The Intersection of Online and Offline

Found this in Jason’s Falls’ tweet today, and it just reminded me of the awful divide that exists between those in the “traditional” (read: declining readership) and “new” media (read: millions of new platforms for user-generated content per year.)

In about the dumbest public relations move in recent memory (and I am counting Microsoft and Yahoo! in this one), the Associated Press has said that they do not want bloggers linking to and quoting their stories. That’s right, they do NOT want the additional traffic generated from the additional links.

Here’s what Colleen in BuzzNetWorker had to say:

Recently, the Associated Press threw down a gauntlet and started a great big hairy fight with bloggers. The gist of the matter is that they’re they don’t want bloggers to quote from their stories. They asked one blogger to take down seven posts from in which quotes from AP stories were used. The quoted pieces varied in length from 39-79 words.”

I am not a lawyer, do not play one on television and don’t have a good grasp of “fair use.” But in a note to our pals at AP: if the publications in which you syndicate your content were losing more and more readers every year, thus reducing your relevancy (and ad revenue) why on earth would you NOT welcome more traffic?

I just wrote an article that will probably go up in Media Bullseye tomorrow, but one of my points was, as online professionals, we need to know when to get the lawyers in the room and when to keep them out. They seem to have that problem at the Associated Press.

Mark

P.S. - Just to boost their traffic a little, here’s a link to the AP site.

Sometimes, I get to have so much fun in my avocations that I feel guilty.

My latest fun-fest was being able to be part of “Conversations With Chip Griffin.” For those of you who do not know Chip, he is the Chairman of Custom Scoop as well as a self-described “serial entrepreneur.” I think that Chip has so many business ventures HE would be hard-pressed to name them all.

Our topic of discussion was interactive data, or XBRL, something that not a lot of people know about, but a potential technology, that if implemented, could fundamentally change the way that investors get information and make choices as to where to allocate their capital. It sounds like techno-babble, but with Chip, it’s always a fun conversation.

You can listen here.

Mark

I listened to, and was fortunate enough to participate in, a Blog Talk radio call-in show that is part of the Hobson and Holtz report’s “For Immediate Release.” Today’s call in topic was “PR Spam,” and how it is driving many bloggers crazy.

There was an interesting mix of people on the panel, including a prominent blogger and a couple of companies who produce software that contains names and contact information for bloggers and other media as well. Jason Falls was one of the moderators and did a great job. My takeaways are:

• The bloggers are really frustrated (one noted that if he gets 100 bad pitches as day and it takes him a minute to determine that each one is a spam, it’s more than an hour and a half a day);
• The companies noted their policies for using their software, which I said was akin to having a gun..when not used properly, it can be a dangerous weapon;
• It is incumbent upon universities to educate public relations students on how to incorporate their core skill sets into “skillz” for new media;
• The public relations companies are often under client pressure for placement, which can result in either junior people making mistakes or “spam” pitches going out to develop metrics to send to clients.

We didn’t really come to a conclusion, but it was interesting that we ended up at an “opt-out” list for many of the companies that produce the lists for people to contact. Jason Falls, one of the moderators, noted that if there is an opt-out link at the bottom of an email, it discredits it anyway, because it is apparent that it comes from a list.

Fascinating topic. I will post a link to the audio file once it is live.

Mark

A couple of weeks ago, I jumped in on the ongoing fray/snit/pissing match between media pitchers and pitch-ees. I have been on both sides of the professional fence, but have probably done more agency-based pitching that I have been pitched.

My puzzlement was — and continues to be — why so many bloggers are getting so angry about bad pitches while members of the print media would generally just hang up on you and move on. Maybe it’s just the fact that bloggers can hit back in a very public way, whereas members of the print media are more constrained because they have to be. I suppose that the editor at Business Week can’t write an article about all of the terrible pitches he’s gotten.

So when I first blogged about the topic, I quoted Esther Schindler’s “Care and Feeding of the Press,” a funny, acerbic and dead-on analysis of how to communicate with members of the media. My contention was, and continues to be, that if you get it right offline, for the post part, you’ll get it right online.

To my pleasant surprise, Esther found my post and commented on it, and more importantly, let me know what she had updated her thinking in a May 2008 article for CIO entitled “How Social Media’s Changing Public Relations.”

Here are some of my favorite quotes/analogies her updated piece:

…[Twitter] is like entering a noisy, crowded stadium and saying, ‘Is there a doctor in the house?’… The entire stadium quiets to silence and everyone sits down except for four people that raise their hand and say ‘I can help!’… It’s that powerful and can provide a whole new lifeline of resources to draw from….

…For example, it doesn’t work to e-mail thousands of press releases and to hope that three of them land well; why will it work any better to tweet about what a client did or to post it on digg? The stadium with 50,000 baseball fans and including four doctors is happy to step back for one life-threatening emergency, but they’re not going to stay quiet if there are 30 not-really-emergencies during a game.”

More good advice. And Esther, I promise never to send you an unsolicted email with an 8MB attachment.

Mark

Recently, Dunkin’ Donuts, in a attempt to further their brand equity using the world of online advertising, hired super-perky gadfly Rachael Ray in an exclusive online ad, pimping their coffee. Nice try, right?

Wrong.

Michelle Malkin saw the ad and blogged that the scarf that Rachel was wearing looked like a kaffiyeh:

”The kaffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.”

Michelle, the only thing that Rachael Ray does is irritate me with her perkiness. I sincerely doubt that she is the 20th hijacker. But, I digress.

Here’s where it gets strange: Dunkin’ Donuts, hearing pressure from people who read Malkin’s highly popular blog, PULLED THE ONLINE AD, stating that Ray’s fashion was “paisley” and not a keffiyah. But they still pulled the ad, likely fearing a backlash or boycott. There’s a good move.

My unsolicited advice to Dunkin’ Donuts is that they have done about the dumbest thing imaginable. I am not even talking about pulling down the ad, which was beyond stupid. Had the company defended their right to advertise online, what and where they choose and left the ad up, people who have not seen the ad would be scouring You Tube to get a look at it, or at least the still photos.

Bottom line for Dunkin’ Donuts? Probably a hundred times more impressions than they would have received without the controversy had they left the ad up.  The should be kissing the ad agency.

Me? I’m a Starbucks guy, but the next time I am in Boston and can only find a Dunkin’ Donuts, I am going to keep walking.

And now that I have piqued your curiosity, the ad is here:

Mark