Archive for August, 2009
August 28th, 2009
Over the past few weeks I have had the pleasure of hearing from a lot of great clipping and monitoring companies regarding this post.  After spending a substantial amount of time researching, demoing and comparing services—it is finally time to make a decision. Start the drum roll, please.
For a comprehensive on-line-only approach to media monitoring, I recommend Meltwater News. One major factor influenced my decision: the free two-week trial of its services. For the past few weeks Meltwater has taken the stress out of my morning routines.  Each morning I received a list of press coverage for each of our clients including relevant links and summary. At the bottom of the e-mails from Monique Young—our very helpful Meltwater representative—includes a quote by Arthur Sulzberger, owner, chairman and publisher of The New York Times:“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care either…The Internet is a wonderful place to be, and we’re leading there.” This quote alone does a nice job summarizing Meltwater’s approach to media monitoring.
For print monitoring I would recommend either Vocus or BurrellesLuce . Both Vocus and Burrelles offer on-line, print and TV/broadcast monitoring, as well as an extensive journalist database. Vocus’ prices tend to come in somewhat under Burrelles and other competitors.
If you are looking for an ad-hoc broadcast monitoring service, my recommendation is VMS. The oldest TV and radio monitoring service in the U.S. and Canada, VMS offers a number of pricing options to choose from based on your specific need.
And last but not least my final recommendation goes to CogTree’s Parse.ly for a free Web-based alternative to Google Alerts. Parse.ly is a new service that is a customized filter for Google Alerts that sorts information through a series of priorities and specifications created by the user. It is a fantastic and free personalized Web-based alternative to Googles, which we at ELISE consider a bit overwhelming at times.
I enjoyed hearing from, talking to and learning about all the different monitoring companies these past few weeks. I strongly encourage you to do your own research based on your needs. And hey, maybe you too will feel like a celebrity like I did.
August 26th, 2009
Aside from working at ELISE and my aforementioned editorial work at Phillyist, I’m also pursuing an MFA in creative writing at Rutgers University’s Camden campus. (I don’t sleep much.) Writing is something I’ve always been encouraged to do, and something I’ve always been passionate about, so it makes sense that the three biggest things I do all involve writing to a great degree.
Writing in each of these contexts requires a different approach, but at the end of the day, the goal remains the same: to write well. It’s not just a matter of well-structured sentences and proper grammar. Writing well means writing concisely (I’m looking at you, William Faulkner). It means being compelling, or at least being interesting—or, at the very least, not being boring. But above all, writing well means being clear.
I may be oversimplifying a bit—nobody wants to be spoon-fed the plot of a novel—but by the time you finish reading a piece of good writing, whether it’s five pages long or five hundred, you should have a clear idea of one thing: where the writer stands in relation to his work. Nobody could seriously think that Jonathan Swift felt that selling Irish babies as foodstuffs would be prudent, and the reason that we understand the satirical nature of A Modest Proposal is because of good writing. We understand, absolutely, what Swift wants us to understand.
As readers, we see this, recognize it, accept it. But as writers ourselves, we’re often not so artful. Most people tend to write the way they speak, which doesn’t always translate well to an unfamiliar audience. Working in communications, we have to be especially conscious of this. For instance, I tend to be a very enthusiastic person. (A drama teacher told me once that I speak in capital letters when I get excited.) But I know that no matter how excited I am about an upcoming client event, sending a pitch email with fourteen exclamation marks and full sentences bolded will look less like I’m genuinely happy to be promoting our clients and more like I’m either faking it or very, very bad at my job. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I know that being too neutral or too understated can fail to engage the journalists I’m pitching—if I seem bored by my work, why should they care about it?
I’ve also come to realize that humor, unless it’s very direct, doesn’t translate well over email. Several years and several bosses ago, I was called into my supervisor’s office and asked why I’d send out an insulting email to the staff. When I explained that the note had been intended as sarcasm—ergo the emoticon that closed it—my supervisor, a published poet whose ability to communicate succinctly never ceased to impress me, explained that sometimes authorial intent falls short of its goals. I may have wanted to be sarcastic, but because I wasn’t clear enough in what I said, nobody bothered to analyze the way I said it. Tonality and facial expressions don’t translate in writing, so all we’re left with is words—words that, when poorly chosen, can convey the opposite of what we mean.
Public relations is called “communications” for a reason: we have to be able to communicate effectively. And because so much of that communication is done in writing, through pitches and media alerts and press releases (and even blog posts and tweets), we need to take a moment to review whether what we’ve written is really what we’re trying to say.
Otherwise, somebody’s going to accuse us of wanting to eat Irish babies.
August 20th, 2009
Last week’s blog post has been on my mind all week, and I have been hard at work trying to make my final decision. There was some fantastic feedback, and it even resulted in three new companies (VMS, CustomScoop ClipIQ and Critical Mention) contacting me about their product offerings. Unfortunately, the overwhelming response has delayed my decision by a week.
Although we are familiar with most of these companies, some of them such as BurrellesLuce were especially impressive, demonstrating the efficacy of their services by proving how well they monitor themselves. It really drives home the idea of how important it is to monitor the discussion surrounding your own company. For example, within moments of posting my blog link to Twitter last week, Burrelles had already re-tweeted it and within 24 hours Leon Altman from Burrelles contacted me to comment on the post and offered to share more product information with me.
In my experience working with service providers and vendors, I like to interact with the product before making a decision. Two companies in particular, Cog Tree and Meltwater, have stood out in this regard. Both offered ELISE free demonstrations of their products. Although Cog Tree had contacted us prior to the blog post, I was impressed that Sachin offered to come to the ELISE headquarters to give a demo of Parse.ly. It is always nice to see and try what could potentially be an investment for your company.
I don’t want to give away too many of my opinions and findings, but tune in next week to see which company ELISE selects and recommends to its clients. I must admit with all of this attention I feel like a bit of a celebrity!
August 18th, 2009
In the summer of 2007, I attended the BlogPhiladelphia “unconference,” a two-day opportunity for bloggers from the Philadelphia area and beyond to talk about the rapidly growing world of social media. Twitter was a nascent and largely unadopted technology; nobody had a Flip; and the first-generation iPhone had been released just days before. (It was so new, in fact, that Web developers on site were encouraging BlogPhiladelphia attendees not to optimize their sites for the iPhone just yet.) But none of that mattered: we were all assembled at the Radisson Plaza-Warwick Hotel in Center City Philadelphia to talk about the power and potential of blogs.
At one point during the conference, the floor was ceded to any attendee who had something relevant to share. The guys from Viddler shared their direct-posting technology, which they’d launched a few months before. There was much discussion about Wine Library TV. And then David Dylan Thomas presented a very interesting argument: “The convention of the hyperlink has essentially changed the way we write.” David went on to explain that many sentences written for on-line outlets wouldn’t even make sense without hyperlinks. For instance, simply reading aloud or seeing in print: “The full details on the unusual traffic stop are explained here,” leaves one wondering exactly where “here” is. But when clicking on the word “here,” we get linked to the full account—a story about Pennsylvania State Troopers who delivered a baby instead of writing a speeding ticket.
Sure, you could paraphrase the story in your blog, but it’s easier for you to let the journalist tell the story himself. And it’s better for the Philadelphia Daily News, with whom the story originated, to get traffic from your link than to have you re-hash the story and make people feel like they don’t need to click through.
In the two years since BlogPhiladelphia, the way we write for social media has continued to change (Twitter, anyone?), but one thing hasn’t: the ability to be concise because of the presence of hyperlinks. The Faulknerian sentence, it seems, is gone for good, replaced by quick summaries that send the reader to the rest of the story, elsewhere. This is why we can spend three hours on Wikipedia, link-hopping until we forget what our original search term was. And it’s also why communicating in PR is getting easier. Press releases don’t need to be two pages long anymore. Instead of explaining the whole schedule of an event, for instance, we can link to the event’s Web page where the details are posted. Instead of providing a client’s life story, we can use a few relevant points and direct the recipient to a full biography page. Writing a shorter press release and embracing links allows us to spend time writing more customized pitches. And on the flip side, links allow journalists on the receiving end of our releases or pitches to pick and choose what information they want without having to spend time to weed through information they see as superfluous. That’s more time they can spend talking to you about your clients.
Added bonus: more social media-fied press releases don’t just save time—they save money. Most paid release distribution services, like PRNewswire, have a fixed cost up to a certain word count (PRN’s is 400 words). Letting links do the talking and cutting out superfluous information usually keeps us from having to pay for additional-verbage overages.
Long releases aren’t any easier to read than long novels, Mr. Faulkner. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about how much you write, but how many people you reach. Dickens wasn’t really paid by the word, and neither are we: PR professionals get paid because of the results they generate and the input they offer. And if we can get those results while saving money and time, simply by showing that we understand the way that the link has changed writing—in our profession and otherwise—then aren’t we worth every penny?
August 13th, 2009
Based on my experience summer is a slow season.  And, that is why it tends to be a good season for internal focus. It is therefore a good time to clean, organize and rethink strategies. Here at ELISE we have done all of that and are continuing to do so. Carrie has been on many client trips for messaging strategies and future planning; Jill has been doing a lot of work on social media and our next steps; and Kira and I have been working hard at internal ELISE systems and procedures.
In my efforts to research, update and edit many of our internal documents, I have decided that every PR firm should invest in some sort of clipping or media monitoring service (such as Cision, Meltwater, BurrellesLuce, Vocus, etc.) on an annual basis. When compiling reports and summaries, I have found that “Googles” (a term ELISE coined that refers to “Google Alerts”) just are not cutting it anymore: they tend to pick and choose what they want to send me, and sometimes totally overlook a press success for a client even when we have identified relevant search terms.
To minimize the stress of the not-so-easy-to-follow Googles, I decided to compile information about all the different companies out there that offer media contacts and monitoring. Check back in next week to see my monitoring company of choice. If you have any suggestions please feel free to share!
August 11th, 2009
Way back when, in the days before the Internet, television and even radio, people got their news from newspapers. And if old movies set in these older times are to be believed, families and friends would sometimes sit around and read the news aloud to one another, and then, perhaps, discuss it.
This, folks, was the proto-blog.
Think about it. Many blog posts that surround a news story begin with a quote from or summary about the source material, including a link to the original, and then offer their own analysis or insight into the facts. Some blogs report the news, sure—but because there are very few blogs that can support a full-time research staff, most of what they can offer is a quick update on the news of the day, complete with a link back to the source material, and a bit of commentary or opinion. With a few exceptions, blogs are not trying to replace traditional reporting, nor is it likely that they ever will. There’s really no replacement for a traditional newsroom. At least not yet.
Unfortunately, that’s not an opinion traditional media shares these days. From Rupert Murdoch’s accusations against Google (which, by the way, re-directs users who happen upon a Wall Street Journal article to the Wall Street Journal Web site) to the Associated Press’s takedown request issued against the Drudge Retort for “copyright infringement” even though correct attribution was provided in the questionable passages, it’s becoming obvious that traditional media’s discomfort with on-line content providers stems from misunderstanding the nature and language of the Internet. It’s not about stealing; it’s about sharing, via short quotes and hyperlinks that direct both Web traffic and attention to the full story.
But sharing seems to be what the Associated Press, News Corp., and others are trying to fight. Now there’s speculation amongst bloggers I know that even citing an article’s headline may soon be met with hefty fines, and the Associated Press is already charging large sums for small quotes (even if they’re in the public domain), in conjunction with widespread efforts to find any un-paid-for quotes from the outlet’s articles. Attribution or not, the stance is clear: fair use, which has been a part of U.S. copyright law since 1976 and understood the way we define it today since 1841, doesn’t matter. Fair is fair—but only at $2.50 a word.
I love newspapers and traditional reporting and every time that closure rumors begin to circulate, it makes me sad. And I’m as aware as the next person that providing their content for free for so long is part of the reason they got into trouble in the first place. But there has to be a way for major news providers to monetize their sites without coming down on the very people who read their content and think it’s worth sharing. Mark Cuban has several solutions that don’t use the words “copyright violation” or “lawsuit” even once.
Because if blogs that quote and discuss the news are going to get accused of copyright violations, who’s to say that people who quote and discuss the news at home or work or when out with friends won’t eventually have to pay the fines as well? Trying to prevent plagiarism and protect copyrights is a noble effort. Trying to halt conversation is not.
August 7th, 2009
Even though we live in a world where the majority of our communication takes place through a digital medium, it did not surprise me when Tom McGrath, editor of Philadelphia Magazine, commented over lunch last week that connecting with people in person was essential. We discussed the value of non-verbal cues versus on-line communication. We agreed that there is so much more to learn by seeing and witnessing a person, in their environment rather than seeing them through a screen, in the text of an e-mail or tweet. I smiled. He “goes where the action is.”
This is not the first time I have seen the power of “being there.”
In May 2007, Paul Polak and I hopped a cab together to JFK Airport. We had just met at the opening of the Design for the Other 90% exhibition at the Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum. He entertained and charmed the The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and every other reporter I threw his way. And, then in the cab, he popped the question: “I am writing a book,” he said. “Would you be interested in working on it?”
“I would be honored” was my reply.
He said he admired my fearless approach and dedication to my work. I, of course, admired his brilliant ability to connect with everyone he encountered.
As part of Paul’s book team, we encouraged Paul to create a list of self-improvement steps that would help not only small-acreage farmers lift themselves out of poverty but also anyone else who wanted to improve their lives. His first rule was simple and familiar: Go to where the action is.
As Paul explains in his book, this directive seems obvious and yet many of us never discover it. If you want to make a difference, put yourself in the thick of things and listen. Learn from contextual details. Absorb the environment.
This past weekend while I was cleaning out my house to prepare for a move, I found a note that I had written to myself seven years ago and the same smile came to my face. The note was smudged and folded, but on it was a simple phrase “go to where the action is.” The note was from 2002. I had reluctantly left my job in communications at the Lemelson-MIT Program to move across the country to Portland, Oregon. The move proved to be a good one, but the transition between coasts was not easy. I sought out a career coach, and she asked me what resonated with me. ”Where do you want to be?” she asked. I told her that I love being where the action is.
For Paul, the “where” has been in the developing world. For others, the “where” can be on Wall Street or in the White House. Over the past ten years, my “where” has been with the world of media, where news is developed and stories are shaped.
August 6th, 2009
I’m still trying to synthesize all of my thoughts about Wednesday’s Help A Reporter Out conference call, which featured Peter Shankman and Chris Brogan bantering back and forth about social media best practices and lessons learned. The conversation was accompanied by the hashtag #broman, which provided a supplementary track to the conversation and quickly became Twitter’s #2 trending item, much to the confusion of Twitter users not on the call.
But with all of the data flying around, both on the call and over Twitter, Peter made one very salient point that stood out to me. It was salient not just because it was completely true, but also because of how funny and how memorable it was. Peter’s quip arose during the part of the conversation when somebody asked how to develop business leads through social media outlets like Twitter. After a few points were made by both Chris and Peter about creating interest in your company by tweeting out good content, Peter broke it down for us: PR professionals can best utilize social media as a marketing tool by being like crack dealers: give out a “free sample” and people will come back to see what else you have. 140 characters isn’t enough for a white paper or a communications strategy plan, but it can make people want to know more about you.
Not want. Need. And maybe that’s the biggest takeaway of the call.
