thanks to Journal reporters Geraldine Amiel, with help from Joshua Mitnick and Carol E. Lee, for reporting this revealing event.]
Americans believe that much of the media is biased and, therefore, Americans don’t trust news organizations to tell the truth, but those conclusions should surprise no one — except maybe the media itself.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reports that…
- 66% of those sampled say news stories often are inaccurate;
- 77% think news organizations tend to favor one side; and
- 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations.
The Gallup organization shows similar attitudes among Americans in their research…
- 55% of Americans do not have confidence in the media to report news fully;
- 60% perceive bias in news reports;
- 47% saying the media are too liberal;
- 13% saying they are too conservative, and
- 36% say the media are “just about right.”
Naturally enough, conservatives and Republicans believes the media skews to the left, while Democrats and liberals believe the media veers to the right.
The perception of liberal bias is natural enough since the collective newsroom psyche is built on the belief that “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Attribution of that comfort-the-afflicted statement goes to multiple sources from the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the 19th Century journalist Peter Finley Dunne, and to the social activist Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, an Irish immigrant, who was a prominent labor and community organizer, worked with the Knights of Labor and the United Mine Workers union, and founded the Industrial Workers of the World.
What news outlets help Americans form these opinions? Pew says…
- 66% of respondents say they get most of their news from television; and
- 43% cite the Internet as their main news source; obviously there is some overlap.
Pew further states that, “Despite the growth of Internet news, it is clear that television news outlets — specifically cable news outlets — are central to people’s impressions of the news media.”
Asked to identify what news organizations first come to mind…
- 63% offered a cable news outlet; CNN and Fox News by far the most prevalent;
- 36% named one of the broadcast networks;
- 10% said local news outlets;
- 5% mentioned a national newspaper such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or USA Today; and
- 3% named a website – either web-only or linked to a traditional news organization.
Not unexpected, Pew found that “the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media in recent years in several key areas has come [predominately] among Democrats and independents. Since Barack Obama took office, the proportion of Democrats saying that news stories are often inaccurate has risen sharply, and they are now nearly as critical as Republicans.”
- 43% of Democrats believed news coverage was inaccurate in 2007; but
- 64% now believe it is inaccurate.
- 56% of Independents believed news coverage was inaccurate in 2007; but
- 66% now believe it is inaccurate.
- 63% of Republicatins believed news coverage was inaccurate in 2007; but
- 69% now believe it is inaccurate.
As about the media’s role as a so-called “watch dog” — “press criticism of political leaders as a check on possible wrongdoing:”
- 71% of Democrats in 2007 (during Bush) favored the press keeping an eye on politicians; however
- 55% so believed in 2009, at the outset of Obama’s term; and
- 58% so believe now, in 2011.
- 44% of Republicans favored the watch-dog role in 2007 (during Bush);
- 65% so believed in 2009, at the outset of Obama’s term; and
- 59% so believe now, in 2011.
“While the public has long been critical of many aspects of the press’s performance, negative attitudes are at record levels in a number of areas,” Pew concludes. “The percentage saying news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations has reached an all-time high of 80%.”
Read the full Pew report here.
|
Generations Ever wonder where one “generation” ends and another begins? We’ve never really been sure where the Boomers stop and the Gen Xers begin. So, when we found the answer, we thought we share it.
Millennial Generation, 1980 to now, 21 and younger
Gen X, 1964-1979, 22 to 37 years
Boomers, 1946 to 1964, 38 to 65
Silent Generation, 1925 to 1945, 66+
|
Recent Comments