10/10

However, if the trend holds that the leader gets more Web site visits, Web traffic is going to be an indicator going forward.  Campaign managers will watch it, and they will play with building traffic to boast of support.  It won't take long before numbers are fictitious.

What I find interesting is the impact the Web is having on campaigning.  The Web is far more important than I would have guessed as recently as a year or two ago.  I have written elsewhere that political campaigners are more likely to adapt new communications technologies than other markets because candidates seek any way possible to get their messages out, to build support and to fundraise.  The Web has proven effective for all three tasks.

How many nonprofit organizations use their Web sites as effectively as political campaigns?  I wonder.  Most  nonprofit sites I have seen are not well put together.  I suspect they lack the expertise.   But does it have to be that way?  It would be interesting to see a return on investment for a Web site compared to advertising, a telephone bank, direct mail and e-mail.  My guess is the Web site will prove efficient and in the long run less costly.  However, I don't think advertising or mail drops will ever disappear entirely.  They are a way to reach people for the first time.  Web sites are not particularly good at that while e-mail is damned as spam and phone banks annoy people.  That brings one back to advertising and direct mail for awareness and initial outreach. 

I would not be the least surprised if mail drops going forward are designed primarily to feed people to a nonprofit's Web site.  That would be a profound change in communication tactics.  It would also mean Web sites would be to designed to grab visitors and allow them to do what they want to do quickly -- like give a donation. 

Are nonprofit PR practitioners ready for this kind of change?
 

10/09

What a great move!  Apcar was careful to say he picked up the idea from a columnist, but no matter.  He recognized that the concept was on target, and he is going with it.  This will provide color to the campaigns and greater depth to issues that wouldn't get into the paper.  It will let reporters help voters get the measure of candidates. 

I'm tempted to think Apcar accepted the idea at the Gray Lady because he hails from the West Coast.  He was  born in San Francisco and educated mostly in California.  In all fairness, however, he worked in several places in the U.S. from Florida to Dallas and Washington, D.C., and he has been a reporter/editor for at  least two other papers before the Times. 

An important part of the effort, however, will be to get correspondents to blog.  This might not be as easy as one thinks.  It is easy to let blogging slip when one gets busy.  That is why I read today that a large percentage of blogs are not updated regularly.  Updating is a habit one learns by writing, whether or not one wants to. 

Only a few people have a natural bent toward blogging.  It is a learned craft for most.  And, one of the difficult parts of the skill is figuring out what to blog about.  Blogging chews content as quickly as television.  It is a hungry maw that must be fed every day at least once and in some cases, several times a day.

Although I call on PR practitioners to use blogs for their clients or organizations, I am aware some will do it well and others won't. 

So, I am  eager to see how The New York Times fares.  Hats off to Len Apcar.
 

10/08

I write papers because it forces me to think through topics at greater length than the brief thoughts written here.  Also, it keeps my hand in article writing.  I used to do a lot of this, especially for clients.  There isn't as much call for it anymore because there are fewer places to put articles in the national media.  I learned long ago that I am good for 10 pages but not so good for 60 or more.  Book writing has always been hard for me.  It's the  research that takes the time.  In order to say something, the rough rule of thumb is that one should gather about seven times more information than he or she needs.  So, if one writes 400 pages of finished text, there should be about 1200 pages of research material behind it.

I am working on a third paper now hat focuses on mudslinging and how one protects oneself against it.  There appears to be a much mudslinging these days.  We have entered an era of invective in which reason is set aside for name-calling, innuendo, rumors and lies. 

It is no help that some of our largest and most prestigious newspapers in the U.S. see fit to keep columnists who are more ad hominem than reasoned.  Part of their rage comes from a division of philosophies, part from the fact that many detest the current president.  Adding to this noise is a plethora of bloggers opining daily about country, politicians, world economics and other topics.  One can be buried in opinion.  Regrettably, to make themselves heard, there are a coterie of writers who believe the uglier they are in print, the better they are. 

This is why I think it is time to think through what one must do to guard against smears.  One cannot stop them.  Our first Amendment principles allow vigorous debate and indeed, at the time the First Amendment was written, invective was the mode of the day.  It was a fine sport in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries to accuse someone of anything just so long as the charges stuck.   It was only in the later 19th Century and in the 20th Century that writers strove to be more balanced. 

I wish we could get back to days of reasoned conversation.
 

10/07

I can now certify that the first part of this prediction was fulfilled even before I wrote that "thought."   Unknown to me, last March a former CBS News and United Press Correspondent started a local community news Weblog in Westport, CT.  http://www.westportnow.com

The site says its news coverage is "Up-to-the-minute news and features about Westport, Connecticut. Highly subjective and definitely not intended to be all-inclusive, WestportNow.com offers an insight into Westport-related news and news of interest to Westporters."  The site is honest about its intentions, but nevertheless, you will find interesting stories that show how it serves as an alternate news source.  The lead story, for example, is about Martha Stewart and was fed from a PR firm almost certainly.  Other stories on the page are about community issues that might not be covered well in a local weekly newsprint advertiser.  There was a report on bad roads not getting fixed quickly, the condition of an 8-year-old boy who had been hit by a car and a recent court decision on wetlands.

I don't know about you, but the weekly paper that serves our community does a poor job of coverage and could stand competition.  I suspect that same is true for Westport, CT.

To repeat the points:  There is opportunity for local communities to cover themselves independently and  inexpensively on the Internet.  And, that opens plenty of opportunity for PR practitioners to get stories out. 

Don't overlook the Web while damning the FCC for allowing media concentration.
 

10/06

Both families were American royalty brought about by wealth equaling the richest kings in Europe.  One had a grand vision for edifice (Biltmore).  The other had a grand multi-generational vision of taste (Kykuit).  The art collection alone at Kykuit is worth hundreds of millions, and any museum would stand in line to get a piece or two from the property.  The Vanderbilt estate, for all its immense size, has nothing to equal Kykuit's art.

It is interesting then to reflect on the history of these two families.  The Rockefeller family today is known for philanthropy.  The Rockefeller name has founded universities, funded vast preservation projects, set aside millions of acres of land for the American  people and engaged in one good deed after another.  The Vanderbilts are better known for houses and profligacy with money the father made and children and grandchildren spent.

But it wasn't  always that way.  Around 1900 the Rockefeller name stood for evil, and John D., Sr. was reviled as much as Nixon is today.  The story of how the family rescued its name is also part of the story of public relations in the early 20th Century.  John D. Sr. availed himself of PR counsel to help regain the good graces of the public.  The famous tale of the old man handing out dimes to children was a PR ploy to show he was approachable and kind.  By then, he was.  His days of rapaciousness were long past when he justified in the name of religion his practice of monopolizing the oil industry.  (He believed God had destined him to make a lot of money and also had charged him to give the money away.)  He lived his destiny with the help of his son, John D. , Jr. who showed his father how Rockefeller millions could alleviate problems in the world.   That destiny continued through his grandsons and granddaughters.

There is a universal good feeling about the Rockefellers now. The Vanderbilts are closer to historical curiosities.  

The Rockefeller story was a modern PR success.  If anyone from 1900 were to appear suddenly and listen to what is said about the Rockefellers, the time-traveler would not believe it.  But the story is true, and PR works.