Much has been written about newspapers and their ongoing transition to digital (the topic was covered on Matter Chatter last year); but what about magazines? On Monday, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) released the findings from its survey of practices at magazine Web sites (in addition to a related article), which reveal some very interesting, and at times unexpected, information about the state of magazines’ online content. Like newspapers, magazines are facing decreased readership and advertising, coupled with budget reductions. They’re also learning to navigate the waters of the online world and trying to identify the business models and practices that will enable their Web sites to succeed.

Despite the challenges magazines face in the evolving digital age, I was surprised by some of the findings from the CJR study, which represent 665 consumer magazines. While the survey explored a variety of topics related to Web site practices and profitability, I was most intrigued by how the magazines reported developing online content and their standards for digital publishing. For example:

- Two-thirds of respondents’ staff are involved in producing online content, but only 26 percent of those staffers have prior Web experience

- Fact-checking (excluding blogs) is less rigorous online than in print for 35 percent of respondents

- 59 percent of those surveyed reported either there is no copy editing online (11 percent), or copy editing requirements are less strict in comparison to the print edition

Stephanie Clifford of the New York Times wrote about the “slack editing” on websites last week, asserting, “The only thing standard about magazines’ Web sites is that there are no standards.”

Personally, I hope the magazine industry will unite to develop some sort of online publishing standards, for the sake of journalism and readers everywhere who rightfully expect high-quality, error-free articles from their favorite magazines. However, this will likely take time, as magazines increasingly transition to the Web and determine if and how they can be profitable online.

In the meantime, we can consider how the CJR’s findings affect PR pros. For instance, we should be aware of the policies of each of the magazines we pitch, in order to maximized our clients’ coverage and set realistic expectations. We should recognize the differences (if they exist) between content for print and content for the Web at individual outlets and how that content is produced. As an example, after recently securing a contributed article placement for a client in an online outlet, I asked how we could be considered for the print version in the future and was told the magazine selects the best of the online content to be included in the print issue. Interesting. We should also keep in mind, for now at least, many outlets tend to favor speed above all, when it comes to publishing online content. PR pros can alter pitches accordingly, by offering reader tips from our clients or short contributed articles, both of which can quickly and easily be posted on a Web site.

Like other media, it will be interesting to watch how magazines continue to evolve in response to the digital age and how the changes will affect PR pros. Have you already adapted your tactics for pitching print or Web editors at magazines? Please do share! (more…)

One of the most stressful parts of being a PR professional is waiting for a big hit to, well hit. After all the legwork, the research, the pitching, the back-and-forths with the reporter, the interviews, the updates to the client contacts, and the other countless actions that can span out over several months, the last thing to do is to wait and scan for the coverage. Surprisingly, this part of the process is much more difficult than actually setting up the interviews, preparing the briefing materials, coordinating site visits, and everything else that goes into this process. As you might be able to tell from the tone of this post and the strangely specific list of tasks I outlined, I’m waiting for a big hit.

Of course, I’ve checked in with the reporter to see if he knows when the article will run, but he’s on to bigger and better things. By constantly checking in with him, I run the risk of crossing the fine line between persistent PR professional to annoying flack that puts his expected coverage in jeopardy. So I send a short, polite email to the reporter once a week or so to see if he has any updates. He always gets back to me to let me know that the article should run soon, but that he’s not sure when, and I continue to scan.

I certainly don’t blame the reporter – it’s not his fault. He wants to see the article run, too. He did a lot of work to get it written and he doesn’t want to see his work go to waste. (I’m fairly certain he wouldn’t mind not receiving my weekly check-in email, too.) Now that I think about it, I suppose I never really considered the article through his eyes. He spent a good number of hours interviewing, researching and traveling, in an effort to put together the piece. I didn’t have to travel anywhere. I didn’t call my client’s competitors or customers, or any industry analysts for their insights.

Still, I’d feel a lot better if the article just ran, and was as positive as the reporter has assured me (please, find some wood and knock on it for me). But for now, all I can do is wait, and the wait is killing me.

I tell stories for a living.

Sometimes it’s a happy story. A strong year for a client or a cool new product that consumers will love.

Sometimes it’s a teaching story. One that explains how a thing works or why we should care about a new trend.

It’s rare — luckily — that we have to explain an unhappy story about our clients. But sometimes we tell those stories, too.

I used to tell stories as a reporter for the Associated Press and Boston Globe. Sometimes I wrote “evergreen” stories like the one about a landmark that lights up the sky, one blue and red flash at a time. Other times I wrote with a conspiratorial tone, like the one about the hidden “eyes” that follow your every move.

In daily PR life as we race to keep up with busy clients, breaking news and the reporters we work with, I think we often forget that our job is to tell our clients’ stories. We’re story tellers. That new product might have 17 new features but what makes it a good story? That new executive hire might have an impressive industry background but what makes her joining your client at this moment so interesting — where’s the story there?

Here at Matter many of our clients fall into two categories: consumer and high technology. This mix is an important reason why we’re really good at coming up with creative pitch angles and landing coverage in a wide range of places. The tech geek in us is quick to understand how the technology works. The consumer guru knows what makes a quirky, unusual story that “regular people” will care about.

I sometimes tell prospective high-tech clients that if they want coverage only in the technical publications that cover their industry, we’re probably not the agency they’re looking for. But if they’re looking for someone that can learn their story, figure out why it’s interesting and different, and explain to a wide audience why it matters to them — well, we’ve got a story worth telling.

Keeping up New Year’s resolutions. Trends to come in 2010. Conan vs. Leno. Where is Tiger Woods?

Up until last week, these were trending media topics and water cooler chatter. Then on January 12, everything was put into perspective. Devastated by an earthquake, Haiti was immediately thrust into the spotlight. You couldn’t find a media outlet not providing up to the minute updates and coverage.

Today’s media coverage allows us to experience devastation and destruction like never before. And after hearing countless stories of massive devastation, survival, compassion, love and continued hope, I find it a little difficult to join in the Team Conan or Team Leno debate.

Since the earthquake hit, millions of dollars and thousands of aid workers have flooded to the region. Today, the State Department declared that funds from mobile phone users donating $10 to the Red Cross via text have surpassed $25 million, making it the largest mobile donation campaign ever.

The global community coming together has been inspirational and provided a new perspective for 2010 – I hope we don’t forget too soon how quickly life, and the media landscape, can change.

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?“

It’s no surprise to anyone in PR that print publications are hurting. My esteemed coworkers have even talked about it on this blog before, here and here. But a recent article from the New Times of Broward/Palm Beach forwarded to me by my friend and colleague Matt Landry opened my eyes to just how much the print journalism world has changed. I’ve only been in PR since I got out of college about four years ago, and upon my entry into the industry, the digital revolution was in full swing, and I was already used to getting my news online. Print publications are still a part of my everyday outreach and scanning; print is just not the primary channel I pursue.

The New Times article examines the frenzied pace, the competition and the politics of the newsrooms of south Florida’s daily newspapers. Even though this article only focuses on that specific region of the country, I suspect it describes a familiar example of many newsrooms around the country. One anecdote I found particularly amusing is that one journalist was so bent on covering important, breaking news, that he would go through his colleague’s mailboxes and throw away press releases that were delivered to them.

Another story that struck me was that one newsroom actually purchased voting machines so the staff could test them out to find flaws in the system! I can’t really imagine any newsroom in the country with the staffing or financial resources to do that type of research now. Unfortunately, reductions in ad revenue have changed the way news is now reported. Editorial websites are more interested in covering breaking news than they are in developing longer, more in-depth and more researched pieces. While there is a place in the media for both types of articles, the latter is giving way to the former more and more.

But the saddest part of the article, however, was reading all the stories about how the changes at most print publications have forced just about everyone to fear for their job. I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but too often, we PR people hear about journalist layoffs and we’re disappointed that we won’t be able to pitch them anymore. We need to remember that these journalists are real people who are being told they can no longer do what they love to do (or threatened with the prospect), at least not in the capacity they’re used to. Some former reporters discussed in the article have found other ways to cover news on their own terms. Sadly, some have become so jaded with the industry that they quit writing altogether and enjoy other pursuits.

Reading about the way print publications used to be run makes me interested in hearing more stories about that world. While it may be a familiar way of life to many PR pros, many of us new(er) to the industry were never exposed to it. Feel free to share your favorite anecdotes about newsroom craziness or the way things used to be in the comments below.

For years, ‘what have you been reading lately?’ has been my favorite question to ask when interviewing a potential Matter employee, to the point where I am often teased by some of my colleagues for asking that very question. Nonetheless, I have always believed that the question gives you real insight into what a person offers beyond the ABC’s (writing, organization, press and client relations) of PR.

Today, our culture (led with great gusto by PR super-consumers) is producing and processing more content than ever.  Yet it appears that we (and I include myself) are actually reading and learning less, and therefore extending an age-old ‘mile-wide, inch-deep’ cliché for many professionals. Physically reading a newspaper/magazine/book forces consumers to read things that may not be of direct interest to them, but has the potential to open them to unconventional, yet effective, writing styles or perhaps under reported new trends that are exploding a continent away. At the very least, reading more physical media will broaden one’s knowledge base, which contributes to a well-rounded individual who can see angles/stories/trends that a more narrowly focused consumer cannot. Thanks to RSS feeds, blogs, Twitter, simple online news sites, Facebook… far too often content is filtered, skimmed and regurgitated, rather than understood, explained and taught.  This is a shortcoming that is detrimental to most, but particularly damaging for the PR professional.

Often what distinguishes the average from the good in the game is a professional’s insight on what messages, stories and trends that are gaining traction in the media and how to match them with the various assets of their clients. A combination of both old-school (fiction of all kinds, long-form journalism, The Grey Lady aka The New York Times, metro alternative papers, local broadcast outlets) and new-school (tweets, TechCrunch’s rude boys and girls, vlogs) content will give you the context, understanding and perspective you need to be a better PR practitioner.

Below is a sample of what I regularly read, both online and otherwise.

By the way, what are you reading?

Matt

* Boston Herald, ‘The Inside Track’ – Boston’s top gossip collection. No one admits to reading it, but everyone talks about it…

* The Daily Beast, ‘Cheat Sheet’ – Tina Brown’s latest venture offers up a quality collection of the top five newspaper articles of the day

* New York – Yes, I live in the Boston area, but there’s always an article worth reading in every issue.

* Fast Company – The top press target out there. Smart, insightful and always different.

* Salem News & Beverly Citizen – My local papers, some of the best reporting comes from your local journalists.

* Vanity Fair – Beautiful photos, thicker than a door stop and always a number of must read long-form, non-fiction articles

* The Given Day, Dennis Lehane – Labor unrest, race relations and Babe Ruth in 1919 Boston.

Like so many people, I was driving to work this morning, piecing together memories of this day eight years ago. It was day two of my journalism internship at the local newspaper and, as I waltzed through the door at 9 a.m., I was startled by a blockade of writers and photographers hovered around the newsroom’s sole television set, mouths agape, some with tears in their eyes.

When we realized what was happening, we all wanted to go home, call friends and family, and embrace loved ones. We wanted answers; we wanted to stand in front of that TV until we understood. For a moment, we weren’t hard-nosed reporters looking for a scoop. We were just people.

As a country, we were overcome with sadness on Sept. 11, 2001. The sorrow grew as days and months passed, and we learned the stories of the 2,752 victims who lost their lives. This morning, I listened as radio DJs spoke about the terrorist attacks and the various memorial services that are being held, and, eight years later, I felt a pang of grief. What can I do?

Then, the DJ said: “The best thing we can all do today is remember. We must never forget.”

It goes without saying that we must always honor and pay tribute to the thousands of people who died in the towers, in the planes, in the Pentagon and in the wake of the destruction that occurred that day. Our hearts go out to their families, friends and colleagues. Certainly, we must never forget.

I communicate with the media all day and work closely with photographers on behalf of our many clients in the photo industry. As I scanned the news this morning – to remember – I feel the urge to also honor and laud the people who have kept the victims’ stories and the day’s photographs so fresh in our minds.

One effort that particularly caught my attention and evoked emotion was David Dunlap’s narrative, and compilation of photographs and videos, on the New York Times’ photojournalism blog, “Lens.”

Yesterday, Dunlap posted “From the Archive: Moving Images” with imagery from the CameraPlanet Archive, which contains videos and photographs of the World Trade Center taken before, during and after the attacks. CameraPlanet is donating its 500-hour video archive to the National Sept. 11, 2001 Memorial & Museum. Today, Dunlap followed up with “Showcase: The World, as of 9/10/01,” with images from an exhibition that opens today, entitled “Twin Towers Once Stood.”

As a former journalist and PR professional who relies on the media on a daily basis, I am proud of the work that is being done to honor the people who were lost on Sept. 11, 2001. These individuals and organizations have captured an integral chapter of our country’s history and, each year, they find new ways to share it and make it relevant to us all. More importantly, they force us to remember.

With journalism and photojournalism of this caliber, people all over the world – and young children who are just now just learning about that tragic day – will do what they can to pay their respects; they will do what is most important now. They will never forget.