1/29/09

News Coverage: Are You into Print or Online?

Online media is replacing print media. It is a fact that PR agencies need to embrace.

I hear talk about how PR agencies look to more reputable "papers" before they look to online pubs for the top news stories.

But, think about it: where do readers go first when they hear about news while at work?

Do they all run en masse to the local news stand 40 floors below them? Do they all run home and turn on their tv? Do they run to their car and turn on the radio?

Oh, no, my little grasshopper. . . they go online!

It is a fact that was reported by all online mediums. Last week, "Obama Rocked the Web," according to AdWeek:

On Jan. 20,CNN.com Live served more than 26.9 million live video streams globally and 36.7 million streams overall. According to CNN's internal data, that figure is more than five times the previous record of 5.3 million live streams set on Election Day last year, which at the time was record shattering.

PR agencies need to wake up and smelled the coffee.

Every major paper now has its own blog where they are breaking their own stories.

More and more major papers are letting go of their print publications and turning to online media.

One of the most well-respected papers in the U.S., the Christian Science Monitor shut down their print publication and are now completely online.

Joining the online ranks are the Kansas City Kansan, San Francisco's AsiaNews and both Detroit newspapers--the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press.

Face it, when the advertising dollars flee to online--as they already are--the papers will follow.

They already are. The smart news mediums use one to leverage the other.

Some are just hanging on to their denial.

=============================== Addendum: one of my online friends--thanks UTROUKX!--sent me this 1981 video.

Bookmark and Share

4 comments:

Greg Lambert said...

Interesting, Lisa. There is an article that talks about the fact that it would be cheaper for the NYTimes to buy all of its loyal subscribers a Kindle, than it costs them to produce the NYTimes in a year.

Lisa Salazar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa Salazar said...

I saw that; very interesting. I think it is inevitable.

I posted this blog to my personal site and one of my friend sent me this video from 1982 . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTn4FljUQ

NellTheColumbiaGirl said...

Thoughts/Comments on postings about death of print media and censorship of internet social networks:

--The print media are dying because their ad revenues are not large enough to cover their costs. We know this. The question then is: Why can't the print media charge more for ad space? The answer is not just because the internet and blogs are less expensive -- it's also because the print media are jam-packed with nutty way-to-the-left editors and writers who substitute their opinions for facts. And too often they just out-and-out lie when the facts don't suit them. They no longer report news; rather they report their wacky, worn-out version of the news.

--PR firms are well aware of the limitations of using only the print media to promote their clients. That's why stadiums are named after companies; why nearly all events are sponsored by companies; why companies invest so much time, $$ and effort on their websites and web presences.

--If one of your social networking sites becomes too censored for your taste, don't use that site any more and tell the officious intermeddler why you're leaving. They need you (bright, forward-thinking, highly focused people)more than you need them. If they keep it up, everyone will leave - but why would you care? You've already left! AND you've started your own blog. It's the free market system at work!

I enjoyed the posts about value billing vs. hourly, having had similar discussions with partners on the subject over the years. The problem with upfront value billing is that it's only truly fair for the type of deals that the lawyer has done over and over again, so he's gotten amazingly good at it, knows the issues, the responses, the procedures, etc. In repetitive type deals, hourly billings would be low, and wouldn't fairly compensate the lawyer for the value provided to the client. The client should have no problem paying a fixed amount, since the client benefits from the lawyers extensive knowledge. It's harder to value bill on deals that are not the repetitive type. I've seen law firms agree to a fixed amount, and then add a non-binding provision in the engagement letter to the effect that the firm hopes the client pays some percentage of the deal/settlement/award (whatever) for a good result. This is sort of value billing, but not really. In these situations, I've seen some clients who won't pay the bonus notwithstanding a better-than-expected result and others who will even if things don't turn out so well. I guess, basically I'm saying that value billing is a good idea, but hard to implement (especially with new clients).

--How do you geek,esqs. find the time to keep up the chatter? Maybe I was much more lame when I was starting out, because I wouldn't have had the time. During my first year on Wall Street, I was in the office every single day (except Christmas)and was too terrified to do anything but figure out what the heck was going on. I would never had the focus to reach out to others similarly situated.

 

© 2014, All Rights Reserved.