pr-media-blog.co.uk

With 24 hour news channels we have instant access to the latest information when incidents like the Haiti earthquake happen. Within hours broadcasters have teams reporting from the front line.

But what we don’t often think about is how many people broadcasters like the BBC, Sky and others are committing to the story and how they are able to sustain themselves while all around there appears to be hardship and suffering. 

This was the subject tackled on Newswatch, a 15 minute weekly segment on News 24, where the public get to ask questions about the BBC’s news coverage.

It was interesting to learn from John Williams, BBC World news editor, that a team of 20 people including reporters, engineers and cameramen were providing coverage across the BBC news outlets. ITV News has 22 and Channel 4 News 14 while the figure from Sky is unknown. That is just from the UK and other news organisations from around the world are also on the ground in Haiti. 

Is there really a need for 56 people from different organisations to provide the UK with news about the earthquake and its aftermath?

You just wonder if in unprecedented circumstances like this if the news organisations should not have an agreement where they can pool resources, much as they do in conflict zones. I am sure there would still be opportunities for them to get their own ‘take’ on the story.  

What John Williams also revealed was that the supplies they need in terms of water and ration packs are brought in so not as burden the emergency aid. They had also been able to locate a hotel which was still standing after the earthquake to use as their base.

It cannot be denied, however, that their pictures have played a key part in driving public donations to the charity appeals.

Football fans were devastated by rumours appearing on Twitter last weekend that football star John Barnes had died of a heart attack. Thankfully, the former midfielder is alive and well; no doubt blissfully unaware of the thousands of die-hard football fans lamenting the sad loss of a legend.   

As the news first reached me on the way home from a party on Saturday night, Twitter users were already tweeting “John Barnes died tonight, just a rumour at the mo” and “you heard about John Barnes rumour? Heart attack? Someone at Arrow Park leaked”, even a local journalist at the Liverpool Echo was tweeting for clarification.  

Naturally, those first to hear the whispers spent Sunday morning checking online and broadcast media for official news. As Twitter emerged as the sole online source of the rumour, Liverpool Supporters’ Twitter feed Empire of the Kop quite rightly tweeted to its 57,000 followers: “The John Barnes rumour first appeared 4 hours ago, if it was true it would be all over the media by now.”

The tweet: “John Barnes is fine. Heard from someone who has spoken 2 him this morning. Whoever started the rumour should b ashamed” put the final nail in the coffin for the rumours. Empire of the Kop confirmed on Twitter: “John Barnes dead rumour started by a Leeds fan” and identified his user name for all football fans who had been duped to vent their anger directly.

Although Twitter can be a fantastic source of breaking news, the micro-blogging site can be used by anyone and is not always accurate. To say someone is dead may not be defamatory but if inaccurate reports such as these were published in a newspaper, there would be a clear breach of the PCC Code of Conduct. 

Twitter is not devoid of defamation and privacy laws but if the ‘tw-eath’ of John Barnes proves one thing, it’s the frightening speed at which inaccurate rumours can spread online, whether they’re about people, businesses or organisations.

Another reason why brands need to be more aware than ever of what is being said about them online. Mis-information needs to be identified and corrected at the earliest opportunity, before people begin to treat what they read as fact, by which time, the damage to company reputation is already done.

Long live John Barnes!   

An interesting piece of research by broadband provider Talk Talk has revealed that due to high speed internet access, we’ve become a highly impatient nation with 70% of us “losing it” if we have to wait any longer than one minute for a page to load.

And this somewhat inflated level of impatience is also apparent in the offline world where in a restaurant, we’ll demand our meal after just eight minutes and 38 seconds, we’ll wait only 10 minutes and 43 seconds for a tradesman to show up and we’ll allow 10 minutes and 1 second for a friend before we burst with annoyance.

It’s clear that patience, once a Great British trait, is slowly wearing away as we embrace an era of high speed internet activity and that’s not just down to the advent of broadband. Twitter, for example, offers a unique feed of real-time conversation and sentiment with news being delivered faster than any other medium, providing us with an immediate global sense of events.

And gone are the days when journalists conducted a quick vox pop to gauge opinion, now they simply use the Twitter crowd as a source of immediate information and push out headlines and blogposts to Twitter via RSS and TwitterFeed.com.

A recent fault with Virgin Media which left many customers without TV and broadband, displayed not only consumer impatience (understandably) but infuriation at the fact that Virgin had not considered using Twitter to inform their customers of the problem, regardless of the fact that a number of people were tweeting about Virgin’s service issues which suggested a major outrage was brewing.

Clearly a massive oversight from Virgin and one which other service providers should take note of. Twitter is a critical vehicle for communicating information, instantly, and could quite easily have dampened the fire that was raging amongst its tweeting customers.

It’s clear we want speed. We thrive on being the first to know and unsurprisingly, it’s the 18-24 year olds who are least prepared to wait, which questions just how impatient future generations will be.

Public transport operators, call centre workers…. you have been warned.

A quiet revolution started this week in the small Yorkshire town of Whitby.

The Whitby Gazette became one of three newspapers from the Johnson Press stable to start charging for content. Readers of the Gazette as well as Northumberland Gazette and Southern Reporter now have to pay £5 for a three-month subscription - or 40p a week.

While it has been Rupert Murdoch and his News International titles that have caught the headlines about when they will charge for access, it is regional newspaper publisher Johnson that has taken the first bold step.

What is interesting is that this move covers local rather than the national and international content that Murdoch’s titles provides.

Johnson’s chief executive John Fry said that he felt that local newspapers offered a “unique” service for which readers may be prepared to pay.

According to HoldtheFrontpage it has seen an internal memo circulated by senior managers in one Johnson division that says “Customers are used to paying for content in-paper and we are simply transferring this thinking online.”

Is this all a bit of reverse psychology with the ultimate aim to drive people back to buying newspapers? Michael Woolf writing in Vanity Fair last month hinted that Murdoch’s aim in charging for content is to drive people back to buying newspapers. Certainly an interesting thought from a newspaperman through and through.

The issue of charging form content also surfaced at the recent Society of Editors’ conference where the editor of the Newquest title the Worcester News, Kevin Ward felt that local newspapers had: “more opportunity to charge for the web” than their national counterparts. He added:  ”What we produce is niche. Nobody else sits in our courts every day. Nobody else scrutinises our public bodies.

One thing that is for sure is that newspaper groups will be watching the latest move from Johnson Press with interest.

Update: Tiger breaks his silence - is he right in what he says? 

Until now, Tiger Woods, the world’s number one golfer, highest paid sportsman and global icon, has built himself a wholesome, clean-living reputation.

His brand, the success of which is the result of his apparent honesty and integrity, has earned him a massive income from sponsorship deals with the likes of Nike, Gatorade and Gillette.

But unlike the bad boys of sport, whose antics are a regular fixture in the pages of the Sunday tabloids, the actions of a clean cut sporting hero seemingly brought low have far more mileage for the media.

With the recent car-to-hydrant incident, the world is becoming incredibly suspicious and wants answers. Perhaps a little unfair, and some may think his private life should be respected, but there’s a price to pay for being the world’s biggest sportsman.

What’s more, the entire situation has become almost embarrassing with not a trace of crisis management about it.

He appears, to his detriment, to be saying nothing, no explanation whatsoever, despite the rumours of an affair with a New York showclub hostess and his Swedish model wife who allegedly rescued him from his Cadillac SUV by smashing a window with a golf club.

Not only that but the opportunity to clear the air once and for all was laid on a plate at his very own golf tournament in California this week which he declined to attend, with no real explanation.

Tiger needs to be very wary, the Gillette curse is taking its hold. First Thierry Henry handballs in a World Cup play-off, Roger Federer crashes out of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals and Tiger’s 2am dalliance with a fire hydrant remains a mystery.

US celebrity PR crisis expert, Gene Grabowski, recommends that those who find themselves in the eye of a media storm should take a leaf out of talk show host, David Letterman’s book and come clean early in a supposed scandal and take control of the information flow.

As the American’s would say; “Tiger, take a Mulligan.”

There is an interesting line tucked away in an interview with John Fry, the chief executive of Johnston Press, which may offer some hope to the future of local newspapers. And boy does the sector need it after the ravaging it has had in the last 18 months.

On The Times’ media page on 6 November, which for some reason is not online, Fry highlights the ‘modest’ circulation rise seen for the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.

The reason for this happening is put very simply: “We’ve invested in pagination because cost cutting went too far. We have made the paper more newsy - with a focus on local content.” The fact that the newspaper costs only 37p is highlighted and that the cover price only contributes a fifth of revenue from sales.  

Fry sees the strategy of having more news as one which can drive circulation so more newspapers can be sold to ultimately reduce Johnston’s dependence on volatile advertising.

Fry does try to caveat the sales increase by saying that Peterborough is “the sweet spot of local publishing” where competition is modest and sales resilient.

I wonder if Johnston have had a ‘eureka’ moment and has finally realised that the reason people buy their local newspaper is for local news.

Johnston’s newspaper titles are on the whole in towns like Peterborough and so we could see increased local news pages in their other titles.

It can’t be forgotten that is a tough market and there are now a number of other avenues for readers to get their news. However the Peterborough template could show that there may be hope that local newspapers do have a future. 

Associated Newspapers has announced that the London Lite – part of its free division which also includes Metro – has entered a period of review which could place 36 jobs at risk. 

The announcement follows the closure of rival evening free-sheet TheLondonPaper. The possible closure places the whole concept of the free newspapers in the balance as Steve Auckland, Managing Director of Associated Newspapers admitted concerns of ‘commercial viability’ – the same reason TheLondonPaper closed its doors. 

The London Lite, however, does not seem to have suffered any decline in popularity. It distributes 400,000 copies a day and appears to be widely liked – the mix of short, light news, gossip and sports, along with popular sections such as ‘Get if off our text’ have proved popular with commuters who want to switch off from a hard news agenda and unwind on the journey home from work. The short and snappy approach lends itself very well to those with a short journey as you can read most if it in about 20 minutes. 

This is quite different from the Evening Standard where one may struggle to read more than a couple of articles in 20 minutes. It is simply a different concept and although great if you have an hour to spare, it is hard to get through it in a short period of time. It is also far more opinionated, the stories are far more drawn-out and analytical and there is a stronger focus on hard news such as politics and finance. While I’m not criticising the paper itself, it simply appeals to a very different demographic than the London Lite. 

While those at the Evening Standard may indeed be rubbing their hands together at the thought of a monopoly on London evening newspapers, it is worth pointing out that if two evening free-sheets have already proved to not be financially viable, how will the Evening Standard fair?  

Perhaps more interestingly from a consumer perspective, how will it move forward? Will it adapt itself in order to satisfy those of a more ‘London Lite’ persuasion and risk alienating its main readership or, due to its monopoly, will it bank on Lite readers switching to its harder news agenda because there is really no alternative? 

I believe red-top newspapers such as The Sun or The Mirror could stand to benefit from this. The Sun in particular has recently dropped its price to a paltry 20p and those in search of a softer news agenda may be happy to actually pay for a newspaper again. That said, these are obviously morning papers which go to press earlier, so they are not as up-to-date in the evenings.  

The possible closure of the London Lite, as you can probably see, appears to pose more questions than answers. One thing is sure though: with TheLondonPaper gone and The London Lite looking like it will go the same way, opportunities for PR people with London-based stores are certainly going to become more limited.

Following on from my recent blog, Lily is Logging Off, in which I considered the rather cynical reasons why Lily Allen has had enough of the social networking space, I am now most intrigued about the recent goings-on of a certain Stephen Fry.

He quit Twitter, then changed his mind; blamed it on feeling very low and depressed, a symptom of his bipolar disorder.

It was a disagreement between Fry and another tweeter who described Fry’s tweets as “a bit…boring” which lead him to temporarily quit the site.

But for me it’s not the fact that Fry, rather impulsively it seems, announced he was retiring from Twitter, it’s the astonishing coverage it received and the unquestionable candour that Fry has displayed.

The Sunday Times (front page), Guardian, Telegraph, Sun… they’ve all harvested a good story out of it which in itself is quite incredible. Twitter is not a stand-alone community and any mildly contentious or salacious tweet, particularly by a celebrity, will make the national press.

Let’s face it, unless your tweets are protected they are open to everyone - and that goes for journalists looking for a good scoop.

Clearly, as one of the first celebrities to embrace Twitter - and now having a massive 945,000 followers - Fry’s announcement to retire was bound to cause a stir. But, in the grand scale of things, and particularly in light of his rather quick retraction, this really is a tornado in a teacup.

Not only that but if you consider the person that is Stephen Fry - a highly intelligent, slightly ungainly, old fashioned eccentric who will in no way appeal to everyone - he is bound to be described as boring from time to time!

Personally, I admire his honesty and thought his retrospective tweet which read: “l feel more sheepish than a sheep and more twattish than a twat” was exceptional and I’m sure his “twitter quitter” moment will only enhance his national treasure status.

So Lily Allen is officially a neo-Luddite.

She’s quit Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and email, ditched her Macbook and BlackBerry and apparently, according to numerous newspaper reports, her only means of communication with the outside world is a home phone and an old mobile.

Putting aside for a moment the underlying message that Lily Allen is to become a recluse, her reason behind such a decision could well be deeper than we’re led to believe.

We all know that the Internet made Lily Allen (in a very real sense) but as a notoriously outspoken and sometimes angry user of social networking sites, has she laid herself bare, torn down every personal barrier and let the world see her for exactly what she is and what she believes in?

In celebrity world this can surely be dangerous. We all love a sense of mystery but with Lily, we’ve seen it, heard it and she’s probably worn a T shirt with it emblazoned across it.

But it works both ways. She’s encouraged opinion and some of it will have undoubtedly been hard to swallow. Random strangers calling you fat, ugly, brattish, vulgar must surely instil a sense of fear… which is likely to lead to silence.

Reports suggest that her boyfriend asked her to choose between him or Twitter, but could this in fact be a shrewd move by her management: “Ditch Twitter, keep your opinions to yourself for a while, be seen to disappear into obscurity, oh and let’s get a press release out …”

As for the effects this may have on her personal life, she’s hardly going to become a recluse. With A-list friends like Kate Moss and Agyness Dean, whilst gigging at some of London’s coolest venues, I very much doubt that her decision to log off will leave her short of party invites.

Latest research shows that more than a quarter of people have cut back on buying magazines and newspapers in the economic downturn in favour of free online content.

However, the results also reveal that this does not mean people are more open to subscription services. Just 11% said they currently pay for online media and a further 11% said they may begin a subscription in the next 12 months.

But this begs the question of why? Why would a consumer buy access to news online when they can get it free elsewhere?

Surely a precedent has been set after receiving it free for years and it’s too late to change?

Rupert Murdoch, whose global empire has made a huge financial loss, declared recently that the “free-for-all in online news has ended” and has pledged to shake up the newspaper industry by introducing charges for access to all his news websites.

I don’t doubt Murdoch’s ability to pave new ways, but is this really the best way of increasing revenue?

With the amount of blogs and social networking sites out there, far fewer people rely on traditional media for their latest news fix. That isn’t to say a paid for model won’t work for specialist media, where there’s a niche audience, but mainstream news is readily available, whenever we want it.

But many believe it’s purely down to behavioural change. As David Elms, media partner at KPMG, the company behind the research, says: “Monetising online content is the holy grail of the media sector. The challenge is changing the mindset of a consumer population that is used to accessing free online content.”

Steve Brill, co-founder of Journalism Online, which promises to help news outlets charge for content, says: “People have been exchanging cash for newspapers and magazines for decades - they just need to get into the habit of doing so online.”

But Vivian Schiller, president and CEO of non-profit NPR, who believes in making pay optional, said: “To think that we are so smart that we can retrain the audience, that’s an awfully elitist, condescending, and frankly old perspective.”

Instead of charging for subscriptions, perhaps newspapers should look at what they’re offering and provide the best online content to attract lucrative advertisers?