Social Media and Mainstream Media - The New Communication Paradigm - Part II

In my last post I promised to talk about the rules of using social media in corporate communications/PR. So in sticking to my promise, here we go. Bear in mind this is my view, and I welcome your comments on what I have to say.

Old-school corporate communications/PR is a one-lane highway leading to the media. In an earlier post (The Art of Effective Pitching: Relevance & Relationship) I detailed the best communication practices to the media so I won't be covering that here.

The new PR model is a two-lane highway - one lane for the media and one lane for direct-to-consumer (i.e., social media) communication. The rules for using social media as a corporate communication vehicle are different from those used with the media.

The first step in using social media for corporate communications/PR is to identify your target audience. Perhaps your target is consumers who buy your products. Next, you must gain credibility with your target audience. To gain credibility with your target audience you must first become part of that audience. Join the relevant target groups on social media sites like StumbleUpon, LinkedIn and Facebook, to name a few. Be completely transparent - make sure the group members know who you are. Read posts from group members, and where applicable contribute to the conversation with something RELEVANT. Don't under any circumstances enter the conversation by promoting your product.

Let's say, for example, you represent a company that builds recreational vehicles (RVs). So you join the RV Enthusiasts group on LinkedIn. A group member posts a question to other members about how to improve gas mileage. Instead of pounding the group over the head with your client's newest RV, you would be better served to educate the group. Respond with generic tips and advice about how to improve gas mileage in an RV. Even better, get an engineer from your client to write up a list. Include a link to a page on your client's Web site (or another source) which lists other tips about how to increase gas mileage. Make absolutely sure not to link to a product page. You promised the reader tips on saving gas so make sure you deliver on that promise. This gives you credibility as a relevant source of information, and it drives traffic to your clients' Web site. Building credibility is important because it positions you as a relevant resource of information - not just a product pusher.

I know I am using the word relevant a lot. But people join social media groups because the group is relevant to their life. Cat lovers, motorcycle riders, woodworkers - whatever your interest there is a social media group of people sharing content. So going back to my RV example, let's say one of the group members from the RV Enthusiasts group forwards your tips (with the link to your clients' site) to a friend who posts it on his blog about RVs. With the push of one forward button your tips/advice could reach hundreds, if not thousands, of readers depending on the blog. And if the blog ranks high in search engines your content, complete with the link to your clients' Web site, could wind up reaching millions. Welcome to viral marketing.

I am scrapping just the tip of the social media iceberg. If I learned anything from listening to webinars on social media and reading The New Rules of Marketing & PR (David Meerman Scott), I learned that content is king. Identify your target audience, engage the audience with authenticity (don't forget to be transparent) and relevant content.

Social media has changed the corporate communications/PR landscape. Make no mistake, the media is still a critical audience for you and/or your clients' messages. But you must incorporate social media into your PR efforts to reach and forge a relationship with your target audience.

Social Media and Mainstream Media - The New Communication Paradigm

Okay, so maybe social media isn't a "new" communication paradigm. But for me it is. I admit as little as four months ago I was a firm believer of old-school PR. I viewed the media as the sole distribution network for press releases and information. Under the old school, corporations distribute their news releases to the media in hope of gaining coverage.

The rules of corporate communication have changed, though, and I have become a convert of social media. The Internet and social media have changed the way information is distributed, consumed and shared.

Reading the book The New Rules of Marketing & PR has been an eye-opening experience for me. It has, without a doubt, played the largest role in helping me understand that old-school PR is an incomplete communication practice. Yes, the media is still important. Companies still value coverage in the print and broadcast media.

But I want to focus on my earlier statement – “incomplete communication practice.” The mainstream media is no longer the only game in town. Blogs and social media networks offers the opportunity for a virtually infinite level of “buzz” about their respective news. I would go as far to state that blogs and social media networks are equally as important as mainstream media outlets.

In my view, social media is about building influence among a targeted audience. In other words, deliver content that is relevant to the audience's needs and you'll quickly gain a long list of followers. I Tweet daily media industry updates on my Twitter page (http://twitter.com/jsalking) and in just a couple of weeks the number of people who follow my Tweets has grown from five to 25. I'm giving them relevant content they want.

Over the past three months I embarked on a crash course of social media learning. I've listened to webinars, read books and articles on the Web from social media experts. It's clear that old-school PR is, well, old-school. Effective corporate communications today requires a tag team approach using mainstream and social media, and each have a different set of rules, and I'll talk more about those rules in my next post.

Media Companies Aren't Fighting for the Future

A colleague of mine shared an article from Adage.com today titled "
Media Companies Cull 30,000 in Fight for Their Future." I believe the first part of the headline. Most of my recent Tweets have been about newly announced cuts in newsrooms across the country.

According to the article, "the media industries have shed more than 30,000 jobs in 2008, according to an Ad Age analysis of Department of Labor employment statistics and news reports. That's about 3.5% of the total media work force of 858,000. Since the bubble-inflated high-water mark in 2000, media has lost more than 200,000 jobs."

But I am not convinced media companies are "fighting for their future." Look, I understand the economy is awful, and company marketing budgets for advertising are shrinking. Fewer ad dollars means less revenue and less revenue means cuts. I get it.

Companies are watching every marketing penny, and determining where they can get the best bang for their marcom buck. So why are media companies responding by lowering the quality of their product? That's right - I said lowering the quality of their product.

Cutting newsroom staff leaves survivors charged with the impossible task of covering more beats in the same amount of time. Reporters must now divide their time among two, three even four beats - something has to give. While chasing down a story on one beat, another story is breaking on another beat and the reporter has to make a decision - which story do I chase? Either way, news coverage for one of the beats is going to suffer. News coverage begins to slip and readers start to notice. Maybe a few cancel their subscriptions or stop buying the paper at the newstand. Another hit to the bottom line.

The media industry is a lot like the airline industry, if you ask me. In response to high fuel prices, airlines started charging for luggage or booking your flight over the phone. They stopped serving beverages and those tiny little bags of peanuts or pretzels. In short, airlines have diminished the product and wonder why as a group, the seven largest airlines posted a 10.8 percent slide in traffic from a year earlier, according to an article posted on today's Chicagotribune.com.

What I am driving at is this. If media companies really are fighting for their future, they need to re-invest in their product. I'm not saying they need to maintain an overstaffed newsroom. But what I am saying is they need to devote enough resources so they can produce a high-quality product that attracts readers. People read newspapers and magazines because they want to know what's going on in the world - locally, nationally and internationally. Start giving readers less and they'll look elsewhere to get it.

So here we are in a viscious cycle. Ad revenue is down so media companies respond by laying off in the newsroom. News quality slips, readers go elsewhere and companies stop advertising in a declining product. In a few months it happens all over again. Are there any media companies out there who are truly willing to fight for the future of their product?

How would you save the media?

A few months ago a colleague of mine pointed me to a website - http://www.angryjournalist.com/. It's a virtual and anonymous venting forum for journalists to air out their anger. I read it every morning because it provides insight into what's wrong with the media from those on the front line.

It's no surprise that most of the comments are about the low salaries journalists are paid. Having been there and done that I know reporter salaries are very low. It took me about 10 years in trade publishing to get to the mid $30s which was just enough to cover rent and bills with little leftover.

There's also a lot of anger among journalists over the current state of the media industry. A few posters to the site have likened the media to the automobile industry - outdated and to slow to react to changes in the marketplace.

Reporters/editors are screaming for the execs in charge to fix the industry. Yet it's those same execs who led this industry to where it is today. Why are we asking them to fix it? These are the same execs who think Twitter is the feeling you get in your stomach right before your first kiss. Where are the young thought leaders in newsrooms? Where are their ideas? Why aren't they standing up for change and presenting a plan?

Journalists are lamenting the death of the media. Instead of just sitting there, do something. Don't let it die. The problem is, most of us don't really - I mean really - know what is wrong. It's a complex issue but someone, somewhere needs to analyze the problem and come up with a solution.

My solution? I'll present it in a future post. But for now, I am asking everyone what they think. What would you do to save the media industry?