RIP Journalism 1.0

I don't understand why marketing and PR professionals are in such a huff about the decline of the newspaper industry. Bloggers have been discussing the need for professional journalism or how the government could save the industry, etc. Before social media, marketers and PR professionals built relationships with traditional news media reporters so that they would be able to push their clients' messages. Marketers would hope that their press releases would be interesting enough for the so-called "unbiased" media to write stories that helped increase limelight on initiatives.

The traditional news media was a credible and influential source to the paper's readership, and it seems as though times are changing have changed. As Forrester reported, people are interested in actual people's opinions online over any other outlet:

This profound and enlightening conclusion (read: more or less common-sense conclusion) means that we as marketers and professionals have to adjust to a changing process. We have to seek out the new-age influencer.

But Megan, that means we have to develop a whole new set of contacts.

Precisely. We have to research and target social media users who are well-established on the sphere. These users are already our biggest advocates. They are passionate about the topics our constituencies need to be aware of.

So, you're saying...?

I'm saying that if we can identify the influencers on our perspective social networks, our job may be a little bit easier. We will still have to build authentic relationships with our contacts and pitch our ideas in a new way (or refresh our old 'bag of tricks'). But if our contacts do write posts or tweet our ideas, they will reach the correct target and be more influential.

And you're going to rant now?

Yes.

The traditional press espouses the 'we're completely unbiased' ideology. Now, forgive me, but doesn't that sound just slightly hypocritical? Can anyone truly be unbiased? At one point, the Supreme Court Justices used their own opinions to decide their framework for the interpretation of the Constitution. While they have to look strictly at the laws and rule on them (a true feat), they rule based on how they believe the writers intended the 'law to be interpreted.' Is this not, in it's very essence, an opinion-based decision from our most 'unbiased' leaders? I find the same to be true for the news media.

And you're point is...

That gives way to the true glory of social media: Social media is meant to be biased. Bloggers candidly give their opinions and substantiate them with facts or personal experiences. When someone reads their friend's blog, they recognize it to be an opinion, not a statement of fact (in most instances).

These opinions are much more credible in the eyes of the reader, because the writer isn't claiming a false-ideology of 'unbiased-ness'. They're being human. And social media allows humans to interact as humans and with humans. (So help me homo sapiens sapiens).

One of the most important key lessons from the PR industry is how we as professionals and companies that are trying to communicate with our customers have to be authentic, have to be engaging, and have to be human.

What's so hard about that?

Plenty. We need to understand how to pitch an idea in a personal, yet professional manner. We also need to learn how to pitch what remains of the traditional journalism industry. We need to understand what works and what doesn't when using 140 characters to reach out to a potential ally. But we are working to determine a new framework for effectively reaching our social media users.

So, who's with me? From a marketing perspective, are you friend or foe to the decline of the newspaper industry?

Image via Groundswell

Comments

[tommas]

hey McQ,

Not sure if ur r a digital prophet or just lucky, but today's Washington post came out a day later than your Blog Post with a supporting story. They report that Amazon's web site #1 seller this week was a T-shirt with a moon and 3 wolves. It not because its for a hot rock band, or promoted on American Idol, but it beat out "Crocs" and Levi 501's because bloggers reported amazing "results", cures for cancer, lost gf, bf's found etc. Clearly, non of it true, but they created an online product buzz, and it works.

[tommas]

The Ethics of Blogging, that's a nice title for a college course. This is a very thought provoking and challenging digital issue. Indeed, the digital age is reshaping the relationships of media, consumers and advertisers. Many wine bloggers for instance are reviewing complementary wines or accepting advertising dollars for their blogs from wineries that they review. Some commercial wine social media sites are only in existence because of their ties to their advertising base. So, digital media bias is all part of the new digital media experience.

[jackie]

No newspapers, oh my!....
What to put under all those hot, steamed crabs on the picnic table?
What to put down while I polish my shoes?
What to wrap fish and chips in?
Swatting that fly? Boyscout paper drives?
What to hide behind on the commuter train?
How to project that cosmopolitan image on the subway?, etc., etc.

[Carlykinz]

McQ,

This is pretty cool. I meant I thought about journalism as a career once but besides that I love the notion of biased-ness (if this is a word. if this is not a word then perhaps journalism wouldn't have worked anyway). There's a very interesting essay by a one Linda Smith titled "Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigineous Peoples". One of the main points is that there is no way to approach another culture with a completely unbiased perspective and one place we've gone wrong is in reporting back about the people we've encountered. When America was discovered the only knowledge people back in the UK or whatever Lorship Nation of Old was in the reports and sketches done by the explorers. Later, scientists and "ethnographers" and such reported back but all their reports were done in a methodical, scientific manner. The people were dehumanized and studied like little cases. And even when a person tries their best to report accurately about another person or culture, they speak about it from a point of view that's completely inseperable from their own culture (be it national or familial).
BUT NOW
people can report for themselves. There are still limitations of language of course. Not evertything crosses over into English, but we can read about the goings on in another person's country from their own point of view. cool
BUT STILL
hi. i like caps
there is a super massive space for argument. because everyone's biased and ones own culture can be defined and influenced by more than country borders. I would represent America, Maryland, Baltimore, My suburb, My college, and My family unit quite differently than any one other person.
Hopefully this all makes sense. But this is pretty cool and interesting. to be mused about further when i know more.

much love.

[Denise C]

Greg makes a great point. At least those readers knew that the blogger had accepted gifts. I'm more concerned about bloggers not being transparent. Could a company pay people to post rave reviews, tricking readers into thinking these were independent opinions? How would we ever find out?

And I completely agree with Patty in wanting to have a hard-copy of the puzzles. As a die-hard crossword-puzzler (and Ken Ken solver), I really want to be able to use paper and pen. Online solving just isn't as rewarding.

[greGBaker]

My worry about setting up contacts in the social networking world is the potential backlash caused when the blogger (who is often offering an opinion) is viewed as being influenced by the very group/industry they are blogging about. For instance, prior to Microsoft's release of Vista, they sent several top of the line computers loaded with Vista to prominent bloggers (top computers were needed to run all of the features of Vista). Readers were furious that the blogger would accept this gift, worth a few thousand dollars. Traditional journalist and newspapers are skilled at balancing their connections with the need to remain independent. I'm not sure Billy Birdwatcher will know how to balance that relationship.

[Megan McQ]

Patty,

Sure, we all have conversations around the water cooler (or local watering hole). But I think that social media allows a way for people to find communities that share common interests and converse on a different level than, say, a random person at the local watering hole. For example, a person who loves bird watching in Alaska can find a community for Alaska bird watchers on Ning (I imagine).

Perhaps traditional media isn't dead, but social media is creating a niche for more specific passions that people can converse about.

Thus, marketers who need to reach out to 'Alaska bird watchers' can target these individuals more easily through social media, increasing the quality of conversation generated from the marketing campaign.

Spending thousands of dollars on TV advertisements wouldn't be as effective as this type of social media engagement.

[patty]

human to human opinionated conversation? hmmm. isn't that what we used to do around the water cooler and dinner tables? instead we have worldwide 'stop and chats' in cyberspace? no need to walk outside in your pj's on a frosty morning to retrieve your local paper freshly pitched from some friendly delivery service? no crumpled, wet, ink-smeared puzzle pages strewn across my bedroom floor? i'm not sure i can give that up yet. there's something 'nostalgic' about the smell of wood pulp in the morning and the sight of inkstained fingerprints on my coffee mug.

[Sohrab Najafabadi]

I won't approach this from a marketing perspective because well, that's not my role. But from a perspective of a responsible citizen, I don't know how I feel about all this. On the one hand I like the idea that power of information is more diffuse and going away from the old establishment. On the other hand, while we may not be getting more bias going to people we deem to be credible members of our community, there is another problem... the problem is not inherent within any one form of media but within our culture. It has become obvious since the rise of cable television. Important decisions that the capable within our society should be making are instead used as entertainment. Look at newstainment channels like Fox News and MSNBC for proof. The partizan hackery is no better than 'professional' wrestling. I don't know why that happened but it is caused by a more systemic problem of some people not understanding that they do not have the integrity, knowledge, nor capacity to credibly to know when to shut up and let the experts discuss the tough decisions. I don't think it's possible to shut them up, the genie is out of the bottle, the only recourse is for competent people to rise up and defeat the voices of ignorance within the media. Social media can allow everyone to participate. We can't rely on the old institutions any more. Without the ability to distinguish credible people from sophist attention whores we will have destroyed relatively trustworthy concentrated sources of information and replaced it with a diffuse array of opinions from internet hacks and wannabee celebrities.