During the past few years buzz has been building around the idea of hyperlocal journalism and the PR industry has followed suit, seeking out ways to pitch these outlets. The execution of hyperlocal coverage varies slightly by outlet, but in general it appears to be a mix of user-generated and professional edited content. Media watchers, including those of us in the PR game, are waiting to see which services will emerge as the strongest – with the biggest backing to hire staff and / or with the largest readership and / or commanding the biggest ad revenue.

The Columbia Journalism Review this past fall noted in a lengthy piece on the reconstruction of American journalism that, “Reporting is becoming more participatory and collaborative.” Indeed, USA Today publisher Gannett recently announced plans for hyperlocal sites in 10 markets across the U.S. while it’s been reported that AOL will pour $50 million into Patch this year. Even YouTube is throwing its hat into the ring, last month launching its test CitizenTube news feed.

Locally, in Massachusetts, GateHouse Media has been ramping up its WickedLocal.com site during the past several years to be a “portal” site representing featured content from 158 individual community websites.

Advertising Age recently detailed some of the bigger players on the hyperlocal scene:

The big story about the news business these days, as a matter of fact, revolves around companies that generate news and information using big networks of cheap freelancers. They include Associated Content, which Yahoo bought last month for about $100 million; Demand Media, which is reportedly considering going public this summer; Seed, where writers, photographers and others can submit their content for publication on AOL; and Examiner.com, which says it has 40,000 freelance “Examiners.”

They’ve already got big traction with readers. Examiner’s sites got more than 14.4 million visitors in May, according to ComScore — more than the 14 million people who visited all the McClatchy newspaper sites combined, or the 13.4 million people who visited MediaNews sites, or the 12 million who visited Hearst newspaper sites.

AOL and Yahoo have separately been staffing up their original blogs and news sections; Yahoo is currently advertising for a blog editor for Yahoo Finance, who will report original stories plus hire a team of bloggers. And sites that aggregate local content are also mixing things up. Last year MSNBC.com acquired EveryBlock, giving it a new ability to horn in on newspapers’ role as local information centers.

Newspapers have, meanwhile, been cutting reporters, thinning the distinction between their products and those of their rivals.

However, even The Gray Lady has stumbled in its foray into the hyperlocal market. The New York Times just last week shuttered its hyperlocal and collaborative journalism experiment called, appropriately, The Local, and hooked up with the New Jersey-based Baristanet.com which now has free reign to link to The Local archives.

As PR professionals we should all be on the look-out to make sure any articles we submit or post are transparent in their origin and clear in their objective. While sites such as these or Allvoices.com, NowPublic.com or Helium make it easier than ever for PR pros to submit news and feature stories we’ve still got to rely on some of our tried-and-true pitching strategies: know who we are pitching and make the info clear and relevant for their readers. In Matter’s own backyard, The Cape Cod Times recently cautioned readers of hyperlocal sites to look closely at and consider the source of their news. Newsroom ombudsman Jayne M. Iafrate wrote, “Citizen journalists are reporters and editors with little, if any, professional journalism training who write and publish news. Many practitioners have a specific point of view they wish to promote; others mean well, but fall short of professional ethics and standards simply because they lack training. And other citizen journalists flourish because they provide unvarnished glimpses into their worlds — places and ideas left unexplored by or unavailable to trained journalists.”

Have you been pitching hyperlocal or user-generated sites? What tips would you share with other PR pros for dealing with this new breed of media?

Peter Shankman makes all the right moves.

The guy is brilliant and, if you’re in PR, you can’t help but know that he has a cat named Karma and, when he’s not jumping from an insane altitude, he’s training for an Ironman. Oh, and he’s the founder and CEO of a PR/journalism game-changing company called Help a Reporter Out (HARO).

HARO was founded on Facebook in 2008 and has since grown to be THE social media services company that connects writers and sources. In my opinion, two things make HARO particularly unique: It’s a free service for all involved and it’s a no-BS community where PR pros are held accountable for the pitches they send. Users get booted for spammy, spray-and-pray pitches and, as a result, HARO is somewhat of a safe haven for members of the media.

The lucrative HARO “sponsorship” program that Shankman created is also noteworthy. He places advertisements at the start of each email, which are chock-full of media queries, and the open rates are said (by HARO) to be about 75 percent.

In fact, this business model is so remarkable that, just last week, Shankman announced that his little enterprise had been scooped up by Vocus, a company that provides on-demand software for public relations management and manages the press release distribution service called PRWeb.

We join the industry in congratulating Peter Shankman on this significant accomplishment. According to a Mashable story, he will continue to build the HARO brand with the help of the folks at Vocus and, more importantly, the service will remain free. We look forward to seeing what the future holds for HARO – and continuing to use this fantastic service to supplement our daily PR activities and outreach!

Are bloggers wired differently than traditional journalists?

This week I came across new research by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that uses hard data to quantify the differences between the news agenda of new and old media.

The Pew Research Center’s study, titled “New Media, Old Media,” collected a year’s worth of data on the top news stories linked to on blogs, discussed on Twitter, and shared on Youtube. The major finding was that each social media platform “seems to have its own personality and function.”

Among the other key findings:

·         Bloggers tended to focus more on stories that “elicited emotion, concerned individual or group rights or triggered ideological passion.” Often these were stories that people could easily share on social networks with their own personal thoughts;

·         Social media tends to focus on stories that don’t get a lot of traction in the mainstream press. Rarely does a story get picked up in social media first, then by traditional media outlets;

·         Technology is a big topic of discussion on Twitter, while politics is less so. Blogs tended to focus more on politics and foreign events, less on technology;

·         All three social media platforms (blogs, Twitter, Youtube) shared the common characteristic of not staying on one story very long.  On blogs, 53 percent of top stories remain on the list of the most discussed stories for no more than three days, while on Twitter, the same is true for 72 percent of lead stories.

What does this all mean for PR professionals? Keeping in mind the different personalities of the new and old media, and how they interrelate, is key. There is a huge disparity between what the mainstream media considers to be the most important news and what each social media platform is most interested in discussing. It bears close watching as to whether traditional media outlets will continue to adjust their news coverage to better align with the interests of each social platform.

Michael Arrington’s recent post about his exchanges with the PR group at Fortune have stirred up some lively discussions – online and around the office. We’ve kept the profanity that is common among TechCrunch commentators out of our debates, but have nonetheless tried to get to the right side of the debate.

I’ll summarize it for you, in case you missed it: The PR team at Fortune reached out to Arrington, offering exclusive posts of The Facebook Effect. In Arrington’s words, “[The rules] were fine. We’d print the excerpts. And we’d link to Fortune. We don’t get much out of that deal, but… we want to support Kirkpatrick and I figured Fortune could owe us a favor.”

After the posts went live, Fortune changed its mind. As Tina Fey might say, they asked for a do-over. The Fortune team wanted Arrington to post excerpts of the excerpts – not the whole excerpt. Sounds crazy, but the publisher cried copyright infringement.

The lessons are numerous, but three really stand out. First, there’s the obvious – that favors are still big currency. Online and off. Make sure you know what you’re being asked, and what you’re asking of others. Secondly, poke holes in plans –someone in Fortune’s PR department should have played out various scenarios and asked more questions (what if they run the full excerpt? Is that the desired outcome? Is it allowed?). And finally, whether you like it or not, remember that your emails are public.

Gawker is one of my favorite blogs to read – it’s snarky, it’s fun, it’s informative and usually it’s right on the money. The other day though, I was a little surprised to read an entry on “The Laziest Journalists on Twitter.” In the post, Ryan Tate called out BusinessWeek’s Douglas MacMillan, WSJ’s Jessica Vascellaro, Wired’s Priya Ganapati and Fortune’s Jessi Hempel, calling them lazy for tweeting requests for sources when working on stories.

Now, I realize Ryan may have been teasing more than shaming, since he acknowledged Gawker itself tweets for sources all the time. But I was surprised anyone would consider a journalist tweeting for help getting in touch with sources to be lazy behavior. On the flip side – it’s a smart and resourceful use of a really effective (and efficient) social networking tool. Reporters have been using tools like Help A Reporter Out and ProfNet to find sources, and no one criticizes those tactics. More old-school journos keep a database of their PR friends and past sources and when they are in a bind, they shoot out email blasts soliciting pitches on a particular topic. Using Twitter, Facebook and any other mode of communication to accomplish the same thing should be a non-issue. I’m proud to admit I’ve responded to numerous “calls for pitches” on Twitter over the past few months – for everyone from Doug to a local news station in New Hampshire and just the other night, another BusinessWeek reporter (Rachael King).

Mainstream media should be encouraged to use the newest tools and networks to do their jobs better – not chastized for it.

Related reading: “How can journalists use Twitter?“

Ever heard the saying “ignorance is bliss”?  Of course you have.  We all have.  Some people even run a little too far with the idea.  But that’s another rant for another day.

I’ve always thought of PR professionals as the wizards behind the curtains.  We exist exclusively behind the scenes, preferring to go unmentioned, monitoring from afar, feeding key messages to spokespeople and strategically delivering inside scoops.  We are ghost writers, and we only occasionally emerge from the backdrop to network and share accolades among fellows of our community.

One thing I never really considered, though (prior to joining the industry), was the trust I would eventually lose.

Trust? What?

Yes, trust.

For example: a magazine is preparing a holiday gift guide, and as PR pros, we started pitching them in August to get our clients’ products represented appropriately. Come November, a consumer picks up the magazine and sees that So-and-so thinks that Such-and-such is the perfect gift for their neighbor’s dog.  And considering that So-and-so is the foremost expert on the needs of neighborhood pets, by golly, it must be true!

But is it?

Maybe not.

Now, I don’t mean to impugn the integrity of So-and-so, writers in general, or even PR pros.  The vast majority of writers and product reviewers are extremely discriminating about the goods they choose to discuss, especially in the wake of “Paid vs. Unpaid” mommy blogger controversy.  As for us, we’re responsible for bringing yet-unseen items to the attention of those writers and product reviewers, keeping them in the loop for the latest advancements and innovations in their industry that they might otherwise have missed.

Knowledge of the process, however, gives me a unique perspective that I sometimes wish I was without.  I’ll look at the same holiday guide, and instead of immediately noting down URL’s and pricing information, I wonder: is this really the best gift for my neighbor’s dog?  Or, back in August, was there one more open slot, and a friendly PR pro spoke up at just the right moment?

And the wonderment of an entire world of pet gifts is lost upon me.

What about you? Are there things you’ve learned that make you wish you could close the curtain once again?  Are there things you’ve learned that make you glad to be behind the curtain?

Earlier on Matter Chatter I posted about the FTC’s approach to bloggers and how integrity and respect is an important part of the PR process for all parties. I’d like to revisit this topic, if I may, to discuss an update. A few days ago, the FTC released guidelines meant to further clarify their rules on paid advertisements, especially as they pertain to bloggers. It’s important to note that these rules, the Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, were last updated in 1980, so this is a clarification, not an alteration.

The guidelines are meant to clarify a blogger’s disclosure requirements: “the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.” Therefore, if a blogger receives free products from a company, they must disclose this stipulation in a review post. Importantly, bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

As might be expected, the response from bloggers was swift and questioning. Fast Company, one of my favorite sites to visit, posted an interesting article in response to this announcement. Taking concerns from bloggers to an assistant director at the FTC, the article addresses some specific comments posted by the people who these regulations effect the most. The largest takeaway from this interaction is that while a fine does exist for violating these guidelines, the likelihood that a blogger will actually encounter the fine is very small, and should never happen on the first violation (call it a built-in freebie for those that are not aware of the rules). Additionally, and quite logically, smaller blogs will not be a target of the FTC when cracking down on violators – advertisers and larger outlets will have to be more careful.

As PR professionals we know that the face of mass media is changing constantly, and just as we evolve in our jobs to accommodate these changes, so is the FTC evolving to protect consumers. We will have to be more diligent in our communications to urge bloggers to disclose their relationship with us and our clients, but this will not mean a large-scale change in protocol – at least not yet. As always, if you’ll forgive me for the idiom, honesty continues to be the best policy.

We appreciate CRM guru and master of multiple media Brent Leary sharing examples of effective PR pitches and a pushy, just plain cold PR approach in his latest blog post, “Blogger Relationship Mis-management: Saying No to Madame Yes.” It’s always great to hear these real stories from the blogger trenches. We’re proud also to see Matter client Pamela O’Hara from BatchBlue Software got a mention as one of the friendly folks. Score one for the nice guys!

Besides considering the insight Brent provides, let’s discuss a related point. How formal or friendly should your PR communications be?

Earlier this month, Matt posted on the proposed FTC guidelines regarding marketing and endorsements as they relate to bloggers and online media. Last week’s BlogHer conference in Chicago served as a platform to continue to look into blogging ethics and PR professionalism.

Following BlogHer, Kevin Pang of the Chicago Tribune wrote that “If there’s a hard news peg attached to BlogHer ’09, it’s the Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to regulate blogger endorsements of products.” Kevin notes the rising market influence of bloggers is the reason why the industry is now looking to identify the difference between subjective reviews and paid advertisements. Additionally, Lee Woodruff of Huffington Post wrote about the power of the female blogging community, commenting on a discussion she participated in that splits writers into the ‘new blogger generation versus the old:’ those that promote products versus those that focus more on writing and personal issues.

The interesting thing to me is this discussion of the two blogging camps – call it ‘fun’ bloggers vs. ‘profit’ bloggers. The remarkable part of the division is that, it seems to me, the blogging community is actively beginning to regulate itself. Paid promotion continues to be a grey area in all forms of media, but some easy steps are helping bloggers set themselves apart as trustworthy sources. Websites like DisclosurePolicy.org and BlogwithIntegrity.com offer templates and pledges aimed to ensure professionalism and disclosure. Personal transparency statements are popping up in an increasing number on blogs we work with, letting their readers know policies on product reviews and endorsements. Let’s not forget why blogs started posting reviews in the first place – because it’s an effective way to communicate likes and dislikes, and most importantly, foster discussions among like-minded readers who have a genuine interest in a product’s effectiveness or ability to please.

It all boils down to professionalism between bloggers and PR reps, honest communication, and realistic expectations. While bloggers are indeed influential media personalities, they are also moms, writers, freelancers… just regular people sharing thoughts to an online audience. As PR professionals, our job is to identify those ‘fun’ bloggers, and respect their personal feelings on product reviews (if a blog doesn’t post reviews, don’t pitch them on the latest, greatest gadget – makes sense, right? Is a post extolling the virtues of wrinkle cream going to appear in between pictures of Jane’s 5^th birthday party and a post about making cupcakes? Probably not.) We must realistically expect what a blogger’s interest level will be and conduct ourselves accordingly. It’s simple professionalism, research, and respect.

Are FTC guidelines necessary to preserve transparency and integrity? Perhaps. But can bloggers and PR professionals work together to address these issues effectively outside of official rules and regulations? Absolutely.

Back in April, C.G. Lynch wrote about finding a balance between personal and the professional content when using Twitter. While discussing the difference between personal and private, he quotes Kirsten Dixson, “As an example, you don’t want to write that you’re ‘going to the gym,’ but it might be nice to say, ‘I just set a goal to run a marathon.’” The quote has stayed with me ever since. Whatever it is that you have to project to the masses, give it value. You’ll be easier to relate to, and there will be an actual intellectual or emotional benefit that you provide your friends/followers.

Obviously, the concept goes far beyond the world of micro-blogging. We see is everywhere in everyday life – it’s a key to building successful relationships, especially in business. And now, more than ever, it hangs heavily over the PR bubble, threatening to burst it wide open. PR blacklists and blackouts and the ever-spreading controversy about paid blogger reviews are forcing us to constantly re-examine our practices and become better Pros. It’s a lot of work, and it takes a lot of time, but it pays off. I have started many more conversations with members of press by politely introducing them to an idea, rather than a brand. I pitch them an article, rather than a product. I resist the urge to name-drop and flash famous logos in front of their eyes. And the responses have all been positive. Even if they ultimately decide to pass on the specific idea, I’ve established a valuable connection with someone that I’m perfectly comfortable approaching again in the near future (and perhaps is looking forward to hearing from me).

We all make it our primary practice to personalize our outreach and try to illustrate clear connections between our clients and media members, but we need to continue to take it to the next level. We need to be writers and columnists at heart. We need to present them with ideas that they can use – that they find valuable – and who knows? Someday, we could earn “We Heart PR Pros” week.