The Flack

SF-based private equity firm Hellman and Friedman snapped up Getty Images this week to the tune of $2.4 billion. This is after Getty spent years shuttering every independent photo agency in its sights.

The Hellman and Friedman folks are a pretty shrewd bunch. I witnessed this first-hand when they privatized my former agency, then flipped it for a big time profit. But will their investment in Getty prove as fortuitous?

Back in the day, the photo agency business flourished as magazines everywhere introduced or expanded their picture pages to peek into the lives of the glitterati. Names likes of Retna, SIPA, Gamma Liaison, Camera 5, Sigma, LGI, DMI and Black Star competed to sell domestically and/or syndicate internationally their professionally-captured images.

As gatekeepers to the photographers' prey, PR types often were charged with determining which shooters had legitimate assignments, which had potential "ins" with respectable books, and which were the freeloaders (hint: those first to the shrimp bowl).

Getty Images and its chief rival Corbis went on a buying spree, leaving in their wake few independents with tripods to stand on. For a time the two leaders, and a brash newcomer, Wire Image, struggled just to keep up with the glossies' (and their readers') insatiable thirst for celebritydom. (Wire Image ultimately succumbed to Getty's advances.)

Enter the amateur. Enter the crowd. Enter the camera phone.

You Tube proved that even the most amateur of amateur video can find an audience. But unlike YouTube for which content is acquired freely, the People, US, and Hello magazines of the world, along with the multitude of celebrity blogs and websites, actually compensated purveyors for their images.

Hence today, a new breed of independent agencies has risen to corral the camera crowd. With names like X17, BuzzFoto, Scoopt (owned by Getty), Mr. Paparazzi and others, all induce amateurs to provide their images and split the fees earned from the myriad online and offline media outlets fueling the market.

From "The Rise of the Citizen Paparazzi" in The Wall Street Journal this week:

"Photo agencies such as Buzz Foto LLC, Scoopt (acquired last year by Getty Images Inc.) and Mr. Paparazzi are among those that increasingly encourage amateurs and young photographers to send in their findings. For Brad Elterman, Buzz Foto's co-founder, the most successful contributors are people who find themselves in the right place at the right time, such as a guest who is staying in the same Maui hotel as Nicole Richie. "They can break the story before anybody else," he said. "That is the future, without a doubt."

So what attracted Hellman Friedman to Getty Images: the quality output from the agency's stable of professional lensers, or the world's unabated appetite for celebrity pics, no matter the source? I suspect both.

As for PR people, we're still responsible for separating the wheat from the chafe. It's just harder to do nowadays when anyone can reasonably represent him or herself as a bona fide photo-journalist.

"Increasingly, nonprofessionals are positioning themselves alongside press photographers, said Brian Ach, a full-time freelancer for celebrity-photo agency WireImage, which is also owned by Getty. "It becomes difficult when there are marked spots for traditional agencies at an event, and somebody with a little point-and-shoot shows up and says, 'Well, I'm with so-and-so Web site," he said. "It happens at every single event."

Labels: Amy Winehouse, celebrity PR, Corbis, Getty Images, Hellman and Friedman, Photojournalism, PR, public relations, Scoopt, X17

As a credentialed blogger intending to cover last month's Always On Conference in New York City (before client work took me out of town), I noticed that my e-mailbox rapidly filled with all sorts of inducements to meet with this or that tech entrepreneur.

Few indicated any modicum of familiarity with the editorial essence of this space. Nonetheless, I empathetically responded to all. (I know. I'm an idiot.)

One particular pitch really got my Danderson up. It arrived via two emails containing separate unsolicited news releases over successive days. The first concerned the pairing of two no-name digital advertising entities, while the second trumpeted the appointments of a new CFO and COO at one of the firms.

Big whoop! It was so off The Flack's mark that I didn't dignify the email with my usual civil, but unrequited response.

Then that fateful call arrived. The boss from the offending PR firm in LaLa land tasked some really junior young woman "to follow up" on the release to which his name was attached. When it was clear that the caller hadn't a clue whom she was calling, what my blog covered, the name of the blog, the essence of her own news release or what she expected me to do with it, I was very tempted to call her boss and give him a piece of my PR mind. I refrained.

All I could think was that journalist outreach continues to be pushed to the junior ranks, and that misguided smiling and dialing is alive and well. God help us all.

I was thus encouraged to see The Council of PR Firms and PRSA's Counselors Academy, two organizations that I hold in high esteem, this week unveil an updated web-based attempt to address the issue of the lack of mentoring in the junior ranks at way too many PR firms.

"PR Quick Start is a great resource for those promising candidates who are looking to transition into public relations from other professions, as well as help the new talent acclimate quickly," said Kathy Cripps, president of the Council of Public Relations Firms. "Individuals who use PR QuickStart before applying for a job at a public relations firm will be more informed about the skills and competencies required there."

On the flip side of the misguided query problem, I wonder why the news announcing the online learning venture never found its way into my e-mailbox. I stumbled on it quite by accident.

Labels: Bad Pitch, Council of PR Firms, Counselors Academy, media relations, PR, PR Quick Start, PRSA

A firm for which I once toiled had a policy that discouraged its professionals from commenting in the media on the public relations quagmires of others.

I think it stemmed from an incident in which one of our Asian colleagues publicly skewered the PR strategy for a very high profile crisis. One problem: it was our firm that handled the crisis. Ouch.

In reality, the primary reason for the institutional gag order stemmed from the notion that as outside observers, we are not privy to all of the facts informing the beleaguered company's decisions. Hence we would only be second guessing at best.

Be that as it may, I now have my own firm wherein I have a different policy -- one that permits me to join the legions of Monday Morning Quarterbacks, or in this case, Wednesday Morning Quarterbacks to second-guess my PR colleagues in the field.

So let's talk Hillary. I'm afraid that this may be the last post on the would-be first female President's misguided efforts to wrestle the Democratic nomination from a certain Senator from Illinois. It was do or die last night, but for some inexplicable reason, the Clinton campaign thought that a full front attack on the likable and confident Sen. Obama was the ticket. It most certainly wasn't.

Mrs. Clinton's highly paid consiglieres should have advised her to transcend the in-party in-fighting and instead, aim her arrows squarely at the disastrous seven years America has endured under this corrupt administration, as well as at the presumed pasty-faced Republican candidate promising more of the same. Senator Obama was not, nor should ever have been considered the enemy.

Mrs. Clinton might have ignored Sen. Obama, or better, recognized his immense talent (like he did hers). She blew her chance to woo an electorate desperate to rally behind a candidate with the temerity to rid itself of those who've brought America to the brink. There is certainly enough material with which to work, e.g., domestic pocket book issues, Republican corruption, the War, global instability, the environment, America's sullied reputation. The list is endless.

The most seasoned PR practitioners have one common trait: acutely developed instincts that inform their strategic recommendations. Whomever advised Mrs. Clinton to throw the "kitchen sink" at Barack Obama and not George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be fired for malpractice, with all fees withheld...but that's just my arm's-length opinion.

Labels: Barack Obama, crisis management, democratic Debates, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, politics, PR, public relations, Republican

I'm sure the PR team at the U.S. Department of Defense would have preferred that its plan to manage the media's portrayal of its "engagement" of that rogue satellite remained out of the public eye.

It didn't, and the folks at Wired's "Danger Room" blog pounced on it with a post titled "Operation Rogue Satellite: The PR Plan:"

In addition to a suggested Q&A...

"The plan also lays out, specifically, which audiences the various arms of the government should be trying to sway. The State Department will chat with foreign governments and "potential country (countries) of impact." The Defense Department's public affairs shop will reach out to the media. And it will target the "Echo Chamber" and "Opinion Influencers" by "Conduct[ing a] Conf[erence] Call for Military Analysts.""

It's a reminder that we still very much operate in an age where message "command and control" prevails at most enterprises. Managing the message remains a popular and lucrative sport, and for most, it works...at least until, some enterprising citizen journalist gets an inkling.

Aren't you amazed by journalists' giddy fascination with even the most basic PR plan?

Labels: Department of Defense, media relations, missile, PR, Spy satellite, transparency

Near the end of "Michael Clayton," the lawyer played by George Clooney approached his boss played by Sydney Pollack with a document that would cast a long-time client in a most egregious and indefensible light. Pollack turned to Clooney and matter-of-factly quipped that he knew this client had problems from day one, but the law firm has billed $10 million in fees to date and "isn't this what we do?"

The client lists of every major PR firm invariably contain a few eyebrow-raising entries. Imagine repping the Catholic church on the abortion issue, the post-9/11 Saudi government, big tobacco, big oil...Britney Spears? The more civilized of these firms have policies exempting an employee from working on a piece of business to which he or she has a personal or ethical conflict.

Even so, the prospect of reaping large PR fees almost always trumps any societal or ideological consideration. (They all can't be Fenton.) Many large firms have even figured out how to extract fees from both sides of an issue through the establishment of internal firewalls and wholly-owned "conflict" agencies. And all have on staff senior professionals from both sides of the political aisle because...you never know.

I was nevertheless surprised last week to see my former firm caught in this seemingly paradoxical scenario. During more than a decade with Burson-Marsteller, I often was reminded of the firm's policy forbidding the representation of politicians. Political issues, sure, but no political candidates, even though many of the firm's employees once worked in the Beltway or local state houses. If one wished to work on a campaign, they did so on their own time or took a leave of absence.

That all apparently changed with the anointment of political pollster Mark Penn as B-M CEO. Penn doubles as the Clinton campaign's chief strategist (in case you just returned from a year on the space station). This particular assignment reportedly has earned the firm (Penn Schoen Berlind or B-M?) some $10 million in fees thus far. OK No biggie. Times change.

Yet, who was it that recently emerged to officially defend Senator John McCain against allegations of infidelity (or at minimum, impropriety)? It was none other than Charlie Black, the "B" in BKSH, Burson-Marsteller's public affairs subsidiary.

Huh? Could Burson-Marsteller be repping both Sens. Clinton and McCain? I wonder what the McCain campaign is paying the agency headed by the Clinton campaign's chief strategist?

Labels: Burson-Marsteller, Charlie Black, George Clooney, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mark Penn, political PR, public relations, Sydney Pollack

I'm on family holiday this week during which time I expect to be untethered from the digital ecosystem (in spite of the image above). I hope to return refreshed and sufficiently reinvigorated to tackle Flatiron's growing number of client assignments, let alone this blog.

Also, looking forward to the Feb. 27 Publicity Club of New York luncheon on the New York TV news/talk scene. Be back to you in a week...or thereabouts.

Labels: blog, Publicity Club of New York, untethered, Vacation, work-life balance

In his post today, PR Newser's Joe Ciarallo called out the PR blogosphere in an attempt to draw it into the imbroglio between Gawker and Edelman over something the snark blog's newest reporter (direct from PR Week) Hamilton Nolan (pictured), posted this week.

The offending post was precipitated by an unnamed marketing executive, and regurgitated by a young journalist with a definite preconceived impression of the world's largest independent PR firm. In it, Mr. Nolan alleges that an Edelman media trainer encouraged a client to lie as a communications tactic.

Having spent a bit of time at that agency where I personally ran a training session or two, I have to agree with Edelman outside trainer Steve Dunlop who assiduously stood by the agency in his comments in the PR Newser post. In fact, I believe that if the agency's powers-that-be learned of such an ethical transgression, the violator would have been tossed into the traffic in Times Square.

Now here's the sticky part. A site like Gawker, while admittedly a fun read, is one whose DNA will never diverge from its deep disdain for the PR biz. (Thanks Ronn!) On the other side of the contentious coin, we have an agency that leads all others in advocating for the art of the digital conversation, a part of which entails something called "blogger engagement."

Practicing what he and his firm preaches, Richard Edelman immediately shot off an angry missive protesting this heinous allegation. To its credit, Gawker printed Richard's retort in its entirety. End of story? Fire extinguished in one heartfelt post, right? Not exactly.

Gawker, as embodied by an emboldened Mr. Nolan, responded with a raucous anti-Edelman rant that prompted a couple of fledgling journalist friends to queasily suggest that young Mr. Nolan may never work in this town again. He certainly will never work at PR Week again.

As I think about it, his bosses at Gawker probably gave Mr. Nolan a badge of honor for upholding the site's snarky disposition. In fact, how many kudos did Chris Anderson receive following his attack on the PR industry? Richard, this one's ripe for blogger disengagement.

Labels: chris anderson, Gawker, Hamilton Nolan, media training, PR, PR Week, public relations, Richard Edelman, Wired

I did get a chance to swing by the SAP offices in the West Village yesterday afternoon to hear from the likes of Cluetrain co-author Doc Searls, former Lego man Jake McKee, Forrester's Josh Bernoff, and Technorati and Conversation Group's (the event sponsor) Peter Hirschberg.

Each had his own take on how far we've come on the 10th anniversary of the publication of Searls' seminal book The Cluetrain Manifesto, which Searls says is still ranked around 5000 on Amazon, and sells well in multiple languages around the globe. The Cluetrain name, btw, was conceived "in about 45 seconds," and the domain, "purchased for about $75."

Searls, along with one of his three co-authors Dave Weinberger (whom I met about a year ago), is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. He gave the audience of roughly 40 wonks and wonk wannabes, (e.g., me), an overview of how his book came to be written including photos of his youthful co-authors, then and (a not-so-youthful) now. He also displayed a sequence of Wired magazine cover stories from around the turn of the millennium. One hailed "Push," which Searls cited as just another example of a dot-com fallacy.

He took us to his profile page on Facebook, which happened to feature a come-on ad showing a lithesome young "over 30" woman. Searls quipped that he wasn't sure what "over 30" meant, but sardonically noted that "Facebook is still about selling eyeballs to advertisers...welcome to 1997...it's still the same crap."

When asked by Tim O'Reilly, of whom Searls is a big fan, for a book quote on the O'Reilly-coined phrase, Web 2.0, Searls quipped: "It's what we'll call the next crash." (His quote wasn't selected.) As for Twitter, he said " twitter is an experiment...not an end state for anything, but a good example of the live web."

The Facebook dig, of course, reinforced his notion that no matter how far we've come, even the most talked about social network remains stuck on capturing as many eyeballs as possible, and the ad revenue associated with it. Haven't we learned anything?

Searls then shifted to his real passion: the predicted paradigm shift in power from the marketer to the market. He wondered why we are required to sign a 10,000-word small-print legal agreement with Verizon that allows the mobile carrier to cancel our contract on a whim for any reason whatsoever. And why is it necessary to sign a contract to access the free wireless service while we're holed up for 40 minutes in some airport's waiting area?

When will we see the day when consumers wrest control from the target marketer? Why should transactions be restricted to "siloed" communities like eBay? What if anyone looking for a four-door mid-sized rental car just put the request out there, and sat back waiting for the "live Web" to surface real-time bids for his or her business? Shouldn't the consumer always have the upper hand?

Searls has a name for this: VRM or "vendor relationship management" as opposed to CRM or "customer relationship management. " In fact, among other things, he heads Project VRM at Berkman.

Of course, this dolt raised his hand to suggest that the technological divide in this country -- between the silicon alleys and valleys and everyone else - would prevent this Utopian vision from becoming a reality. He looked at me, clearly unhappy with my choice of adjectives, and reminded me how many people now belong to Facebook, or how texting and IMs were just dreams a few years ago.

It may take more time, he admitted, but it will happen. You know what? I had to concur.

More on yesterday's gathering promised here. Watch the video here.

Labels: Berkman Center, Cluetrain Manifesto, Doc Searls, Harvard Law School, Jake McKee, Josh Bernoff, Peter Hirschberg, Project VRM, social media, vendor relationship management, Web 2.0

It seemed like the right thing to do. A Hollywood publicist named Michael Sands resigned the PR chores for Kevin Federline (pictured) and his lawyer Mark Vincent Kaplan because the two have gone too far in the custody battle. From Hollywood Scoop:

He explains, "'This is overkill, it made my stomach turn. Every time we had to go into court, yes we have to protect the kids. But every mother, healthy or unhealthy should see their kids... You can't blame someone for mental illness.'"

Sounds reasonable. A veritable Hollywood flack with a conscience...or so it seems. Yet, separately, TMZ reports:

"TMZ just spoke to Sam Lutfi's new publicist (and former Mark Vincent Kaplan media consultant), Michael Sands, and it looks like Sands is a big fan of making little sense."

So let me try to understand this. Between repping Federline or Lutfi, Mr. Sands opted for the Spears Svengali, the man accused by Britney's trailer park parents of drugging their prodigal daughter.

In his first line of defense of Mr. Lutfi (watch the video), Sands claimed:

"...that all drugs Sam fed to Brit were 'prescription medication cocktails,' and that Lutfi's main goal is to 'save Britney Spears' life.'"

It's messy business, but some specialized spectrum of the PR industry has to do it. Just glad it's not me.

Labels: Britney Spears, Hollywood, Kevin Federline, Michael Sands, PR, publicist, Sam Lutfi

Dave Fleet posted an item last week that took PR Web to task for allegedly "taking the social out" of the social media news release (SMR).

Apparently, PR Web has changed the submission parameters, something Dave learned after his SMR was kicked back with the following explanation:

"Please review the following editorial explanation describing why your press release was put on editorial hold:

PRWeb no longer distributes news releases with an excessive amount of links. Please limit your link count to 1 per 100 words. This policy is in place to protect the value of the links that you include in your release and the value of links within the PRWeb network.

The reviewing editor has also made these additional comments:

Your release also lacks an introductory paragraph in the body text that clearly outlines your news. Please insert one. Thanks!"

Separately, who hasn't received the breathless email exhortations from Marketwire for its new SMR product?

"Dear Peter: I thought you’d be interested in a significant announcement today from Marketwire today -- the introduction of Social Media 2.0, the industry’s most comprehensive social media newswire product."

Or

"Social Media is Driving a News Evolution. Has Your News Evolved?"

Now Todd Defren and the gang at Shift (who got us into this mess in the first place) have produced a handy chart (pictured above) comparing the SMR offerings from a selection of the paid wire services.

And, as expected from the wikified PR blogging echo chamber, Brian Solis weighs in on the subject with his "definitive," if not expansive post in which, among other things, he poses (then answers) the following questions:

1. Should we include sentences or is it supposed to be bullets?

2. Are we designing SMRs for “the wire” or the “web?”

3. Are SMRs created for journalists and bloggers and is it what they want?

4. Do SMRs need to spark and host conversations?

5. Can they, and should they, bypass influencers to reach people directly?

It's nice to see someone take the time to elucidate on this still evolving art/science. Kudos to Brian, and Todd/Chris, for keeping the SMR flame burning brightly.

Labels: Marketwire, paid wire services, PR, PR Web, SHIFT Communications, SMNR, SMR, social media news release

My blogging buddy Robb Hecht invited me to join (yet another) burgeoning online community (created via Ning). This one is called Brandhackers, which describes itself as:

"...a user-generated branding media 2.0 group. we're brandhackers - discussing amongst our community how consumers are gaining more and more inclusion in the corporate branding process via social media marketing and Web 2.0."

In the registration process, I was asked about my favorite brands (and why). I listed three:

SONY (Bravia) - It has something to do with bouncing balls.

APPLE - Need I say more?

APPLEBEES - Hate the food, love Wanda Sykes ("Get it Together, Baby!")

As fate has it, my ever plugged-in friend and PR colleague Lisa K. pointed me to a post on Gawker today, which outed Applebee's publicity firm for a scheme to entice political reporters to an Applebees in Times Square. From Gawker:

"Sadly, this is an actual idea that a professional at Rubenstein PR was paid money to come up with."

The pitch started out his way:

"I hope you are well. I wanted to see if you would have any interest in setting up camp this week or in the next few weeks at Applebee's in Times Square so you can interview "true Americans" about the election, candidates, etc."

Any pitch that starts out with "I hope you are well" is destined for the trash folder or reporter ridicule. Still, to its credit, the agency did succeed in enticing Gawker and Politico to write about the ruse. (Though it's unclear whether the client will see it that way.)

Labels: Apple, Applebees, brandhackers, food PR, Gawker, politico, PR, public relations, SONY Bravia, Steve Jobs, wanda sykes

Few will argue with the wrenching transformation of news delivery and consumption in the digital age. A front page "Business" section story in today's New York Times dissects how some newspapers are faring. (Hint: not good.)

I thought I'd share a few noteworthy items on the subject that crossed my desktop in recent days:

Google Local News -- We all know that Google has the ability to keep tabs on the editorial channel. I mean how many PR pros use Google News Alerts as the sole means of monitoring for their clients' news? Yesterday, the search engine (and advertising) monopoly one-upped itself by introducing a better mousetrap for crawling local news sources:

"Today we're releasing a new feature to find your local news by simply typing in a city name or zip code. While we’re not the first news site to aggregate local news, we’re doing it a bit differently -- we're able to create a local section for any city, state or country in the world and include thousands of sources. We’re not simply looking at the byline or the source, but instead we analyze every word in every story to understand what location the news is about and where the source is located."

Also yesterday, Poynter pointed to the TV news fantasy site for those who crave immediacy. Fox News Chicago has launched LiveNewsCameras, which aggregates on one web page live TV shots from around the globe.

"A group of us here at Fox News Chicago had a big idea -- to let you see news the way we see it. Every day hundreds of live events take place around the world, and while you only see a few of them on our newscast, many are available to watch live on the Internet as they are happening... The idea behind this page is simple -- to bring together the resources of Fox and other broadcasters around the world, and make it easy to find live streaming video to watch on your computer. As of today, there are more than 50 channels of live streaming video for you to watch on this page -- that number will certainly grow over time."

And finally, what if there was an eBay for news? Annenberg's Online Journalism Review tells us about just such a site, created by a graduating journalism student from UCal, Berkeley and a former Amazon engineer. It's called Reporterist:

"...a place where journalists could pitch stories as soon as they hit 'save.' Where editors could snap them up just as quickly for printing in tomorrow's paper. Imagine a reporting network built on trust, where both editors and journalists could accrete bodies of work tagged with endorsements and feedback. Is an eBay of news viable? And ultimately, will it deliver news to readers more quickly and more cheaply?"

Could this be ProfNet in reverse? Instead of assigned journalists crowdsourcing for experts, editorial gatekeepers can now tap the wisdom of the (freelance) crowd for fresh content. To the question about an auction model:

Bhanoo: No, there's no bidding system built in. The intention is not to turn it into an eBay. It doesn't make sense to have an auction model, because publications tend to pay at a fixed rate."

The Q&A with the founders can be found here.

Labels: Google, journalism, media, media 2.0, news, newspapers, PR

For many of the digital cognoscenti, blogging is so passé. What with Twitter, Seesmic, Qik and countless other tools that tout and tweet, who has time for that once-heralded, longer-form RSS-enabled conjecture? It's just so outré.

But for the rest of America, e.g., those outside of Silicon's valleys and alleys, the weblog remains very much the next big thing. Word today has famed, feared and the fabulously financed financier Carl Icahn (at right) poised to start blogging.

"I may do something to finally focus on more than making money," said Mr. Icahn.

He's got that right! Today's WS Journal says:

"For now, the site -- Icahnreport.com -- just shows a picture of Mr. Icahn sitting on a desk along with the promise 'Blog Coming Soon.'"

My friend in the (bloodied) Beantown John Cass is keeping tabs on the Fortune 500 blogging set with a wiki that allows one to review the citizen corporate speak (as opposed to "corporate citizen" speak). He estimates that some 10 percent of the Fortune 500 companies now have blogs. Active? I don't know. But blogs, yes.

And finally, as if the sustenance of the blogosphere weren't enough, what are the best ways for companies to keep their fingers on the pulse of all the other social media on which their reputations often hinge? A new study from Aberdeen Group and my friends/collaborators at Converseon tackles this vital question for PR and marketing pros at a time when the online conversation's influence over offline behavior is on the rise.

Labels: aberdeen group, blogging, blogosphere, Carl Icahn, conversation mining, Converseon, Fortune 500, monitoring, PR, social media

Control. What a concept! As the media splinters at an alarming rate, alarms sound among Hollywood's PR set over their commensurate loss of control. The phenomenon has thus far eluded the big MSM entertainment outlets like People and US, ET and Access where command and control remains an art...akin to blackmail.

It's those pesky, journalistically challenged blogs that give Publicists Guild members heart palpitations:

"It's very difficult to keep up to the moment with any of these new platforms," says Henri Bollinger, who joined the Publicists Guild in 1957 and is awards chairman of the 45th annual ICG Publicists Awards, to be held today at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. "I make use of the Internet constantly, but it's always ahead of me. And it's redefining the way we do public relations and marketing for movies and television."

Good for you, Henry! You joined the Guild a half-century ago, and today find yourself going at it with the virtual media crowd.

One tradition that hasn't changed since 1964: the annual Publicist Guild Awards, which took place yesterday at the Beverly Hilton. I suppose we're so cloistered on this coast with the Big Apple, PR News, Silver Anvil and PR Week awards, that we've lost sight of Hollywood's homage to the segment of our industry that has done the most to earn the name of this blog.

Yet Henry's lament about the changed media landscape, e.g.,"I keep on adding outlets to my list, and a lot of them are Web-only...everyone is desperately trying to adapt, and those who are not are left behind," pales when one considers the changed PR landscape beyond blogger relations.

We're talking social media news releases that bare little resemblance to Hollywood's usual press fare; Twitter campaigns as the seeds of media intrigue; Real time video posted for ubiquitous access; Content development and magnetization for Googlers' discovery; Custom widgets to drive traffic and stickiness; A presence in, or creation of online communities; Video hosting sites appealing to every demographic and special interest; Mining of the online conversation to head off a sticky wicket...

Henry, don't feel disintermediated just yet. These new tools, and countless others, continue to confound the majority of (y)our colleagues throughout the industry.

Labels: communities, Digital Video, Hollywood, PR, PR 2.0, public relations, Publicists Guild of America, SEM, SEO, social media, widgets

A few weeks back, I started to draft a post that in effect anointed Wired as the media property that has done the most to fulfill the unfulfilled promise left by the Industry Standard following the dot-com (and The Standard's subsequent) meltdown.

Wired, the magazine, website, and branded PBS science program, has its editorial fingers firmly on the pulse of what "being digital" means in this day and age (even with its editor's low tolerance for sub-standard PR people). Moreover, the magazine has shown healthy annual ad revenue and ad page growth (12.1% and 2.6%, respectively) at a time when magazines -- especially the business books -- are struggling with these ever-important indices.

In fact, I think Wired's sibling pub Portfolio has finally hit its stride following more than its fair share of high-profile bumps. It may soon redefine the business magazine category -- online and off -- and silence the naysayers in the process.

The point of today' post, however, is not to sing the praises of Conde Nast, but rather to point to an item in yet another next-gen media property, also loosely inspired by the editorially innovations of the Industry Standard.

PaidContent's David Kaplan today posted an interview with IDG Communications' CEO Bob Carrigan who spilled the beans: IDG resurrects The Industry Standard, but this time as online-only outlet with a community 2.0 twist. Talking Biz News speculated about it last September. From Carrigan:

“We had an inspired group within our company [that really wanted to bring the brand] back. We get a lot of natural traffic against it and The Standard is still one of the most storied brands in the history of the internet… We certainly didn’t want to do what was done in the past. When I used to read The Standard in print, [it was] like you were part of the internet community. Today, you can be part of a live community, with all the tools we’re talking about. We’re going to be leveraging Web 2.0 community tools to be able to harness the idea of the users - and the users will be an amalgam of media, content, venture capitalists, all the people that are traditionally attracted to that brand. And they will make predictions about key areas in the internet economy: ‘Will MySpace be bigger than Facebook?’ or ‘Will Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) sell X amount of iPods?’”

At a time when the notion of "we are smarter than me" is gaining traction across all aspects of our virtual lives, it makes perfect sense to deploy "web 2.0 community tools" to re-invent the publication...a la Digg or Amie Street. Or as Derek Butcher calls it on the site: "The Launch of a New Standard." So far nothing on the resurrection from former Standard-bearer (founder and editor) John Battelle.

Labels: Community, Conde Nast, IDG, Industry Standard, John Battelle, media, PaidContent, Portfolio, publishing, We are smarter than me, Web 2.0, Wired

Maybe it's the cold rainy weather that has enveloped New York today, but I'm feelin' a little glum in spite of the expected Giant-induced season-spoiler for the Pats. And then there was this little Jossip item citing my old employer for its tasteless taco trick.

Apparently some folks at Taco Bell's agency Cohn and Wolfe thought it would be a good idea to leverage (God, I hate that word!) in the media the travails of the Writer's Guild of America. In an ignoble gesture, they offered, via news release, WGA's out-of-work members:

“...a chance to win free Taco Bell food by injecting fun and fresh bits of wisdom into the restaurant chain’s iconic Border Sauce packets.”

Huh?

"Members of the Writers Guild of America can win a year supply of Taco Bell, valued at $260."

Just what they need, I'm sure. I wonder how many will jump on the offer? Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with PR pros piggy-backing on a piece of pop news. After all, how many jumped on the Paris goes to jail bandwagon?

I'll always remember, while at Cohn and Wolfe in fact, dressing up a junior colleague as a stick of Rolaids, i.e., the Rolaids Relief man. We sent him to a midtown hotel where scores of TV crews and print reporters had camped out awaiting word on the Major League Baseball strike talks. As he entered, it was like Moses parting the Red Sea.

Since we're talking baseball, didn't the producer of Fox's voyeuristic new TV show "The Moment of Truth" invite on the show the beleaguered (and soon to be more beleaguered) Roger Clemens for a nationally telecast lie detector test? No reply from the Clemens camp.

Again, I think it's cool, smart and nimble to tie your star to a current newsmaker. In fact, putting on my SEM hat, why not opportunistically buy a couple of keywords-in-the-news to drive Googlers to your site? Just be careful not to exploit anyone too bad for the quick media hit, Paris Hilton not included.

GO GIANTS.

Labels: Cohn and Wolfe, Major League Baseball, media strategy, New York Giants, PR, Roger Clemens, Rolaids, Super Bowl, Taco Bell, The Moment of Truth