Case in point: Yesterday a clueless media relations professional whom I do not know sent me an e-mail with the subject line: “I sent a poem to a wannabee crotchety old bitch.” He was alluding to my recent birthday post, in which I reflected on aging.

The comment this person attempted to append to that post — which I did not approve — was the poem When I am an old woman I shall wear purple. That was in itself a mistake, though not a fatal one. If ever there was an overused, reflexive cliche response to any woman who mentions aging in a positive light, that poem would be it.

So this PR guy e-mailed me to let me know he’d tried to post that comment. Here’s the start of his message, and where he really screwed up…

He wrote:

“Hello Amy. I don’t think I’ll ever get to put the word ‘bitch’ in a corporate email subject line ever again but happy birthday. I hope you like the purple dresses poem that I commented with on your blog. It has stuck fondly in my memory since I was 13 and while I probably won’t wear purple dresses when I’m older, I aspire to that living.

“Anyway, here’s a pitch with some findings further below…”

And he did, indeed, follow that intro with a PR pitch. The real reason he was contacting me was that he wanted me to write up for CNN.com (where I blog about mobile technology) a study that his company recently released.

What can I say, but: Ick! No! Not in a million years!

I bear no personal animosity toward this media relations rep. But his note squicked me so much that I think it’s worth offering as an example for what people should generally not do when reaching out to strangers in order to try to get them to do something for you.

What was wrong with his approach?

• Transparently slimy.I have no problem that he read a post on my personal blog that contained personal information. I wouldn’t have published that post if I hadn’t intended it to be public. However, using my personal disclosures as a basis to try to ingratiate himself, and then launch straight into a PR pitch, lacked finesse and forethought.
• Presumptuous.If he wanted to comment on my personal post — even with that cliche — fine. Other people who I don’t know commented on that birthday post, and I welcomed (and published) those responses. But it was presumptuous for him to assume that leaving a comment on my personal blog post actually created some kind of personal connection between us that might encourage me, more than otherwise, to use his pitch for a CNN.com story.Granted, I have sometimes struck up meaningful personal connections and friendships via blog comments, and sometimes these cross over with professional matters. This is a process that happens organically over time. Trying to engineer that in a single e-mail is a really bad idea.
• Inappropriate/rude. When I saw the word “bitch” in the subject line of an e-mail from a person with a male name whom I don’t know, I nearly deleted it as spam immediately. That’s not the kind of thing a man should ever say to a woman who doesn’t already know him and consider him a friend. Even if she recently used that word in a blog post. And especially if you’re trying to contact her for professional reasons. No matter what you do, that language just won’t look friendly or funny. Gender power dynamics suck, but they do exist. So it’s dumb to act like they don’t, especially when you’re trying to build bridges.

What could he have done instead? If he felt so moved, he could have left his blog comment. Really, that would have been fine. Cliche included.

Then if he wanted to pitch me, he should have sent me a separate e-mail that did not refer to his blog comment, and that did not use language which could easily be mistaken for a gender-based insult. From there, if I recognized his name, I might have noted or asked him about his blog comment. But it was inappropriate for him to draw this connection, since it implied that I should give his pitch special treatment in a professional decision.

There’s a huge fuzzy gray area between the personal and the professional realms, especially online. So I can understand why these missteps happen. Personally I think it’s futile (and fundamentally not credible) to try to separate the personal and professional spheres entirely. It’s better to blend them thoughtfully in a way that suits you. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since I got online way back in the early 90s.

Being ignorant of, or choosing to ignore, the emotionally and socially crucial distinction between personal and professional information (and how they might imply relationships and influence) leads to overstepping that can look invasive or offensive.

In light of this reality, it’s more important than ever for everyone (especially media pros of all kinds) to be aware that there is still a difference between personal and professional, and to use those different kinds of information mindfully in pursuit of your goals.

In my opinion, journalists should be equally mindful of this pitfall when scouring personal posts on blogs or social media in order to find sources to contact, especially regarding breaking news with deeply personal angles like a murder or arrest. If you want to use digital communication tools to build those kind of community connections, do that up front as much as possible.

If a journalist must approach someone they don’t know about a sensitive personal matter in order to cover a story, be very very sensitive to the personal/professional distinction. Don’t use their available personal info to ingratiate yourself by pretending to be their friend, or that you care for personal reasons, and then try to get them to give you the information for your story. That tactic can work, but it’s unethical and slimy. And from a practical standpoint, it can easily backfire in a way that not only thwarts your goals but undermines your personal and professional reputation in a very public, findable way.

I chose not to publish this PR guy’s name or employer because I really don’t want to smear him personally. He made a mistake, and this is a “teachable moment.” We can all move forward from that.

This week I’m speaking at several sessions about the implications of mobile media at the Annenberg school for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Their event is Mobile News Week 2011.

On Feb. 28 I’m addressing two PR classes. I’ve done a little research to spot some trends and resources, in addition to the mobile overview I posted earlier: The mobile landscape: 10 things media pros should know.

Here are some interesting tidbits about mobile and PR…

Unpack “PR” to spot mobile opportunities

Several disciplines fall under the “PR” label: media relations, crisis communication, public affairs, campaign outreach, and crossover with marketing communications. When you’re planning a mobile strategy, get specific about which PR hat you’re wearing in a particular project, and then parse out your overall goals. Only then can you figure out whether, and how, to achieve those goals — including determining which mobile devices and channels are popular among the people you wish to reach.

Keep your audience’s sensibilities in mind. For instance, if the people you need to reach are journalists, think carefully about how to contact them via mobile media. E-mail is a powerful channel for mobile as well as computers, and journalists are more likely to check their e-mail on their phone than launch your app or visit your web site. And they’ll probably really hate it if you try to text them.

Get a shortcode for text messaging campaigns

Text messaging (opt-in only, of course) should play a key role in your mobile PR strategy, since it’s the common denominator among virtually all mobile devices. The The Common Shortcode (CSC) is the foundation of all commercial or promotional text message campaigns in the US. This system helps keep the mobile recipient in control of inbound messages, and it helps keep marketers, advertisers, PR pros, and others accountable and in compliance with anti-spam laws.

Owning your own shortcode isn’t cheap, it costs about $500/month. But if you’re using mobile in a serious, sustained way, if you’re working for a major org or brand, if it’s crucial to your communication strategy, it’s worth it to invest in your own shortcode.

There are services where you can use a shared shortcode for much cheaper, like MobilizeUS, which offer shared shortcodes. These are OK if your organization or group has very little budget, or if you just want to experiment first with text messaging before launching a big program.

You can get one from the US Common Shortcode Administration.

Mobile Marketing Association resources: CSC primer, and Consumer Best Practices (which includes information on how to comply with US anti-spam laws and other requirements).

Create a lean mobile-friendly web site

…Or at least mobile-friendly landing pages relevant to the communities you’re trying to reach. These URLs are the links you’ll want to promote via text messaging, e-mail alerts and newsletter, and social media — since people use these channels on their phones.

Use print and broadcast to support for mobile

Mobile is all about engagement, so it’s a natural (and more valuable) next step after someone encounters your brand or information.

Include QR codes in your print materials or advertising, and make sure they link to mobile-friendly landing pages. Mention your shortcode in broadcast ads. Make mobile a key funnel for guiding people through your engagement process.

What about apps?

In most cases, you’re better off creating a mobile web app than a native smartphone or tablet app. It’s less expensive to develop, and you don’t have to develop for multiple platforms. Its functionality may not be as rich or slick as a native app, but that just means you need to think extra hard about what you want to achieve and focus on that goal.

Mobile users usually want to DO stuff, rather than read or watch stuff (at least for very long). So if you make an app (web or native), don’t just use it to deliver content. Focus on actions, tasks, rewards.

PR Newswire has an iPhone app. Do you think many people, even journos, would really use it? I doubt it. Press releases are not compelling content.

If you do PR for a tech-heavy industry, such as software or gaming, then you might want to consider an app. But even then, be realistic. Who’s gonna want an app for your press releases or executive bios? No one. People want to DO stuff with apps. Focus on apps that allow people to do something that THEY value. Work within their interests and goals. You are not your audience.

More resources:

Global Results Communications: Example of mobile services offered by one PR company. Most of what they discuss here would work on most phones.

Many of these sessions involve me explaining important trends and context likely to affect how people use phones as media tools. Here are 10 key points I think are worth noting…

1. Mobile is huge

According to ComScore, as of December 2010, 234 million Americans over age 13 used mobile phones — about 96% of all American teens and adults. ComScore also says that 68% of US mobile users use text messaging; 36% browse the web from their phones, 34% download apps, and 25% use mobile social media.

Also, recent Nielsen research says that as of May 2010, US mobile users spent more time sending or reading e-mail on their phones than any other internet-enabled mobile activity (comprising 38.5% of mobile internet time spent). Social media was a distant second (10.7%)

These represent huge potential mobile audiences.

2. Mobile internet access is taking over

A year ago, Clyde Bentley noted Gartner’s prediction that by 2013, most US internet access will happen via mobile devices, not on computers. Based on this, he set forth a pretty good mobile roadmap to 2013 for news organizations.

Bottom line: Whether you like it or not, in the very near future your entire digital strategy will be mostly mobile by default. If your design your digital offerings to be inclusive of the full range of mobile devices in use, you’re more likely to success.

3. Don’t overestimate the smartphone/tablet market

If you only read the tech news, you might think that everyone already has a smartphone — or they will by next Tuesday. However, according to ComScore, as of December 2010 close to three-fourths (73%) of all phones currently in use in the US are “feature” phones, which do not run native apps, usually lack touchscreens, have simpler browsers, and usually can only access slower wireless data networks.

Still, most feature phones are web-enabled and can do e-mail or social media. My own research shows that, at least in Oakland, CA, the majority of feature phone owners do these mobile activities daily or most days. (And with the recent Qualcomm/Opera Mini deal, expect feature phone web browsing to increase sharply later in 2011.)

Smartphones and tablets are important and they are becoming more popular. So far, they’re also fairly pricey — $100-$200 to buy (subsidized), plus a carrier plan that typically runs $100/month per more under a two-year contract. (Tablets are far pricier up front.) That’s more than many people can or would pay for a phone. Also, cost-conscious users tend to prefer no-contract month-to-month phone plans, for flexibility.

Although technology is evolving, the affordable low end of the mobile market will almost certainly be the largest part. Focusing your mobile strategy primarily on the high end (with, say, iPhone/iPad/Android apps) turns a blind eye to most of your potential mobile audience.

4. Measuring mobile traffic is tricky

This is true especially for counting feature phone traffic. I’ve experimented with several mobile metrics tools over the past year, and all of them make it difficult to figure out how much of your traffic is coming from smartphones vs. feature phones. In particular, Google Analytics seems to count most feature phone traffic as regular web hits, which can drastically mislead your mobile strategy.

PercentMobile seems to do the best job of counting mobile traffic, although it’s not great. They’ve created their own category of “experience phones,” which doesn’t really make sense to me and seems to comprise the largest part of mobile traffic measured with their tools. Plus, because PercentMobile (or any mobile-only tracking tool) is separate from your other analytics, integrating that data for analysis can be difficult — making it harder to measure and understand your mobile audience.

5. Learn from mobile marketers

Marketers are doing most of the pioneering work with putting mobile media to good use, especially for engagement (an area where the news biz sorely needs improvement). A lot of people in the news business are averse to learning from marketers or about marketing. That needs to stop. I strongly recommend these books:

• Mobile Marketing for Dummies
• Mobile Marketing: Finding Your Customers No Matter Where They Are

And Kim Dushinski’s blog, Mobile Marketing Profits.

6. Social media is inherently mobile

People who use social media generally access it from their phones as well as their computers. I mean, the whole reason why Twitter has that 140-character limit is to play nice with basic SMS text messaging.

Therefore, consider social media one of the key channels to promote your content, engage your community/market, get feedback, and find great story leads or marketing intelligence.

We’ve had tremendous success at Oakland Local with engaging people via Twitter and Facebook. In fact, last weekend our Facebook page crossed the 5000-fan mark!

Again, social media is a field where news/media pros can learn from marketers. Two great books:

• Marketing in the Groundswell
• The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Blogs, News Releases, Online Video, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers

7. US carriers have the mobile market here locked down

This is especially true for smartphones, and this is likely to continue. Furthermore, the FCC’s new net neutrality rules exempt wireless carriers from most requirements — leaving the door open for carriers to charge users extra to access content that you might be publishing online for free. (They can’t charge the content or service providers extra to deliver their content at acceptable speeds, but they can ding customers for access, or throttle delivery speed.) As the net increasingly goes mobile, this can drastically change the economics of all kinds of mobile publishing.

8. Wireless networks are getting faster, but still expect traffic jams

Right now, wireless network congestion is getting worse, even as carriers are rolling out higher-speed networks (LTE, HSPA+, and other “4G” technologies). This is because carriers are selling data-hungry devices faster than they can serve them, especially in many metro markets. If your mobile strategy hinges on assumptions about the data speeds consumers will see most of the time (especially key for video), then best reality-check carrier claims of “speeds of up to..” with crowdsourced carrier signal maps.

9. Responsive design for the mobile web

A good idea for planning your mobile web site is to incorporate principles of responsive design right from the beginning. This will allow the delivery and presentation of your content to automatically adjust to the features and limitations of certain categories of devices.

Book: Mobile Web Design for Dummies

10. Let people talk back via mobile

Mobile devices are for communication, not just media consumption. Build into your mobile strategy ways that people can easy contribute content (photos, video are naturals) or participate (polls, etc.) in your content offerings. And don’t forget about audio options — most of these devices are still phones, after all!

Forrester’s rationale for this, according to VP Josh Bernoff, is that “Forrester is an intellectual property company, and the opinions of our analysts are our product.”

Which IMHO is the equivalent of saying “If you work for us, we reserve the right to own your brain and your social/professional network and reputation.”

Here’s why that’s a bad idea all the way around — not just for research, consulting, and IP companies, but for news organizations and journalists, too…

Recently, PR maven Shel Holz rightly called bullshit on Forrester’s IP argument:

The notion seems to suggest that analysts who write about their work on their own blogs are somehow sapping Forrester of its IP. Maybe I’m just dense, but I don’t see how, particularly if those blogs link back to Forrester, bringing the company to the attention of new prospects.

Other companies with bloggers don’t compare because, Bernoff argues, their products aren’t about IP. I would argue that Microsoft and IBM are entirely about IP. Both companies encourage their employees to blog wherever they like. The companies link to those blogs on a page that links to all of the company’s bloggers. (Here are links to Microsoft’s and IBM’s employee blog directories.)

…I’m not inside the heads of Forrester’s leaders, so I can’t say how much of a factor the fear of losing analysts who build strong personal brands played in the decision. I’d be disappointed if it was a major consideration, since it seems petty and mean-spirited.

…If a cost-benefit analysis had been done, I can’t believe it would have led Forrester to adopt this policy. So why, then? It’s either a provincial and wrong-minded understanding of IP or a knee-jerk reaction to the Altimeter Group situation. Either way, it’s a mistake.

Here’s the comment I left on Shel’s post:

This reminds me of struggles that many journalists currently face with the news organizations that employ them (albeit in fast-shrinking numbers). Many news orgs prohibit or limiting not only employees having their own blogs, but also whether and how they use social media on their own time and accounts.

In the journalism world they claim this is to “preserve objectivity” (as if objectivity ever existed, or as if transparency doesn’t promote credibility more effectively). But it’s pretty obvious when you talk to news managers that they often view their own employees as competition when it comes to online media. And they prefer to keep their employees in a one-down position when it comes to personal branding.

Which is not only sad and shortsighted, but dreadfully counterproductive. Especially since companies that adopt this unfortunate mindset certainly aren’t offering financial compensation (say, a couple of years’ salary, or a guarantee of employment for the next 3 years) in exchange for employees giving up crucial avenues for making their own professional opportunities.

It’s bad business all the way around — but it’s especially unfair to the employees.

…Back in 2008 I explained why building a personal online brand and presence that’s under your control (not your employer’s) is the key to having almost any kind of professional career these days — but especially careers that involve media or communications in any significant way. See: Media Career Insurance: Your Blog

I’m doing this as a pilot test for a new professional service I’d like to start offering: Great live event coverage.

In my experience, most online event coverage isn’t so great. A few folks will be tweeting or blogging in several places, some hashtags will be used, but it’s all rather confusing and inconsistent to follow. Also, a lot of people tend to tweet items like “Jane Doe is speaking at this session now.” Uh-huh… AND….?

Liveblogging/tweeting has turned out to be a real strength of mine — I’m good at it, and I enjoy it. I’ve also had the good fortune to collect a sizable Twitter following among folks whose interests in media, business, and other fields overlap with mine — and who enjoy my particular blend of reporting, analysis, and attitude. (Or at least I guess they do, because every time I do live event coverage my Twitter posse swells noticeably and those folks tend to stick around afterward.)

I do a lot of live event coverage via Twitter and CoverItLive. For instance, earlier this month for my client the Reynolds Journalism Institute I liveblogged/tweeted J-Lab’s Fund My Media Startup workshop at the 2009 Online News Association conference.

So, being a longtime entrepreneur always on the lookout for new opportunities, I’m looking for ways to offer live event coverage as a service for my clients. Today’s event is an experiment on this front.

I want to figure out how this service could work in a way that would appeal to my Twitter posse, maintain my integrity and independence, and provide value to clients who’d pay for it.

Here are some of the issues I’m wrestling with, that I’d welcome your thoughts on…

QUALITY AND RELEVANCE

I wouldn’t accept just any live-coverage gig. It has to be a good fit for my interests, and those of my Twitter followers. So I’d be concentrating on events in areas such as:

• Media and journalism
• Energy
• Environment
• Government transparency and civic engagement/action
• Key media technologies (mobile, mapping, databases, collaboration, etc.)
• Social trends/dynamics (including race, gender, sexuality)
• Offbeat entertainment (science fiction, indy arts & music, strange festivals, zombies, etc.)

INDEPENDENCE

I’m a lousy lapdog. I don’t generally go out of my way to be rude or snarky — especially when someone has invited me to their event and given me a platform. But I do have attitude, a sense of humor, and I say what I think. I must always feel free in my event coverage to disagree, question, criticize, or challenge.

The people who hire me to cover their events need to understand that at some point I will say something they won’t be 100% comfortable with. I am not their mouthpiece. I am providing a service of visibility and engagement. That’s always going to be a bit uncomfortable. In fact, that’s the point.

So, hiring me is not like hiring a PR agency to make you look good. It’s more like issuing a press pass — but knowing that there will be consistent coverage throughout the event. I’ll also work to make sure the online audience gets represented in the live event, by posing questions and comments on their behalf.

TRANSPARENCY

Here’s the background on today’s gig, so you know what the terms of this coverage are.

Doyle Albee, president of Metzger Associates (a PR/communications firm based in Boulder, CO) has hired me to cover this event. I chose to do this because:

1. Doyle is a cool guy and a friend of mine from Boulder. He appreciates my perspective, even though we regularly disagree. He likes how I cover events and wants me to just do what I do — which includes allowing me to question or critize what happens at the event, if I see fit to do so.
2. Dave Taylor, another longtime Boulder friend of mine, is co-leading the event. Doyle and Dave are both great presenters, and I learn much from observing them.
3. The lineup of speakers looks pretty good.
4. This isn’t a mob scene. While I like covering events, major mob scenes like South by Southwest tend to put me on sensory/info overload pretty quickly, and leave me quaking in a fetal position. I prefer covering events for small-to-medium groups where I can get a real sense of what participants think, how peoples’ thinking evolves, and which takeaways are most meaningful.
5. It’s not summertime. Vegas summers slay me. Today is a pleasant, cool early autumn day, more my style.

Full disclosure: Metzger has paid my expenses and waived my fee to participate in this event. I did not ask for a fee for this coverage since I’m fine-tuning this service offer. However, for future live event coverage with this or other clients I will get paid a professional rate for the service.

I decided to not ask for a fee for this event because I want to engage my Twitter posse in a discussion about how I can do event coverage as a professional (fee-based) service in a way that works well for my Twitter followers. That is, I didn’t want to start selling this service before talking to my tweeps about how I can make this work for them.

My liveblog is appearing on Metzger’s site, and I’ll be cross-tweeting to Metzger’s own Twitter account. So while I might occasionally have something to critize, since they’re opening up their platforms for me to use I’ll be civil. Unless something truly egregious happens — and in that case, I’ll still be civil, but I’ll say what I mean.

Anyway, that’s the general plan. What are your thoughts, opinions, questions, criticisms? Please comment below, or tweet me @agahran, or e-mail me.

Again, this is an experiment. I’m not expecting everyone to be happy, or everything to run smoothly. But I do expect to learn a lot. Let me know what you think.

Later today I’m giving a talk at an entrepreneur’s group about how you can get more benefit out of social media by using hashtags. I’ve found that these can be exceptionally valuable tools to connect with topics and people. They also can help you make yourself (or a topic, organization, or event that matters to you) much easier to find and connect with.

I’ll be fleshing out these ideas in a later blog post. But for now, here are my main points I intend to make — Plus some resources I will to demonstrate…

HASHTAG MONITORING TOOLS

Hashtags are a radar screen to pick up early on trends, emerging issues, events, breaking news, etc. Business intelligence, spotting opportunities, troubleshooting, etc.

Use a Twitter client or service that lets your monitor hashtag. Twitter search, Tweetdeck, Seesmic Desktop, Monitter, Twitterfall (article by Paul Bradshaw), and Twazzup.

Why not just monitor regular search terms, rather than hashtags? Use both, if you like! But search terms tend to be more inconsistently spelled or phrased and thus are more difficult to search for. Still, it can’t hurt. If I’m really into a topic, I’ll usually start my radar screen by monitoring several search strings (hashtags and not) and then hone in on where most of the action is. But when a community forms around a topic, one or more hashtags tend to crop up.

USE HASHTAGS ROUTINELY

Great way to get known as a go-to person on a topic.

Great way also to find smart, interesting, or important people on topic of interest to you. And to encourage serendipity based on your interests.

Popularity rules. Whatever hashtag is popular for a topic, use that. Like ad keywords: Use hashtags that reflect the perspective of the people you want to connect with.

Be specific: Easier to get reputation as the go-to person on a specific topic like #coalash, rather than a general one like #environment. Use both if you’re not well-known yet.

Try using hashtags in a sentence. Less awkward and more intuitive than jamming them all at the end.

If you see a hashtag and don’t know what it means, try looking it up in Tagalus or WTHashtag. If you don’t find it listed, @reply to the people using it and ask them what it’s about.

START HASHTAGS!

This is a great First search Twitter to see if it’s already in use. Don’t overlap current hashtags. Then register via Tagalus to make it easy for others to look it up.

Or tweet: @tagref: [#hashtag] is [definition, link]

More detailed listings: WTHashtag wiki — another good place to register hashtags.

If you have a company or brand that’s short, start & monitor the hashtag for the company name.

LIVE-TWEET EVENTS

Find out the event hashtag in advance, follow it, and use it for all your event tweets (including pre and post). Great way to get followers. They tend to stick around after the event.

Example: I recently called an event hashtag (#futurej) for a Senate subcommittee hearing on the future of journalism. Promoted it by searching for “future of journalism,” told those tweeters about the hashtag, and thanked people who used it. It caught on — About 900 tweets used it.

DELICIOUS TAGS ARE COMPLEMENTARY

For your radar screen, if you monitor a hashtag on Twitter, there’s probably a corresponding tag on Delicious. Use subscriptions function for tags on Delicious to expand your radar screen. My current Delicious tag subscriptions.

Newspaper publishers and advertising managers routinely toss around print and online readership numbers — but sometimes in ways that don’t make sense, and that might even miss opportunities to build revenue, business, and community.

Yesterday Dan Thornton, community marketing manager at Bauer Media, explained why it’s dangerous to compare print figures to Web site statistics.

It all boils down to this…

Thornton points out that in the UK, sales figures for print copies of the Guardian and Observer newspapers typically are multiplied by three to take into account shared readership, based on circulation research. However, online readership statistics generally fail to account for online reading that happens beyond the news organization’s Web site…

“It’s easy to overestimate the online figures in comparison to print products,” he writes. But, “I have to say that I think comparing print and online readerships directly …is equivalent to comparing the number of people who drive cars with the number of people with vowels in their name.”

Thornton suggests that if your newspaper factors shared readership into your print circulation, then to be fair you should also try to estimate how many people encounter your online news without ever logging into your site as a visitor. This includes people who:

• Block cookies
• Use a feed reader or personal home page (like MyYahoo)
• Get news or headlines via social media or news aggregators
• Access mobile or cached versions of your news (which often aren’t estimated adequately)
• Read reposts of news stories elsewhere online

According to Thornton, “There’s a big elephant in the news room. Whoever said that print newspaper readers were guaranteed to only be getting their online news from newspapers?”

Therefore: If you think your online readership (as estimated by direct Web site traffic) only represents only a small percentage of your estimated print circulation — think again. When considering the future of your business, how many people visit your site ultimately may be less relevant than how many people connect with your news content and brand via any online or mobile channel.

I think Thornton has a good point. The catch is recognizing the opportunities inherent in this broader view, and (in the short term) communicating that value effectively to advertisers and other potential partners.

…As a side note, to illustrate how diverse online distribution of your content can build your brand and attract readers, I first heard about Thornton and his post via this OJaggregator tweet, a headline service from fellow Tidbits contributor Paul Bradshaw’s Online Journalism Blog, which republished Thornton’s article. A link from that repost led me to Thornton’s blog, The Way of the Web. I liked what I saw there so much that I’ve subscribed to that blog’s RSS feed and am now following Thornton on Twitter. So he’s now part of my regular fodder for Tidbits, my own blog Contentious, and to pass along to my nearly 3,300 Twitter followers.

Which goes to show how potential ripple effects from distributed online or mobile encounters with your content (even just your headlines) can yield surprising benefits to your brand. Thus, trying to be too controlling about where and how your content appears online can work against you in the big picture.

(NOTE: I originally published this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

Run for your lives!  Zombies want to eat your brain!

…Gotta admit, I was tickled to hear on MSNBC and elsewhere about this bit of creative hackery:

zombies

TX DOT was not amused... But I was... (Photo courtesy Lucas Cobb)

In Austin, KXAN reported:

“[Austin Public Works spokesperson] Sara Hartley said though it was a locked sign, the padlock for it was cut. Signs such as these have a computer inside that is password-protected. ‘And so they had to break in and hack into the computer to do it, so they were pretty determined.’”

OK, yeah, I know there’s a serious potential public safety issue here. Apparently the Austin police are trying to catch the sign hackers, who may face a class C misdemeanor charge.

But I think Queer Cincinnati nailed the opportunity here for public officials to turn this to their advantage by responding with a sense of humor:

“Does anyone else think, perhaps, the PD should have just taken it as the joke it was, and posted ‘Zombie Threat Eliminated, Road Construction Ahead’? I think that would have shown a great, human side to the government. And we wouldn’t have these silly threats to go after college pranksters.”

Amen! After all, as Queer Cincinnati also noted, instructions on how to hack road signs have been posted on Neatorama and elsewhere. This is definitely going to keep happening. Probably responding with humor — while improving security of road signs — would generate the most public goodwill.

Yesterday I wrote about how the New York Times missed an obvious opportunity for transparency by failing to link to (or publish) source documents released during a court case.

But also, a recent flap in Columbia Journalism Review has got me thinking about transparency. This flap concerns the role of press releases in science journalism. Freelance journalist Christine Russell kicked it off with her Nov. 14 CJR article, Science Reporting by Press Release. There, she wrote:

“A dirty little secret of journalism has always been the degree to which some reporters rely on press releases and public relations offices as sources for stories. But recent newsroom cutbacks and increased pressure to churn out online news have given publicity operations even greater prominence in science coverage.

“‘What is distressing to me is that the number of science reporters and the variety of reporting is going down. What does come out is more and more the direct product of PR shops,’ said Charles Petit, a veteran science reporter and media critic, in an interview. Petit has been running MIT’s online Knight Science Journalism Tracker since 2006. …In some cases the line between news story and press release has become so blurred that reporters are using direct quotes from press releases in their stories without acknowledging the source.

“This week, Petit criticized a Salt Lake Tribune article for doing just that. In an article about skepticism surrounding the discovery of alleged dinosaur tracks in Arizona, the reporter had lifted one scientist’s quote verbatim from a University of Utah press release as if it had come from an interview. ‘This quote is not ID’d as, but is, provided by the press release,’ Petit wrote in his critique. ‘If a reporter doesn’t hear it with his or her own ears, or is merely confirming what somebody else reported first, a better practice is to say so.’” (Note: I added the direct links to the article and release here.)

In other words, Petit is arguing for transparency. He recommends using extra words as the vehicle for transparency (i.e., adding something like “according to a university press release”). That is indeed a useful tactic. But we have more tools than words — we have links…

Petit called for transparency on the basis of professional ethics. That’s one very good reason to be transparent. But there’s also a practical consideration: avoiding embarrassment.

Your audience expects transparency. Furthermore, if they catch you not being transparent, they will “out” you — probably in a very public, findable, documented, linkable, and not-fun way. This will not help your credibility.

So if you’re quoting from anywhere, including a press release, DO cite your source and link back to it. Don’t be lazy about finding the link — almost every press release is published on the web, at least in PDF format. But if you really can’t find it online (or if it’s presented in a stupid way that’s not linkable, like Flash or a Javascript-driven pop-up window), then post the release on your own site or blog and link to that. I’m virtually certain you won’t get into copyright trouble for that with a release. But if you are quoting from copyrighted material (like a white paper or report), then post an excerpt and provide specific citation info.

WHY DON’T MORE NEWS ORGS LINK TO PRESS RELEASES?

…I know that many talented, ethical journalists in the mainstream media do lift quotes and info from press releases without citing the release specifically. Usually, the closest that they come is saying: “According to company X” when citing facts. Almost never do I see a link from a mainstream news org to a press release.

There are many possible explanations for this — from journalists not wanting to take a moment to look up links, to news orgs using content management systems which make it hard or impossible to create links from within stories, to editors discouraging press release references for “style” reasons.

But I suspect that a core reason for this mild obfuscation is about appearances: Though they rarely admit it, news orgs and journalists dislike revealing how much of the everyday practice of journalism simply is not rocket science. Today, anyone with a computer can quickly acquire most of the source information which journalists rely upon.

And Russell’s correct that newsroom cutbacks only make it more tempting and practical to lift from press releases. Not just because of lack of time — but for a need to bolster the appearance of their own importance.

DON’T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS’ STATEMENTS

In fact, citing and linking to press releases isn’t just more transparent; it’s also safer. Not all press releases are created equal. Some are high-quality, well-sourced, and responsible — and they’re frank about their own spin, agenda, or interests. Others are, um, not.

When you lift quotes or info from press releases or other sources without attribution, you’re implicitly vouching for the accuracy and authenticity of those statements. In effect, you’re saying “This is what this person said,” or “This statement of fact or context is correct” — even though that information is actually secondhand. That’s not always a wise bet. Everyone messes up sometime. Just ask Judy Miller.

I was tipped off to the CJR flap over press releases by my colleague Earle Holland, a public information officer at Ohio State University who penned a sharp rebuttal to Russell’s salvo. CJR ran it on Nov. 19: Press Release by Science Reporting. Holland wrote:

“As to the quotes I’ve included in the [research-related] press releases I’ve done, they’re all direct statements by the sources, approved by the sources, and aren’t vetted by anyone else. No administrator okays them, nor do PR gurus spin them in any direction. …Also, in most cases, the research in question is work I’ve followed for years, giving me the same kind of knowledge advantage that a beat reporter has over a general assignment reporter in the newsroom. Does anyone really believe that a reporter’s blind call from even the most prestigious news media will yield the kind of information that comes from a reporting relationship that’s grown over years? I don’t think so. The last decade or so has seen top science PIOs shift their prime goal from coverage to credibility, since they know that the former depends on the latter.”

I’d argue that conscientious PR is in fact a valuable kind of news reporting. It’s not traditional objective journalism, but that doesn’t make it worthless. However, all PR should be presented as what it is: information (probably promotional) from an involved party.

When an organization publishes a press release on their own site, they’re being honest about that context, and they’re taking responsibility for their own statements. When a news org fails to attribute or link to that same press release, they’re misrepresenting context and assuming responsibility for the quality of another party’s information.

Personally, I’d rather not gamble on whose PR is high-quality. That can vary considerably by organization, PR person, time, and topic. If I don’t have time to or cannot contact the source directly, I’m all for passing the buck by linking back to the release. I’d rather be faulted for not confirming quotes directly than for glibly passing them along, implying I’d gathered or confirmed them independently.

…For that matter, this caution also applies to repeating quotes or other information from traditional news stories. Don’t blindly assume that the reporter got the quote or facts right. Instead, say: On [DATE] the Podunk Tribune quoted Joe Schmoe as saying… and link to the article.

Anyway, that’s my take on this issue. What’s yours? Please comment below.

time

Want that free Dr. Pepper coupon? Hurry up!

Today’s sleazy, shortsighted marketing move is brought to you by Dr Pepper. This company made a grand, fun, high-profile gesture and got considerable positive publicity for it. But then, they made it such a hassle to cash in on their offer that the truly cynical nature of this marketing ploy is laid bare.

In the world before the internet, they might have gotten away with it. But online, people do talk.

Apparently, today — and today only — you can get a coupon for a free Dr Pepper soda. And you can thank Guns N Roses singer Axl Rose for it.

…That is, you can get the coupon IF you jump on it before 6 pm ET today, and if you jump through a bunch of hoops. And if the site doesn’t crap out on you. Then you wait 4-6 weeks for your coupon to arrive in the mail. Once you get it, you’d better use it fast!

Here’s the backstory, and why this could become a perfect example of anti-marketing in the online age…

The next Guns N Roses album had become known as a unicorn — it was constantly rumored to be just about to appear, yet never materialized. Capitalizing on this pop culture meme, in March beverage manufacturer Dr Pepper announced:

“In an unprecedented show of solidarity with Axl, everyone in America, except estranged GNR guitarists Slash and Buckethead, will receive a free can of Dr Pepper if the album ships some time — anytime! — in 2008.”

Yes, it was refreshing to hear a major corporation make such a fun and seemingly generous announcement — one that, incidentally, did not mention anything about the offer being limited to a single day. But as the Motley Fool pointed out at the time, Dr Pepper’s corporate parent Cadbury plc (NYSE: CBY) “score[d] free marketing, not to mention applause from the legions of aging GNR fans. …And as news of Dr Pepper’s gambit spreads internationally, Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) and PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP) could also benefit. Outside the U.S., they’re often the ones making and selling Dr Pepper.”

Yesterday, Guns N Roses called Dr Pepper’s bluff. The band finally released its first album in 15 years: Chinese Democracy. At this news, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday:

“Dr. Pepper, which earlier this year pledged to give soda to everyone in America if ‘Chinese Democracy’ came out this year, is now making good on its promise. That is, if you can actually access the company’s website. …But if you go to Dr. Pepper’s actual website to try to snare a voucher for your free soda, good luck. You’ll likely get a server error. …Update: Dr. Pepper has extended the offer until 6 p.m. on Monday.”

Here’s Dr Pepper’s own announcement of the extension.

MY ONLINE EXPERIENCE: DR PEPPER SITE BOMBS

Intrigued by this, I decided to try to get my own Dr Pepper coupon (even though I loathe the stuff, and I’m no Guns N Roses fan either).

So I logged on to Free Dr Pepper page. I dutifully surrendered to the corporate behemoth my name, birth date, and e-mail address. I saw at the bottom of the form that the terms of this deal include: “Allow 4-6 weeks for coupon to arrive. Coupons will expire on Feb. 28, 2009.” They also provided a checkbox where I could agree to receive e-mail from Dr Pepper — I left that blank, of course.

Then I pushed “submit.” While I was waiting to be moved along to the next step in the online process, I checked my calendar and realized I might not receive my coupon in the mail until Jan 5, 2009. By that time I’d have less than two months to redeem it.

…Finally, the Dr Pepper site chugged along — to a blank page. Nothing. Nada. No way to provide my postal address so they could mail me their piece of paper.

So far, I’ve tried four times to register for my free Dr Pepper coupon — always the same result. And for a while site is down completely. Evidently Dr Pepper’s servers cannot handle the sudden spike in traffic.

Big surprise? I think not…

NOW, THE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS ARE:

1. Why would Dr Pepper make this offer available only for a 24-hour period? That runs blatantly counter to the generous, spirit of the offer. It also is asking for a huge, sudden traffic spike that they obviously couldn’t handle.
2. Why weren’t they ready, and what could that mean? This traffic spike shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. Also, Dr Pepper ended up having most of a year to think this through and prepare. Judging by the result, it looks like they probably didn’t think this through at all. That could merely indicate ineptitude, or it could mean that (despite the company’s professed support for the band) they were actually betting against Guns N Roses producing a record in 2008 — which ends up looking cynical, not fun (except to the band’s detractors).
3. Why distribute this coupon only by mail? A printable online coupon would surely be easier and less costly for the company, and also easier for many consumers. People probably want their free Dr. Pepper TODAY, not in 2009. Soda is, after all, all about instant gratification. (A mailed-out coupon could be an option for people without internet or printer access.)
4. Why limit the redemption period to the end of February? It just seems unfair: Consumers must jump through several hoops and then wait and wait and wait for a coupon — but then WE are the ones who are expected to dash right out and get that Dr Pepper? Hmph.
5. Why turn enthusiasm into annoyance? The aggravation, waiting, and hassle that people must endure to get that coupon — let alone the privacy issues (they need your postal address to mail your coupon, plus they’re getting your e-mail address just because) — seems to be an active anti-marketing strategy. That’s right: This move seems destined to undermine goodwill and consumer relationships, not build them.

My guess is that the answers to questions 1-4 are that Dr Pepper wants to look generous without actually having to be generous. Therefore, they’re making it hard for people to cash in on their offer — a standard rationale behind most coupon offers.

And as for #5: Someone at Dr Pepper really just doesn’t get how marketing works in the online age.

RESORTING TO THE TELEPHONE

Fortunately, you can also phone in your coupon order to Dr. Pepper. Just call 888-377-3773. I did that just now.

On my first try the line was busy, but I got through on the second try. Their automated system mentions “delays on our web site. We are taking several steps to resolve the delays.”

Then you go through the process of verbally giving their automated system your name and postal address — and your e-mail address, too. That’s odd, because it’s a telephone transaction. They don’t appear to give you an option to provide no e-mail address (although I didn’t test that, so I don’t know for sure).

Also, although the web-based form required you to opt-in to get Dr Pepper’s spam, their phone-based system offered no such option. It’ll be interesting to see if I start getting spam from Dr Pepper or other Cadbury brands.

STAY TUNED…

Sometime around the New Year I’ll report back on whether I actually received my Dr. Pepper coupon, and my experience redeeming it — and also whether I start getting Dr Pepper spam in the meantime.

It’ll also be interesting to see whether this faux pas really backfires on Dr Pepper. If the mainstream media — especially entertainment media, and TV and radio — catch on to it, that could happen. And they’d deserve it.

But this also could just be something that geeks and bloggers whine about in their own bubble. We’ll see.