October 10, 2008
Networks Fight Back
I had lunch on Wednesday with Jessica Guff, executive producer of ABC News Now and a veteran of ABC News. She made several important observations about the broadcast news business:
1) ABCNewsNow.com, one of the digital platforms for the news division, reaches 48 million homes today, 30 million of which are broadband. “This is the network for thinking women; all others tend to be male oriented,” Guff said. It can be reached directly or via ABCNews.com.
2) PR people must pitch stories differently. Specifically, she said we need to offer fully formed four minute segments, with visuals, spokespeople and news hook all conceived. “Don’t just send me a pitch letter or a book which requires me to put together the piece. Economic pressures mean we are short staffed so we will respond better to something that is fully formed."
3) Networks still offer large number of viewers, about eight million for the ABC Evening News and four million for the Good Morning America show. The morning show audience ebbs in the second hour to about two million. ABC News Now does offer exclusively a third hour of Good Morning America. Content from the major shows, such as Nightline and Evening News, is repurposed onto ABC News Now.
4) Among the shows on ABC News Now are the Money Show, Popcorn (reviews movies), Homework (alternative work styles), Politics Live (with Sam Donaldson, long-time political pundit), Parenting (with Anne Pleshette Murphy of former editor of Parents Magazine), and What’s the Buzz (celebrity news at noon, which gives particular ratings spike as those at work tune in during lunch break—in fact ratings are highest at noon, peak broadband viewing time). The shows tend to be 15-30 minutes long, may not have notable anchors but do feature celebrities and newsmakers.
5) ABC is trying to reach beyond the PC into cell phones and PDAs. “We are now accessible to 10 million users via Verizon VCAST and Sprint,” Guff noted. “This explains our focus on the shorter form content.”
6) ABC News Now does get audience spikes when there is a live event (Obama or McCain rally). “We do breaking news all of the time now.”
The challenge for the networks is to remain relevant as news-hungry consumers go first either to cable or to the digital offerings of newspapers (NYTimes.com as example). What Guff has achieved is a differentiated offer, a digital TV version of woman’s magazine, with necessary information for a better life. As PR people, we will have to be more agile in story creation and to be satisfied with smaller audiences around niche topics. Jessica's comment reinforces the requirement for all PR people to become content creators. We, in essence, must grasp opportunities to create broadcast packages, complete with video and robust storytelling. Use your HD cameras and your writing skills, and make it easy for these news professionals to say "yes." To achieve the same audience reach as a decade ago will require many more placements and more specificity of topics; this is the age of “narrow-casting.” I would appreciate your views as always.
Posted by Edelman at 12:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 30, 2008
Failure to Communicate
I was walking in Central Park yesterday as part of my rehabilitation from surgery when the news flashed across WSJ.com that the US House of Representatives had rejected the proposed $700 billion fund to provide liquidity to the struggling capital markets. Quoting the prison warden in Cool Hand Luke as he stands over defiant inmate Paul Newman, there has been a massive failure to communicate. Here are some of the shortcomings in PR on the part of the Federal Government:
1) Supporting Cast of Spokespeople — It is no longer possible for a single voice, such as Secretary of Treasury Paulson, to carry the day. Nor is it sufficient to have behind the scenes lobbying to make the case (now the outside game and the inside game).Where were the important figures in the business community (Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs) who could provide necessary backing for the plan? How about using trusted figures from government who have provided distinguished service in the past (Paul Volcker, Bill Clinton), to offset the broadsides of former Speaker Newt Gingrich?
2) Terminology—The very word bailout connotes an unseemly subsidy for the beneficiary. It became too easy to make this about saving the Wall Street millionaires who had abused the system.
3) Message Dissonance—-From Optimism to Precipice—CEOs of major financial institutions, such as Bob Steel of Wachovia, were telling a very positive story while President Bush warned of the apocalypse. Which is it, folks? Can we rely solely on private sector solutions, such as the shotgun marriages of WaMu with JP Morgan Chase or Wachovia with Citigroup?
4) Person Like Me—There was no story line for the Little Guy. Why not put forward the Dean of Admissions at University of Michigan who can talk about availability of student loans? Or the car dealer in Alabama who can again offer attractive financing on new vehicle sales? Or the small retailer from Texas who is able to find financing for her inventory for Christmas, courtesy of this liquidity package?
5) Acknowledgement of Error—When asking for the money, it would have been helpful to have a study from a credible third party (university, think tank, consulting firm) identifying shortcomings in regulatory format and proposed improvements. Similarly the financial industry must acknowledge its own part in the meltdown, suggesting improvements in self-regulation such hiring of an ombudsman or strengthening industry trade group standards.
6) Specificity—The initial plan proposed by Secretary Paulson did not have sufficient details on how mortgages were to be acquired (price, auction or other mechanism, which tranches, special treatment of low-income groups). Though some of this was remedied in conference, the perception left with the general public was that Secretary Paulson was getting a giant blank check.
7) Authority Figures as Stewards—There needed to be a bi-partisan board of overseers established for the proper disbursement of funds, so that the public could have confidence in the process. Examples of members could be former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers or former Secretary of State James Baker. One relies on individuals, not bureaucracies, to deliver results.
8) Context—Not enough time was spent on the positive precedent of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), created to mitigate the problems caused by the savings and loan implosion. Nor was the Chrysler emergency financing of the mid-80s sufficiently explored.
9) People are being talking at, not engaged—The approach to communications to date, such as the prime time address by President Bush, or the press conferences on the steps of the Capitol, and the Sunday morning talking heads TV shows, is traditional one-way communications that doesn’t afford people the opportunity to really understand, ask questions and be part of the discussion and solution.
In the end, there will likely be a piece of legislation passed by the Congress. The single-minded focus on the amount necessary to restore liquidity to the markets, without due recognition of the education process necessary to ensure acceptance, indicates that professional communications advisors were not sufficiently involved from the inception of the process. In the present environment of distrust and despair, this commitment to the discussion must be a top consideration for both business and government.
Posted by Edelman at 1:57 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
September 17, 2008
The Scimitar Falls; I’m Walking On
I am in Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital, recovering from a radical prostatectomy that was performed on Tuesday. I have been assured by my physician that my prostate cancer has been completely eliminated and that I should be able to get on with my life without adverse consequences. As you may recall, I wrote a blog post in September, 2007 describing my first interaction with this disease. Here are the further and hopefully final chapters of the story.
Chapter One—In January and again in February, my PSA test showed a significant increase from December. Given that this jump occurred in a very short period of time, my NY based urologist discounted the result and prescribed an antibiotic to combat what he diagnosed as a urinary tract infection. I had a PSA test decline, so the urologist told me not to worry but that if I insisted, he would perform a second needle biopsy. As described in my earlier post, this procedure is equivalent to random walk investing, taking 10 core samples from all areas of the prostate.
Chapter Two—Not satisfied with this recommendation given my family history of prostate cancer, I pursued an MRI guided biopsy. First you undergo an MRI, which requires you to lie still for 45 minutes for best result. After analysis of the pictures, I had a saturation biopsy of 21 core samples, with particular emphasis on those areas of suspicion. This is the approach being advocated by our client, AdMeTech, which wants a “Man-o-gram” as standard diagnostic instead of blind biopsy, based on the success of mammograms in detecting breast cancer.
Chapter Three—In mid July, I received the dreaded call from the radiologist, confirming that I had low grade, early stage prostate cancer. Two of the core samples were Gleeson 6 (slow growth), one was 15% and the other 5% cancerous, but the cancer was contained within the prostate. So the scimitar had fallen on the patient; now the question was what to do about it. It took me a few days to process the diagnosis as I am an excessively healthy guy. I work out six days a week, never smoked, rarely if ever drink and eat only nutritious food. I have only missed about five days of work in thirty years at Edelman. So Superman has holes in his cape! I informed my wife and we decided to go on a journey together to select the best course of treatment.
Chapter Four—There are three basic options for a patient with my data set. First is “watchful waiting,” where you monitor the progress of the disease and take action when it becomes more pervasive. For me, this was never a serious consideration; this is a better choice for a man in his late 70s or beyond, not for me at 54. Second is the course of radiation, either with direct beam or with radioactive seeds, to attack the cancer in the prostate. This can be supplemented by hormone therapy for full body treatment. The third option is surgical removal of the prostate, either through the traditional open platform approach akin to a Caesarian section delivery of a child or the new robotic approach that is less invasive and offers a shorter healing process. I visited three specialists, each a passionate advocate for his treatment modality, with statistical support for claims of high rates of successful removal of cancer and corresponding low rates of side effects, notably incontinence, impotence and rectal bleeding. As a non-science person, I found myself increasingly perplexed and worried, confounded by the conflicting viewpoints.
Chapter Five—I began to talk to men who had been through the same process of selecting a treatment while simultaneously coping with feelings of self-doubt. As with the physicians, each former patient was enthusiastic about the path he had chosen, but was honest about the side effects, most which disappear over time. I also spoke to experts from the Milken Institute, the FDA and the National Cancer Institute. I found a plethora of material online, but most of it was confusing and partisan. The way forward began to become clear; surgery to remove the prostate, leaving radiation as a further treatment option. One expert had the best line, “The only good place for this prostate is in formaldehyde.”
Chapter Six—I told my three teenage daughters that I had prostate cancer and that I was going to have surgery to remove it. These were the most trying moments for me; to tell my kids that I had an illness but that I was acting decisively to fix the problem before it became a more serious one. Luckily I had planned a two week vacation in Long Island and spent all of it with them, going swimming in the ocean, jumping on the trampoline, playing tennis, riding my bike and generally acting like a teenager. I began to inform my close friends, including my basketball buddies from our 50 plus team, the Delusionals. The reaction was strong support for both me and my wife. My parents were vacationing in Long Island and I met them for lunch to tell them about my problem. My dad, now 13 years after his own prostate surgery, said simply that he was sad that I had to run the same course but that I was a tough guy and would get through it just fine. I had similar discussions with my brother and sister, who are visiting me today at the hospital.
Chapter Seven— After selecting a date for surgery, I started the process of informing my most senior colleagues at Edelman, opting for in-person discussions when possible. I described the entire journey, from discovery of disease to the selection of treatment, noting that I would be out of work for two weeks and on a diminished travel schedule through the fall. I promised all of them that I would be back with the same energy and attitude of the Pirate King. Then came the interminable waiting for the big day of surgery; I tried to remain as active as possible, exercising like a man possessed (I have to lay off for 3-6 weeks, the longest period without a good sweat in my life), going to the US Open tennis, Fashion Week in New York and on a college visit with my middle child.
What have I learned in the course of the past three months? First, you have to be your own patient advocate. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, you may have a disease, even though your doctor tells you not to worry. Second, there is often a better way to diagnose your condition; you have to be insistent in order to persuade the medical establishment to allow you to take those further steps. In my case it was the MRI guided biopsy and later the PCA 3 test. Third, use your network of friends to find those who have had the disease and can give you further context for your decision on treatment. Fourth, and most important, find a doctor who can guide you through the maze. In my case, I had the charismatic and passionate Dr. Faina Shtern, our client at AdMeTech, who opened doors for me then sorted through often conflicting medical advice. In the end, medicine is an art, not a science; it is like business, where you evaluate all of the data, then decide on a course.
I tell this story in the hopes that it helps others who are confronted with this or other diseases. I’m eager to get back to work because I have a lot to do. I want to thank all the physicians who have helped me on this journey, to express my appreciation to my friends for their constant concern, to depend on my colleagues to hold down the fort, and to tell my family that I love them more than they will ever know. See you back in the blogosphere in two weeks!
Posted by Edelman at 4:00 PM | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)
September 11, 2008
It’s Hard to Let Go
I was on a panel on Tuesday in Washington D.C. for communications professionals from the National Institutes of Health. They wanted to know how they operate in an environment where media authority is dispersed, confidence in government as a trusted source has declined and respect for science is profoundly diminished. One source of communicator frustration is the current controversy over vaccination of young children, where the data is overwhelming on safety and efficacy, yet the risk of autism raised by celebrity Jenny McCarthy is deemed newsworthy by mainstream media. I was joined by Barry Schwartz, professor from Swarthmore College, Susannah Fox of the Pew Foundation, Rick Weiss, former science editor of the Washington Post and Pere Estupinya of El Pais of Madrid, Spain.
Here were the key points from the panel:
1) Information overload is causing paralysis and poor decision making. Professor Schwartz’ book, The Paradox of Choice, points up the need for trusted sources to break through the morass. He contended that there is more concern for influence than veracity, adding that with the need for speed comes inaccuracy and lack of peer review. “You retain trust by making sure those who receive information understand what you are saying.”
2) E-patients can be a critical audience and media at the same time. Fox said that, “This group is giving back as well as getting information. They can be a very important asset in the battle against single issue interest groups which are political machines. They will swarm inaccuracy if you empower them as agents. But they demand a genuine conversation.”
3) Many health stories are information, not news, in today’s news context, according to Weiss. “As PR people, you will have to be faster. A press release on a study issued the next day will not cut it. You will also have to offer compelling web based visuals with 3-D animation.” Weiss won the award for comment of the day when he quipped, “This is the first continental breakfast I have ever attended where prunes figured prominently on the buffet.”
4) Articles for mainstream media may be more complete and better written, but blog posts are more influential. This statement came from Estupinya of El Pais, who contends that readers do not differentiate between accuracy of MSM and blogs. “My articles are better than my posts because I spend a lot more time on the articles. But I get much more conversation going on my blog posts,” he said.
5) Journalists post on blogs for speedy entry to conversations. Fox noted that she is asked for interviews by CNN and other MSM sources on the basis of her blog posts, not her longer scholarly papers for Pew.
6) Content should be customized to the medium and the demographic group. For example, according to Fox, both Latino and African American young men use their mobile phones “like Swiss Army knives” in that they use them for everything. Therefore, to reach that group, content must be in easy to access text format. Here are statistics from Estupinya: among Hispanic English-dominant speakers seeking health information, the web accounts for 53% of total media interaction while radio is 35%. Among Spanish dominant speakers, the web accounts for only 17% of media interaction, while radio is 53%.
During the question period, I got a small window into the complicated, often frustrating world of public relations officers in government. They are not allowed to access social networks such as Facebook and MySpace while in the workplace. Posting video material on YouTube is seen as overly risky. My advice to them on Tuesday was to recognize that the battle for opinion cannot be won simply on the basis of a surfeit of facts. A uniformed government official debating Jenny McCarthy on vaccines is fine, but that official must be able to tell stories about families who regret not having their kids inoculated before their trip to Italy, then come home with measles. Effective PR is about facts, but also ease of access and compelling examples.
Posted by Edelman at 6:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
September 3, 2008
Update on BBC.com
I had breakfast this morning in London with Richard Sambrook, who has been charged with making BBC.com a major player among web based news providers. Here is an update on the progress of the BBC in the online space:
1) We have integrated all of our newsrooms, from radio to TV to web. Our theory was that this would decrease the work load on journalists by balancing the peak demands but in fact it has raised the expectations for all reporters. We are still in a transition from those who work only on specialized platforms (TV as example) to the next generation comfortable across all platforms on a given story. We have invested in journalism production tools. There is a production skill set that needs to be married with the substance of stories.
2) Video is drawing online traffic. The sport video usage is up 20 times in the past four years, with a real peak in demand around the Beijing Olympics. We are now beyond a text focused audience.
3) We continue to tailor the news to regional demand. For example, Matt Frei, our anchor for World News America, is a Brit but has lived in the US for the past decade. He has his own deep roots and contacts in the market, leading to better stories. We need also to alter our tone, growing our US bureau, tailoring our approach to a US audience, regionalizing the news.
4) Video content on the web must differ from TV. It should be shorter, less intermediated, less heavily produced. “It should be raw and direct, not like sitting back and watching TV,” he said.
5) There is a big audience for business news. Viewers recognize the interconnected nature of markets and the direct connection to their personal net worth. This is a work in progress at BBC.
6) BBC.com international traffic pattern shows just over 50% of users from North America, the balance in Asia and Europe.
7) BBC.com advertising has held up well despite the global economic slowdown. Key sources of money are travel/tourism, countries for economic development, and corporate image ads.
8) Sambrook believes that the New York Times and the Guardian have led the newspaper business in adapting to the online arena. “They are both doing video very well. In fact the Guardian has Guardian films, longer form pieces.” He questions whether the NY Times or Guardian are really monetizing their online traffic, especially outside of home markets.
Here are the implications for PR people from this discussion. We need to recognize that there are fewer truly global media players and we should connect with them outside of home market (BBC in New York and Hong Kong). We must offer video content relevant for the web, not highly produced video news releases. We can offer consumer generated content that helps to build connection to media brands, as all participants are in experimental mode. I would appreciate your comments as always.
Posted by Edelman at 9:18 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)