*cough* Hello? Back. Long story. Sorry.
Let's skip the grovelling and get on with business, shall we...? To whit:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
I've used this Gandhi quote as a post heading elsewhere in the past, but it seems even more appropriate for the topic at hand this time around.
There's been a minor bushfire spreading through the blogvines in the last few weeks, building into something bigger and more important as each successive blogger and MSM outlet picks up the story.
In short: Gaurav Sabnis, a blogger in India quit his job with IBM after something of a dust storm blew up over his online criticism of a local IBM client, IIPM, and that client's pigheaded and disproportionate over-reaction. As a result, what was a minor dust storm grew into a tornado of criticism and intense online scrutiny of IIPM, spilling over into the mainstream and causing no end of embarrassment for them.
Mark Glaser's account of the tale at Online Journalism Review provides a thorough analysis of the brouhaha and draws some useful conclusions.
To me, the most interesting aspect of what's happened here is not the tale of IIPM's cluelessness -- although that is indeed mighty, and certainly worthy of the scorn and outrage being directed their way by many in the blogosphere.
No; what resonates most for me is the exact point Mark Glaser chooses to make in the closing paragraphs of his piece:
"Bloggers + MSM = better media?"
Mark gets that there is an inevitable and appropriate AND logic in play here. As he says:
"The story of IIPM and its battle with JAM and Indian bloggers follows a familiar trajectory here in the U.S.: There's a story in a smallish magazine, picked up and magnified by bloggers, then picked up and magnified by the mainstream media (MSM). This snowball effect has bloggers exulting, and the MSM taking bloggers much more seriously."
As I've said before - this is why I don't buy into the ongoing "journalism vs. blogging" debate - it's because the "vs." part is so painfully wrong. This is what Forbes failed to get in letting Dan Lyons run off leash.
It's not "Them" OR "Us", it's You AND Me.
Bloggers + MSM = better media. Damn straight.
Complementary, collaborative, mutually reinforcing, keeping each other honest.
When a blogger fisks a poorly-researched, badly-argued MSM piece - that's good. And when an MSM reporter responds to an inflammatory, baseless blog post with their own dissection, rebuttal, and counterpoint - that's good too.
Conversation. Debate. Ebb and flow.
Blog-like "participatory" media initiatives such as Newsvine clearly have the potential to OR and then NOT mainstream media outlets that fail to understand this.
But seeing the AND value is a much smarter path, and one more likely to improve the quality and amplitude of reporting everywhere.
Bonus links:
1. Doc Searls points to a five-year-old interview with the late Peter Drucker (God rest him), in which Drucker tangentially underscores a related aspect of the AND.
2. The Toronto Star so very nearly gets it. They've adopted blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds. One of their smartest reporters, Tyler Hamilton, has a piece in this morning's @Biz section, print and online - "Get your paper by pod" - on the importance of podcasting to traditional print media outlets. It's a great piece. Tyler gets it.
The reason the Star only "very nearly" scores, IMHO? To get to Tyler's story, linked to above, requires you to register before you can read it. So near, yet so far...
June 25, 2005
Posted by Michael O'Connor Clarke
Random thought. Could be some depth in this - too tired to explore it through the keyboard, but it's going to keep me awake a while longer.
Inspired in large part by an excellent, wide-ranging phone conversation with Frank Paynter, and by reading Constantin Basturea's superb response (and Adam Brown's re-response) to the Ketchum blog/nonblog thang - here's the thought, for what it's worth...
Much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair in the PR world over how the practice of public relations must evolve to tune into the rise of citizen's media. Perhaps the answer is much bloody simpler than we all thought:
The necessary evolution of PR is blogging. That's all.
No more news releases, no more pitches, no more one-to-many media relations. Just bloggers talking to bloggers and blog readers.
If it ain't blogged, it ain't news.
Unlikely? Fast forward five years from now.
Stipulate:
Markets are conversations.
Your market is online.
Conversations are online.
Ergo: Your best means of online conversation with your markets?
C'mon, bunky - you know the answer...
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Signs & Portents
June 1, 2005
Posted by Michael O'Connor Clarke
Not really, but if anyone's going to tear into this topic, I'd love to hear Seth's take.
A Wired News report describes how zombie advertisers want to eat your brain:
"The nascent research, known as "neuromarketing," could one day lead to new advertising strategies that directly stimulate hard-wired mental reflexes rather than appealing to fuzzy consumer attitudes...Earlier this month, Stanford University researchers reported that they've pinpointed the parts of the brain that handle two major parts of a choice -- figuring out how nifty something is and then calculating how likely it is that you'll get it..."
It gets scarier:
"...At stake is more than just greater understanding of the brain's mysterious inner workings and boons for advertisers. In the wildest dreams of researchers, their findings could help political leaders fine-tune how they make choices about everything from geopolitics to government finances."
Let us be thankful we have commerce, THX-1138. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy more and be happy...
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Signs & Portents
May 24, 2005
Posted by Michael O'Connor Clarke
AdAge (free registration required) is reporting another example of big corporate advertising dollars being used to dictate acceptable news content.
In a move even more clueless than Morgan Stanley's, petrochemical giant BP has instituted what AdAge terms a "zero-tolerance policy toward negative editorial coverage". BP's new policy insists that "ad-accepting" publications inform the company in advance of any "news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry".
The scope of this new policy is so outrageously broad -- insisting that the company's media buying agency be informed before a publication runs "any editorial that contains fuel, oil or energy news" -- it strikes me that any "ad-accepting" magazine or newpaper agreeing to these terms is accepting much more than BP's advertising.
This is not the first time a big corporation has used its advertising muscle in an attempt to control editorial content, and it certainly won't be the last, yet the arrogant confidence of both BP and Morgan Stanley's approach is still startling.
It's also disturbing to note how little coverage this issue is getting. Apart from the AdAge stories, there's been precious little attention paid by mainstream media. Even the Reuters piece referencing the original AdAge story only seems to have been picked up in a couple of places. (Aux armes, blogizens!)
On reflection, this really isn't all that surprising. According to AdAge, BP's print media buy was $21.7 million in 2004. Morgan Stanley spent over $10.5 million with the Wall Street Journal alone in the same period. For the WSJ to run a piece critical of these gagging policies would mean kissing goodbye to a sizeable chunk of the advertising revenue that is their lifeblood.
Where's Arthur Wellesley when we need him?
UPDATE: Read the new AdAge editorial - "Shame on BP and Morgan Stanley Ad Pull Policies" Key quote: "...shame on all those who stand by quietly as editorial integrity is eroded."
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Signs & Portents
May 19, 2005
Posted by Michael O'Connor Clarke
A Reuters report in this morning’s Globe and Mail describes changes introduced by Morgan Stanley and their ad agency into the contracts they’re proposing to use in booking print advertising.
“Under the policy, Morgan Stanley wants publishers to tell it about any objectionable stories that will be run in their newspaper or magazine,” according to Reuters’ sources.
The clear implication is that the mighty Morgan Stanley is threatening to pull lucrative advertising from any publications running stories critical of the firm.
The Reuters piece points to coverage of the new contracts on AdAge.com, including this genuinely disturbing clause:
“In the event that objectionable editorial coverage is planned, agency must be notified as a last-minute change may be necessary. If an issue arises after-hours or a call cannot be made, immediately cancel all Morgan Stanley ads for a minimum of 48 hours.”
The request has apparently been made to a number of prominent news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
As leading business newspapers, it would be very difficult for these guys not to write about Morgan Stanley, especially during the company’s ongoing battle with disgruntled former execs and shareholders.
It might be tempting to simply deny the firm the oxygen of “earned media”, but that would be almost impossible for a paper such as the WSJ to contemplate – how can the leading business newspaper in the States possibly avoid writing about Morgan Stanley, whether its good news or bad?
At the same time, any editorial board with an ounce of integrity must surely object to this kind of extortionate shake down.
Whether they intended to or not, it looks like Morgan Stanley have just introduced a clear test of editorial probity. Any newspaper that accepts paid advertising on these terms is displaying, at best, questionable integrity, IMHO.
It might seem extreme, but I think the cleanest response would be to refuse to take Morgan Stanley’s ad dollars, and continue to run whatever stories the paper sees fit to run completely free of any coercive restraint.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Signs & Portents
November 11, 2004
Posted by Michael O'Connor Clarke
What fresh hell is this?
A news release hit the wires today from Dublin-based Research and Markets . Here’s a tiny sample:
"Companies Need to Raise Employee Awareness Regarding Blogging and Associated Threats … Blogging is rapidly emerging as a threat to Internet users."
I’ve been shaking my head ever since I read this ham-fisted, inflammatory piece of fear-mongering, but I still can’t quell the shrill noise in my ears. It’s the chilling bleat of innocent young clues being slaughtered in a mahogany-panelled boardroom somewhere to the south...
...continue reading.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Frank Exchange of Clues | Signs & Portents
Michael O'Connor Clarke is proud to be a card-carrying flack. Currently based in Toronto, Michael has spent almost 20 years in corporate communications and marketing roles. He started blogging at almost the same time as he first moved into PR - over five years ago. Now he's trying to figure out how to combine these two areas of expertise for the benefit of clue-seeking clients. In his time, Michael has pitched people, products, processes and pop-tarts, but he has a congenital inability to peddle fluff.
