How To Tackle Information Overload

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily.

"Distringit librorum multitudo."

To be clear, the above is not gibberish -- nor did I decide in a fit of rage to start banging my keyboard, bookending that in quotes. Although, on second thought, sometimes the idea does come up for a vote -- especially around 5:30 a.m. when before I turn to my hubby I turn on my iPad and BlackBerry to see what’s in the news, on the blogs and the dozens of emails that have come in overnight. That’s the typical start of another day in PR agencyland.

The opener is actually a Latin quote from the Ancient Roman philosopher Seneca, who in the first century AD lamented that “the abundance of books is a distraction.”

Fast-forward 2,000 years -- and if Seneca were alive today, he’d likely dunk his head in the nearest aqueduct, overwhelmed by today’s digital information onslaught. Never mind the estimated 700,000 scrolls the Royal Library of Alexandria held -- the ancient world’s most important information repository. I can get three-quarters of a million hits on a single Google search on my BlackBerry while I’m reviewing and skimming texts on three other screens in my office, all at the same time.

But this isn’t a morning rant. Information overload -- and how it affects industries like PR -- is a very serious matter. It’s become so troublesome that tech industry writer Jonathan B. Spira, author of “Overload! How Too Much Information is Hazardous to your Organization,” estimates that info inundation and the productivity inefficiencies it generates cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion in 2010. $1 trillion. There is even an Information Overload Awareness Day to help us poor sufferers. Ironically, though, I didn’t get that email.

What spurred this article was a post I read on the Council of Public Relations Firms blog, which I had hoped would offer up some concrete advice. It wasn’t a bad post per se, nor was it poorly written. It’s just that the nine-paragraph “novella” was about five paragraphs too long.

The advice boiled down to: carving out time to have in-person meetings with colleagues rather than wasting digital ink over long emails and missed communications, setting aside “free thinking” time to allow yourself a chance to properly digest the words you’ve consumed, and skim and scan material rather than dig deep. You see? I summed up the entire article in 46 words. That’s a 96% reduction.

It may be hard for us in the PR industry to admit, and it’s probably just as much of a bitter pill for our clients, but so much of what we read (and write) can be said in far less space. And if it can be said in less physical or digital space, the information those words carry takes up less brain space too. That should leave all of us with more brain juice to do our jobs better and in less time.

Newspaper editors are fond of the expression “tight and bright” to describe copy. Barring The New York Times and few other heavy hitters, most news stories come in at 500-700 words. Still too long? No problem. The inverted pyramid style of writing that is popular in journalism front-loads the most important information, so that the five Ws are answered no later than the third or fourth paragraph. Usually.

Beyond more effective skimming and an industry commitment to churning out greater substance and less fluff, some measure of tuning out might be in order. Just because today’s technology allows endless publishing and limitless word counts doesn’t mean we must feel compelled to fill that virtual space every time.

Often I find myself giving the same advice to clients, especially ones where the glut of incoming data can sometimes dim the picture rather than brighten it.

A little more Googling revealed that the latest Information Overload event was held in February 2012. Considering the scope of information inundation and its predicted growth, it’s likely the event won’t be its last. And if I manage to get caught up and….and….and…. I’ll make a point of attending the next gathering.

Besides, more information can’t hurt.

Or can it?

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily.

Why 'Good' Press Releases = 'Bad' Journalism

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 3/15/12.

When writing news stories, editors advise young reporters to do the following: stick to facts, don’t opine, place important/newest information high, answer the five Ws, have a solid lead and conclusion, spell names correctly, use conversational language, meet deadlines and hit the word count.

It’s a formula for success that reporters of all ages rely on. More than that, however, the tips speak to the professional evolution of storytelling found to be most effective at getting points across, with a 150+year history.

Seems like a simple formula, right?

Then why do so many press releases I read -- and some I am required to write -- fail to meet these standards? What’s changed in the communications industry that allows for the writing and distribution of such abysmal drivel? And why don’t the rules governing quality storytelling apply to many of today’s releases?

PR is NOT the Dark Side of Journalism - But Some Clients Might Work for the Death Star

Whoa. Three questions in one paragraph -- and a possible clichéd Star Wars reference subhead. That, too, may violate a writing essential -- that a story can be about one thing and should avoid clichés like the plague (cliché intended). Coming from a public relations angle, I can tell you that it’s not as simple as pitting agenda-pushing poor-writing PR professionals against reporters.

Too often the challenge lies with our clients and their expectations. Yes, as their communications team, it’s our job to direct conversation, to craft proper messages and distribute that message through the media in a concise, accurate and compelling manner. But like journalists, we too can’t always claim the moral high road. Clients pay our salaries, just as advertisers pay (or used to pay) journalists. Sometimes we just have to do what we’re told. Most times, we just have to “make it work.”

Press Release Dos and Don’ts

Of course, “making copy work” is not like making copy sing -- a nod to the lyrical and rhythmic flow of quality writing. An off pitch release (Not the PR pitch) “creates” news rather than telling something newsworthy. Ask yourself -- if you didn’t work for company X, would you read it? If the answer is ‘no,’ then you’re already in trouble. The solution: clients need to be honest about their announcements. Writing a release about something that may happen in six months is not newsworthy. That’s about as useful as someone planning to be rich by summer.

At most, that’s the kind of company “news” that meets Twitter post standards or a short email blast to client investors. It does not require an 800-word release that causes journalists’ eyeballs to glaze over or public relations professionals to struggle through 17 drafts of a document that has failed to capture the “essence of the company story.” Sometimes what clients say just isn’t that important. Clients need to have the humility and presence of mind to know when to shut up -- or at least respect when their PR staff tells them to.

Press releases also fail because of their language. If you’re writing a release in English, then write in English -- not gibberish. Is some jargon necessary? Yes. But too much and a press release can bury its own newsworthiness.

Print This: PR Professionals and Journalists Play the Same Game on Different Teams

How’s that for a newsworthy press release? But even if we play on different teams -- journalists dig for the news while PR professionals push what they’d like to be considered news -- the rules of the writing game should not change.

Modern journalistic writing evolved from the rigors of changing technology – the telegraph. At a penny a character, brevity was far more important than expressive prose. Combined with the fear of technology failure, reporters were taught to write and report news as if readers only read the headlines and first paragraph. (Sound familiar?)

Today’s hyperactive news cycle and extreme mobile connectivity is the outgrowth of these technological realities. PR professionals, emerging some 50 years after Samuel Morse’s invention, really do know what good writing and storytelling is about.

If only we can teach clients that same lesson, perhaps the PR vs. journalism professional stalemate will be broken –- and great press releases will equal great journalism.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 3/15/12.

Print’s Death March, Again

Here we go again. Another article predicting the end of print media, or to be more precise, referring to its now sunset years. A recent post called Editorial Exit on the Future of Media blog, joins a chorus of naysayers predicting the end of the traditional newsroom and dismantling of old school media.

But are we talking about a sunset or merely a solar eclipse?

Without question the last five years (and even 10 years) have not been kind to a host of traditional media. Web 2.0 (or are we nearly 3.0?), running lightening fast, interactive sites and “iWeb” – the Internet’s mobile revolution – is enjoying double-digit percentage growth.

But referring to the present time period as traditional media’s sunset years is premature at best, and dead wrong at worst. In its annual report on American Journalism, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, highlights some quite positive news hinting that the worst of traditional media’s die off has ended. Newspapers, once a bulwark for the communications industry, saw its weekday circulation numbers contract by 5 percent in 2010. While not fantastic, the losses in 2009 were twice that. In revenue terms the picture looked even brighter at cable news, network television and local news outlets as all three saw growth. Certainly, traditional media’s influence has shrunk from a global superpower to a component of an increasingly diverse set of communications outlets, including web sites, mobile apps, blogs, Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages.

The bottom line: Record stores still exist, vinyl can still be purchased, and the “paperless office” has yet to fully mature. Traditional media may no longer be king, but it’s still serving in the king’s court.

Is Journalism As We Know It Becoming Obsolete?

Not yet. But a few prayers couldn’t hurt.

Last week Gigaom.com blogger Matthew Ingram resurrected the decade-old question: is journalism as we know it becoming obsolete? His answer – after a nearly 900-word build up:

No. “I would rather say it as evolving and expanding — and I happen to believe that’s a good thing,” he writes.

Pardon the bluntness, but to me that doesn’t read like a satisfying conclusion. The cells in my stomach are evolving, dividing one by one, millisecond by millisecond, year by year. My stomach expands with each new meal I consume. But without a little help from digestion and peristalsis to keep that expansion in check or DNA coding to prevent runaway “cell evolution,” my body would grow sick and unable to function.

If left unchecked I’d land in the Morgue – the place where humans – and newspapers ultimately retire.

To conclude that today’s twitter-centric and blog-frenzied journalism is “evolving and expanding” isn’t good enough. Chalking the process up to the cyclical “rise and fall” of newspapers and bloggers doesn’t cut it either. A more nuanced question is: how is journalism expanding and evolving and what safeguards, if any, are working to ensure its healthy growth?

Ingram rightly points out that journalism is about: “a spirit of inquiry, of curiosity, of wanting to make sense of things.” He’s also correct when he references programming scholar Dave Winter’s suggestion that in today’s world, with often zero mass publishing barriers, anyone can do it.

But the fact that “anyone can do it” doesn’t mean that everyone can do it equally well. Possessing a spirit of enquiry, of curiosity, and of wanting to make sense of things are platitudes that can be applied to almost any profession.

Eighteenth and 19^th century journalism, wrought with hyper opinion, political party dominance, and a healthy dose of sensationalism effectively blurred the lines of hard news, soft news, and what today would be called “infotainment.” Not until the middle and latter 20^th century did a more separation of church and state-like thinking transform journalism into today’s polished and professional product.

It’s not that today’s citizen journalists, CNN’s iReporters or Arab Spring bloggers are bad. It’s just that too often their skills are unrefined.

To be sure, gathering facts, observing breaking news, and collecting what else has been written on a topic – termed aggregating on the web – is the first step toward quality journalism. But placing that information into a compelling and concise narrative with context and fact-checked sources is where the professional differences lie. A world where citizen journalists, bloggers, and traditional reporters remember they’re playing on the same team, in equal numbers would be the best way to ensure that the hard fought professional standards achievements of the 20^th century and the internet mass publishing miracles of the 21^st work in concert, not in chaos.

In the last decade, as newspapers and other print formats struggle to engineer the magic bullet of profitable web publishing, thousands of professional journalists have left the profession entirely, jumping ship for the perceived safer and often better-paying waters of public relations, corporate communications and government outreach.

An industry losing its institutional knowledge is an industry in danger of losing itself.

Is journalism as we know it becoming obsolete?

Only if we let it.

What Went Right for PR and Media Outreach in Norway's Aftermath

No matter how gut-wrenching or shocking the news, PR professionals will always look back and see who handled crises best. It's not just work-related curiosity. By knowing who had an admirable crisis plan in place (and who didn't) and how it worked, we can fine-tune our own. Over the past few weeks, Norway's tragedy has remained lodged in our minds (along with the debt ceiling crisis and News of The World scandals), and it stuck with the easily-distracted press, too. We watched reporters handle interviews admirably in the aftermath, but it feels like much of the media has taken a step back from delving too deeply into the 93 deaths (at last count). Invasive family interviews, harsh criticisms: they simply didn’t have a place here.

Take, for instance, Helen Pidd's piece in The Guardian. She's covered tragedy, heartbreak, and murder the world over, but while in Norway she had an overwhelming sense of guilt for simply being there at all. Pidd traveled to Bardu to speak with the survivors, but when she arrived and was told to keep her distance, that was it pretty much it.

“If I am specifically told to leave the families alone, I won't go near them,” Pidd said in How Should Journalists Talk to Survivors of the Attacks in Norway? “If the police liaison officer hasn't issued a warning, I will take a deep breath and knock on the parents' door once, telling myself that sometimes people want to talk about those they have lost. It doesn't feel good. If they say they don't want to talk, I won't return.”

Pidd saw one of the survivors, and she didn't approach her for an interview. A nurse in Bardu asked her not to attempt contact. Instead, Pidd drove towards the Ice Peak mountains, thinking about all the other times she had pursued survivors for the perfect interview. This time, however, she felt torn between going after her story and leaving the survivors alone – and ended up choosing the latter.

I’d like to think that crisis management in Norway set the tone for coverage, beginning with PM Jens Stoltenberg’s response to the attacks. He showed emotion openly, and with obvious sadness, coupled with the skills of a true orator: “right words at the right time.”

Could it be the time of year, as we edge closer towards the tenth anniversary of 9/11, or the fact that Norway's reputation as peacekeeper and record-setting giver of foreign aid made the attacks even more shocking, pushing us towards a “softer” stance in media response? I think it may be so.

PR and Journalism: An Evolving Relationship

A recent article published on ProPublica (and co-published by the Columbia Journalism Review), looks at how the boundaries between PR and journalism are blurring. For better or for worse, PR professionals now have much more power in terms of influencing the news, primarily because newsrooms are maxed out. Working with smaller staffs and budgets, and a news cycle that never sleeps, many media outlets are grateful for great “news” content. So when a publication receives an article written by a PR person, increasingly there is a chance that it will be published as is, or with minor edits.

What does this mean? Will this lead to abuse? Are PR people like myself writing the news? Keeping media and news sources unbiased and accurate is very important; does the presence of the PR industry and its influence represent a loss of journalistic integrity?

Not necessarily, and for a couple of reasons.

As the article PR Industry Fills Vacuum Left by Shrinking Newsrooms points out, any reputable publication won’t accept a story idea that is untimely, unimportant, irrelevant or self-serving. Conversely, as the PR field evolves and matures, there is a concern about the ethical dealings with journalists, and a self-awareness that serves to prevent wrongdoing. Any good PR person knows (or should know), for example, that it is professional suicide to submit an article that is biased, overtly “salesy,” or riddled with marketing speak – that is completely useless to an editors. But a great story idea, however, presented with real data and information to back it up, is absolutely acceptable and very helpful to time-strapped journalists. Perhaps that’s the point that so often goes unrecognized – that PR provides valuable support to media outlets and helps to increase its efficiency as well.

Well, we do try you know….

You can read the entire article on ProPublica here.

On Journalism: The Futility of "Exclusive" Scoops

The futility of "exclusive" scoops in today's media cycle is, well, futile...

Last week, the Daily Online Examiner's article Major Newspapers Claim Right To Keep Scoops Exclusive described the futile and somewhat disingenuous recent filing of a legal brief by a handful of major US newspapers in an effort to prevent rival publications from picking up and putting out their “scoops”.

The argument is based on a case before federal appellate court wherein an online publication published a bank’s stock recommendations before some of the bank’s clients were notified. The larger implication, though, is that mainstream publications like the New York Times or the Washington Post (two newspapers that have joined the brief) would have the ability to prevent their exclusive stories from being reprinted (or, more likely, reposted online) by their competitors.

Good luck with that.

My view is that such an action has no basis and no precedent, and effectively undermines the public good achieved by the rapid dissemination of information, no matter who breaks it.

Journalism has always been in a bit of a bind in this area. It is called the Fourth Estate for its immense public value as a government watchdog, yet to facilitate that function journalism must be as removed from government control and influence as possible. This means journalism must be a for-profit, capitalist enterprise, which in turn means there must be stiff competition.

Once again, this means journalism must be a for-profit, capitalist enterprise, which in turn means there must be stiff competition. Got that?

Exclusives, scoops, and being the first to break a story are ways of achieving competitive advantage in this market, and so of course it's understandable that those organizations devoting the most resources to the gathering of news want to protect this advantage. Finder keepers, losers weepers.

But doing so in this way nearly nullifies journalism’s Fourth Estate status. AJ Liebling once wrote that “the function of the press in society is to inform, but its role in society is to make money.”

The latter part of this dichotomy may be more and more difficult in the internet age, but the former has never been as important.

Free is way too expensive

“Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.”

Three cheers for Mr. Hinton, chief exec of Dow Jones. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

It really is time to get our heads around the idea of paying for online news content (the good stuff, that is). Digital content is where it’s at, but just because we aren’t paying for it doesn’t mean it’s free.

All the online news orgs have been trying to support themselves with advertising, but it’s not enough. Giving away good content is not a good business model - freeconomics just won’t work in the long term.

Smaller news organizations fear charging the right price could be their demise, but if they have something unique or of value to offer, why the heck not?

In Brett Arend's MarketWatch commentary this week, he highlights Talking Points Memo (TPM), a liberal online news source that is turning a profit, paying above average salaries and expects to triple in size by 2012. How are they doing it? By catering to a very specific niche market. They employ a focused journalistic staff of 7. They know who their audience is and what they come online looking for.

This demonstrates that the public IS willing to pay for quality content and news, and contradicts the popular thinking of free as a business model.

The current model has to change and there are many reasons why online news could become profitable and could actually raise the quality of the content. The internet eliminates costs like paper and printing and distribution services, and if realistically priced online subscriptions combined with a lean staff of experienced journalists providing great content, then why should news agencies not turn a profit? How could they not?

I’ve been banging this drum for years now. The internet began as a renegade information source, but things have changed. If news services don’t start charging – and realistic subscription fees thank you very much – for genuine journalism, not only will more newsrooms be reduced to tumbleweed rows, but the content we read will simply erode to tabloid fodder provided by people unqualified to deliver content worth reading.

And that’s not news, even if it’s free.

A Purpose Driven Life? Only If It’s Free….

Hoping to capitalize on the success of pastor Rick Warren’s A Purpose Driven Life, in January Reader’s Digest Association (RDA) launched a quarterly print publication to complement Warren’s Purpose Driven Connection. For an annual fee of just $29.95, the project offered a shebang of goodies - DVDs, study group guides and access to its website – all necessary in the quest of finding purpose!

10 months in, and RDA turned off the life support. In spite of A Purpose Driven Life’s rapid online audience growth, it seems that not enough purpose-seekeers were willing to pay for a subscription.

Is it because, like the Wiccans, Christians believe that spiritual knowledge is universal and already belongs to everyone? Or maybe they thought they should get a rebate on their 10% tithe? Perhaps they felt bad about the environment and wanted to save some trees? Or just plain skint?

I believe it’s because Christians - along with the rest of us - have grown so accustomed getting whatever information we want for FREE that consciously or not, we resent having to pay for it.

Is that fair? Absolutely not. In any other transaction or business process, NOBODY GIVES ME ANYTHING FOR FREE. NOBODY. Somebody, somewhere has to pay for the content that we voraciously consume by the megabytes, the research and journalism to accumulate the information, the cost of creating and updating and editing, SEO, advertising, brand building..... and the list goes on!

Quality content is created and presented by professionals – real people whose livelihood depends on real income from their work.

If the public, regardless of their faith or purpose does not support the development of intelligent and informed content, then where is it going to come from?

And more importantly, will it even be worth reading?

Unlikely.

Blurring the lines of Journalism

(My opinion piece appeared in Ragan on September 24, 2009)

A big UUUM moment – looks like I’ve caused a furor over an opinion piece that appeared in Ragan.com today about the blurring lines of journalism. The central focus of my opinion piece was David Pogue, tech columnist for the New York Times, and some recent comments he made about him not being a journalist. Apparently, I took his statement out of context and applied it incorrectly.

Notwithstanding, I read Pogue’s posts religiously and I value his comments – as do thousand/millions of others. He knows what he’s talking about. That’s why he’s an expert and that’s why tech companies will continue to court him and fawn over him – as they do other influential columnists, technology-focused or otherwise.

Do I think any less of him? No.

Will I stop reading or respecting what he says? No.

Am I trying to make enemies? Absolultely not.

Can I voice my opinion? Yes.

Here’s a link to the entire post on Ragan.com, "Times' David Pogue blurs journalism lines"

Journalism Rocks

(This appeared in MediaPost on May 29, 2009)
Talk is cheap, but good content, labor and product are not. In an era of thrift and the return to newfound values — where less of everything is the new world order — everyone is talking about what will happen to American newspapers. I think, more importantly, we should be asking what will happen to American journalism right now? I’ve been harping on about this topic for some time (like as far back as 2006), and my words have usually been met with equally strong worded opinions.

Opinions, coarse or otherwise, are good. In fact, they are to be encouraged — they stimulate critical thinking and discourse. Look, plain old-fashioned thinking is good — that’s why we live in a democratic society, right? But opinions are just that — a personal viewpoint like this very piece you are reading. And so, while I like to think of myself a good writer, a journalist I am not.

Journalism is a profession, ignited by a thirst for the facts and the truth, accompanied by deep passion for telling it how it is and in a way that will impact lives. These are skills which cannot be acquired via a webinar or a Bulldog Reporter Media Blitz one-day circus for $399.

While the business model for newspapers may be broken — and, yes, they’ve been irresponsible, unresponsive to changing needs — let’s not miss the point here. What happens to news, and in two words, our intelligence, if we don’t support journalism?

To read the entire article "Journalism Rocks", click here.