Ask Amandicle

This post will be a bit of a foray into the television sector, and I know this is usually dedicated to magazine publishing, but I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to talk about this on the blog. I am the newest fanatic that can be added to the list of those already obsessed with The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report. I have been watching like a fiend for the past few days, and I was struck by something I found quite strange in an episode The Daily Show earlier this week. Guest correspondent, Lewis Black, did a segment on the many ways in which children’s networks like Nickelodeon and PBS are trying to reach kids with messages about preserving the planet — especially during Earth Week. Sounds fine so far — but here’s the weird part — he didn’t just discuss how these networks are helping kids go green, actually HE LAMBASTED THEM for their ridiculous, poorly targeted, and pathetic attempts.

Here’s a link to another blog that has the video of the segment: Lewis Black Goes Green

SO here’s what’s tickling me the wrong way here, and what I’d like to ask Cheryl Family: If Comedy Central is part of the MTV Networks then why in the world are they so outrightly attacking shows on other stations in their network? If you’re not following so far — Nickelodeon is attacked for its poor Earth Day programming, and it is also owned by MTV Networks. Also interesting was Black’s use of a clip from an episode of MTV Cribs, also clearly a show that is under the MTV Networks. So who sanctioned The Daily Show to make such comments against other stations under the same umbrellas? Seems strange and poor cross-promotion to me. Now — of course I don’t think that it’s going to make that big a deal — the audience for SpongeBob and other Nickelodeon shows probably doesn’t cross over with The Daily Show too much, but I was still pretty surprised by this. What do you think?

I found the Center for Communication event on the changing face of crisis communications to be quite interesting, especially since I am currently doing a research project on the many uses of Twitter, and most of the panel spent 75% of their time speaking about how they use Twitter. So it was informative and productive for me. The discussion began with Peter Himler, the Principal/Founder of Flatiron Communications asking each of the panel members about their definition of crisis before and after the explosion of social media applications like Facebook and Twitter. He noted that previously the public relations profession usually only made news during times of crisis, when its function was under intense scrutiny. However, due to the influx of social media applications the face of PR is changing, and thus the PR function is being re-evaluated in the media. He noted that in times of crisis, it is no longer enough to mitigate the situation through one media outlet, and that diverse audiences must be reached through diverse media outlets.

Catherine Mathis, the SVP of Corporate Communications at the New York Times Company, said that there are four elements that make up a crisis. It is sudden, it demands attention, it is often unexpected even if you’ve spent time preemptively planning for a crisis, and it has a negative effect on your corporate reputation. D’Arcy Rudnay, the SVP of Corporate Communications at Comcast Corporation, said that she traditionally saw a crisis in terms of its financial impact, but today she sees crises in a consumer-oriented fashion. She has embraced the function of social media applications, and noted that she no longer hires anyone unless they have personal experience with blogging. While she sees these social media applications as viable, she was quick to point out that whereas traditionally you could call a reporter and say: “Here’s what happened but you can’t quote me,” now much of the information circulating in the media spawns from a direct quote that public relations professionals post directly on the web.

Marcia Horowitz, the Senior Executive Vice President at Rubenstein Associates, started off by letting the audience know what her typical morning before 10 AM looks like – which apparently is bouncing back and forth between a high-profile divorce, a CEO having an affair, and a disgruntled employee who claims they were fired because of their age, sex or race. She then said that while sites like Gawker, TMZ and the Smoking Gun contribute to the speed at which a crisis is picked up in the media, they also make it easier for a crisis to pass without significant distress. She said that crises come and go faster because the social media is always looking for the next thing to feed to their readers. However, while these crises can come and go, they can also spiral out of control as sharing of information has become easier than ever. A story on one blog can reach several others within minutes, and as we all know from the childhood game, Telephone, when facts are passed from one person to the next, it is easy for the truth to get lost.

Finally, James Donnelly, the SVP of Crisis Management at Ketchum New York, defined a crisis as when an event happens where the viability of the company is threatened and the company is thrown into a fishbowl of scrutiny. He said that in this sense, a crisis is the same as it was before social media flourished, but what social media has changed is the size of the fishbowl – it’s more like an aquarium now. He also noted that the three most important things to convey to the audience in a time of crisis is credibility, focus and imagination. After these initial statements, the event became a mix of one liners and anecdotes from each of the panel members. To make this easier to process I have organized the rest of this post by the four different speakers, and listed a few highlights from each of them.

Marcia Horowitz, Rubenstein Associates:

• “It’s not the right thing to say, it’s what you DO.” – speaking about when clients come in begging her to tell them exactly what to say. She stressed to the audience, as she does with her clients, that the tenet of “Actions speak louder than words” is often true in the case of PR.
• She said that social media sites can help preserve the truth, since if you post a statement on your own first on a company site and then direct the media there, they may still alter that statement in their own outlet, but at least there is still one place where the original statement is preserved in its unadulterated state.
• “If you have a cell phone in your pocket right now, then you’re a broadcaster.”

D’Arcy Rudnay, Comcast Corporation:

• “Tell the truth and tell it fast.” – this is a seven-word principle she came across at the outset of her career in PR that has stuck with her over the years, but she was quick to note that while this may sound nice, it is often very difficult to find out the truth in the first place
• She said that while she has embraced social media sites, there are still many millions of people who don’t know what social media is and couldn’t care less about it, so that while it can be beneficial to use these applications it is not yet possible to ignore the traditional media outlets
• Comcast is a special case where they had a customer service representative who began to use Twitter to better serve his customers who were experiencing difficulty with any of the Comcast services – his Twitter account took off, and now he often uses it to post updates about the company in general – his name is Frank Eliason and his Twitter name is comcastcares
• She said that with people like Frank, individuals who Tweet under their personal names on behalf of corporations help to create a face and a personality for a large conglomerate, however she pointed out her fear about what happens if that face leaves the company?
• She told the audience not to break down in time of crisis, or even to get flustered when negative comments on social media applications turn up. She said that negative comments are a part of engagement, and that it can be turned around.
• She said that one of the most important things to learn is when to do nothing. Blogs can be controversial and hateful places, so while companies should do all they can to turn negative perceptions into positive ones, sometimes it gets to the point where you have to decide to disagree and disengage.

James Donnelly, Ketchum New York:

• You have to have the right strategy before you choose the tactic, which often involves figuring out which audience is the most important to reach. Once you have chosen the audience, you can figure out which media outlets are the most appropriate for this form of communication.
• It is hard enough to be transparent as an individual, so how are corporations today held to such a high standard of transparency? He stressed that companies should aim for authenticity, and warned that true transparency is nearly impossible to achieve, and that’s because it is often against the best interest of the company and its employees to expose each and every bump in the road. Bumps in the road are a healthy and normal part of the business cycle, but not everything has to be exposed.
• He warns every client that wants to start a social media campaign that if you engage online once, you should be prepared to continue that conversation.

Catherine Mathis, The New York Times Company:

• I didn’t think most of what this woman said was very helpful but here’s one comment: Journalists use social media to make the news more of a dialogue rather than a “we’re telling you … “ situation
• I think that it’s great that journalists are trying to open up a dialogue with their readers, but if they spend so much time dedicated to social media, will the quality and type of journalism suffer? – that’s my own comment

I loved that I found this article because it answered the question I’ve been pondering since Domino went down the drain: “Why do successful publications fold?” Well — according to Jason Fell, and those he interviewed for his article, it’s because publishers are simply devaluing their content and rely far too much on ad revenue to stay afloat.

When publishers stopped focusing on circulation, and its potential to generate solid revenue, they shifted all the weight and responsiblity to advertisers. While this may have been great during a booming economy where the amount of titles proliferated and marketers were happy to splurge their bucks on all kinds of magazines, during a reccession when we know all about how advertisers are cutting back it’s leading to the magazine death toll we have been witnessing.

So what do they have to do to get back on track? Well some people are finding new ways to attract more advertisers, but I think this is simply straining to find a Band-Aid to put on the wound. Even with 3D ads, cross-platform tie-ins, cover ads, and smelly ads the fact is advertisers are just not shelling out the kind of cash they once did. Now the article said that the publishers have to stop devaluing their content by charging (literally) next to nothing for a subscription. I have noticed that now more than ever I am receiving all kinds of crazy subscription offers (e.g. Buy GQ and get Details for free!) and I know they are trying to hook people in with a good offer during a bad money time. However, I have to agree that they are devaluing the content. Publishers have to start trusting that consumers want their content enough to pay a reasonable price for it, and then they can start to rebalance the revenue equation.

I know, I know — who would expect for Playboy to make the move to clean up its content right now? If anything I would think that when people are down in the dumps they would want to see more and more naked, naughty women. But alas, the profit imperative is always lurking (or, in this case, beating down the door) and therefore Playboy is looking to the Web to solve some of its advertorial problems.

According to the Associate Publisher of Playboy Digital, John Lumpkin, the site will no longer be “peppered with girls” because the company just has to make it a more friendly environment for conservative advertisers. AKA the ones that pay the big bucks.

So here’s a bit of what’s happening:

• the launch of Playboy Forum – a culture and lifestyle news section
• segregation of “sexy photos” to the Girls section
• less emphasis on promoting The Club, which houses more racy content that can be accessed for a fee
• Advertisers will be offered more types of skins and preroll opportunities

So who are they trying to get on to put their ads on their site? Packaged goods, prestige grooming and fragrance and gaming companies — that’s who. So far, they’ve got Bridgestone Tire and Patron to show for it. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that a tire company and a tequila producer would have had too much trouble with edgy content in the first place?

So I finally found something about the current magazine industry that I really had no clue about before reading the article. I knew that Martha Stewart puts her name all over everything, and her magazine came after many of her home goods lines were already established. However, I had no idea that other magazines were participating in brand extensions that spread into the retail markets.

The news here is that Country Living Magazine has decided to launch a home goods line that will sell at Kmart and Sears beginning in August. Apparently the magazine already has expanded its brand to a point where its name is on specialty foods, furniture, books and home decor, and now with this new initiative it can add another 700 SKUs to that list. The new line will include bedding, bath, tabletop and furniture items.

The Country Living Collection will have prices as low at $3.99 (for candles) and will go no higher than $349 (for dining furniture), so they are clearly targeting the spending-savvy consumer of today’s recession.

The magazine is also rolling out a new look and feel under its new editor, who is emphasizing COMFORT. A new shopping section will offer discounts and other special offers that will be exclusive to its readers.

I had no idea other magazines were already doing this as well. Real Simple has a line they sell at Target, and Better Homes and Gardens has branded home goods sold at Wal-Mart as well.

So it’s been traditionally very hard for an individual or even a small group to break into the magazine publishing industry, since large printing companies charge an arm and a leg to print just a few hundred copies of a perfect bind mag. Custom publishing is changing all that and now Hewlett Packard is looking to make an even bigger splash with their new service, MagCloud.

The service will charge 20 cents a page to print, which will only be paid when a customer orders a true copy of the magazine. Since the service is aimed at  consumers who will most likely use it for personal projects, the Times is likening it to “vanity publishing’s equivelant of YouTube.”

Hewlett is looking to capitalize off this service by creating demand for its large digital printers and pricey ink cartridges. While it is not yet clear how popular this service will become, there have already been close to 300 publications made just in the testing phase, with topics ranging from Mormon art to food photography to the history of aerospace. Yet many worry that with blogging as accessible and as FREE as it is, why would people choose to pay to produce content, which they would also have to wait to receive from a printer?

Now the switch in the biz model here from traditional to digital printing is this. Traditionall technology relied on “replicating a single, fixed image in volume to achieve cost-effective scale.” On the other hand, with the new digital presses, a company “can print one copy of 10 magazines of 10 copies of one magazine for about the same price” because all it takes is press the “power” button.

This is the problem I encountered when thinking about this next idea. What I’m thinking about is having the Business of Media class using MagCloud next year to produce a weekly bound magazine to report on their industry instead of keeping blogs. Now of course that would cost some money, but I’m sure NYU could figure out a way to make it happen. But again, if they can make blos for free online, why start sheling out cash for print copies?

OK this I like — and it’s not nearly as gloomy. Although, the whole “our entire company is going to focus on going green for 30 days” idea just reminds me of global warming (which is of course what it is meant to do), but that is kind of gloomy. So here’s the story — morning glory: All 14 of the Hearst Publications titles are participating in a program this month, whereby all editorial content will have a “green” focus. For instance, in Cosmo we’re going to get tips about how to keep the bedroom green (i.e. natural lube and bamboo sheets).

This program, entitled “30 Days of Green,” is the latest take on Hearst’s latest cross-title advertising programs that focus on genre themes. Yet, previously the themes were carried out through special promotional advertisements, and ran in a limited number of the Hearst books.
So who’s sponsoring this whole thing? eBay! So the lovely little (hah!) auction site gets to have a big old gatefold advertising space that wraps each title’s green edition.
While this all sounds cool, it goes back to the fear that many are having in these tense economic time. With increased pressure to satisfy advertisers through special arrangements and programs, are clients taking over the content? According to a Hearst executive, each publication was given an extra two pages, with which they were prompted to fill with green content.

Sometimes when I write these  posts I find myself thinking “I wish something else would happen in the magazine industry other than pay cuts, job cuts, and other kinds of (for lack of a better word) crappy stuff.” Yet, that seems to be the newsworthy stuff here, so alas. I bring you the latest onslaught of cuts — this time at Forbes Media. Surprise, surprise — the company attributed their decision to eliminate jobs across tboard and cut a variety of financial benefits to the economic “contraction.”

This cuts included suspending its 401(k) match, slicing salaries of those who make over $100,000 and instituting a week-long furlough for ALL employees with NO pay.

This isn’t the first round of layoffs for Forbes Media — in fact its the 3rd in 5 months — and while the figure has not been confirmed, Mediaweek reported the most recent layoff at 70 employees. The previous layoffs were byproducts of the decision to combine the company’s print and online functions.