Friday Five: from a veteran science writer

I’m still trying to assimilate all the information from the college/university PR conference I attended earlier in the week. We heard from a lot of journalists from a lot of different media outlets, and much of their advice on pitching stories to the media can be summed up in a few simple points:

  • send an email (don’t call)
  • make it short and to the point (a couple of paragraphs — no lengthy press releases)
  • use links to provide background information (i.e., your press release or a professor’s website)
  • make sure your pitch is relevant (it helps greatly if you actually read, watch or listen to the outlet you’re pitching, and it’s even better if you know what the particular journalist is interested in)

These were the recommendations we heard over and over from the presenters and panelists. It’s good advice. If we want to do our jobs well and build relationships with journalists, we should take heed.

Sharon Begley
Sharon Begley

What we didn’t hear enough of, in my opinion, was the stuff Sharon Begley, a senior editor and chief science writer at Newsweek, shared. In addition to writing a science column fortnightly, she writes some engaging and sometimes contrarian features for the magazine and also posts “shortish takes” on science research on her blog, Lab Notes. Begley was the most enlightening and entertaining presenters. She spoke about how science reporting has changed in recent years.

In 2003 — the last time Begley presented at this particular conference — science journalists were mainly interested in reporting whatever the hot science story of the week was. Typically, it was whatever made the cover of the big science journals or came out of the annual meetings of major scientific societies.

Fast forward five years. Today, “We are all now slaves to clicks,” Begley said. She went on to share a quote (unattributed on her PowerPoint but thanks to Google I found the source):

[The] news media [are] more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. … In this era, with their business model challenged by the Web and other forces, and in the same scramble for audience as everyone else, these fabled elite media organs are if anything more buffeted by sensationalism and whimsy than their new media counterparts.

In this climate, “We stop the dutiful science story, the one that researches in the field regard as hugely important,” and focus instead on “people’s favorite subject; themselves.”

But I digress. This is supposed to be a Friday Five, so here’s your list. Here are five key points I took away from her presentation, which was part of a panel discussion titled “Communicating Professors’ Research.”

Five topics of interest to science writers, according to Sharon Begley

  1. Novelty, or the contrarian approach. Begley’s piece on how happiness may be overrated is a good example of this approach.
  2. Relevance. Anything that is “vaguely in the news” may be of interest.
  3. Refuting popular wisdom. The Dumbest Generation? Don’t be dumb, Begley’s piece refuting the assumptions of a recent book about millennials, is an example of this type of story. (Just don’t read the comments to the story, as they illustrate why so many people believe millennials are truly dumb, or at least semi-literate.)
  4. Timeliness. Any pitch that ties research to current events or trends is welcomed.
  5. Superlatives. Discoveries of the oldest, farthest, largest, etc., are often worth some ink.

Fight the power (rankings)?

Some of my blogging higher ed colleagues are taking issue with my recent call to arms that we (the small but vibrant community of higher ed marketing and PR bloggers) storm the gates of Ad Age’s Power 150 rankings and stake our claim. The reason for my plea: Of the 658 marketing and PR blogs included in the Ad Age rankings, only one higher ed blog (this one) in on the list. Upon discovering this lack of representation, my inner PR guy took over, and I issued a challenge to five higher ed bloggers to add their URLs to the Ad Age list.

First to question the point of my call to arms was Andy Shaindlin of Alumni Futures. In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have thrown the gauntlet down at Andy. His blog has a special niche — alumni relations — and doesn’t meet the Ad Age criterla that mandates at least 50 percent of blog posts pertain to marketing issues. Fair enough. A bad call on my part.

I next heard from Robert French, who expressed strong reservations about these rankings, their validity, and the motives behind them. Now, Robert’s never been one to shy away from expressing his opinions on PR and marketing — he’s mixed it up with the likes of Amanda Chapel/Strumpette, so a discussion about the merits of Ad Age’s rankings is child’s play to this blogging vet — and he seems to relish a good cyber-donnybrook.

In his post, Robert dissects the Power 150 ranking criteria with the precision of a brain surgeon. But from my perspective, Robert is missing the point.

To dismiss the Power 150 as invalid because of the subjectivity of its metrics is like dismissing the annual U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities for the same reasons. We can object to the methodology, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to go away. It also doesn’t mean people are going to suddenly stop paying attention, simply because we object. The smattering of colleges and universities that have decided to withdraw from the U.S. News ranking process for similar reasons will soon discover that their effort is counterproductive. They are taking themselves out of the game, rather than changing the game.

Sure, the notion of assigning “Todd points” to blogs is capricious and subjective. If I were to create an alternative ranking of higher ed blogs (or, heck, why limit it to higher ed only? why not evaluate all marketing and PR blogs?), I’d assign “Andy points” — and guess whose blog would set the high-water mark? At least Todd feigned enough objectivity to shave a couple of points off his own blog. I would’ve assigned mine the highest possible value. Because it would be my ranking, and my rules. But I didn’t create a ranking, so the point of such a mental exercise is moot.

And yes, Technorati’s popularity rankings aren’t necessarily the most valid measures of a blog’s influence. There is a difference between authority and popularity, as Robert points out. So rather than cast stones at the Power 150 methodology, why not offer a more valid alternative? I’m reminded of the quote about critics being like eunuchs in a harem: “they know how it’s done, they’ve seen it done every day, but they’re unable to do it themselves” (source). Or in this case, they may be able but not necessarily willing or inclined.

And then there’s the argument that the Power Rankings are filled with SEO blogs. You’re going to have those who will try to game the system, regardless of the system. It happens with our institutions and U.S. News. We’ve all read the stories about universities fudging admissions numbers in hopes of rising in the rankings. If there’s a loophole, someone will try to exploit it. But there are plenty of legitimate blogs on the list. I doubt anyone reading this blog (if anyone’s still with me) would consider Seth Godin, the guy who holds the No. 1 spot, an interloper. Nor is Copyblogger (No. 3 and a valuable resource for anyone who writes PR or marketing copy) or dozens of other blogs on the site.

Regarding last night’s post: I suppose, in my enthusiasm to get other higher ed bloggers to infiltrate the power rankings, I failed to fully explain my rationale. It is simply this: visibility. We, as a community of bloggers, ought to be recognized for our efforts. The Ad Age Power 150 is one venue for recognition. Is it the only one out there? Heavens, no. Is it a panacea? Of course not. But it is one worth exploring and, if you’ll forgive the crass expression, exploiting.

In public relations, as in much of the rest of my life, I’m a pragmatist. I’m more interested in the way things work than in the way things ought to be. I’ve never been accused of being an idealist. Maybe that’s the wrong stance. But that’s the way I approach the Ad Age Power 150 rankings. There they stand. And here we stand — higher ed bloggers, on the sidelines. We can stay there. Or some of you can.

As for me, I’m diving head-first into the muck and mixing it up with all those marketers, the sleazoids and the legits.

Who’s with me?

—————-
Now playing: Arcade Fire – Neighborhood 3 – Power Out
via FoxyTunes

Higher ed bloggers: show your power!

Doing a bit of blog-surfing this evening and followed a link to the Ad Age Power 150 ranking of the top marketing and media blogs.

power150.png

The Power 150 was created by Todd Andrlik, who developed a simple multimetric algorithm (later expanded) based on page rank, links, subscribers, etc., to provide PR and marketing people a ranking of our own. (Being a marketing exec himself, Todd knows how obsessed we marketing and PR types are with rankings.)

I posted something about the rankings more than a year ago and, being the good PR guy that I am, decided to engage in a little self-promotion. So I submitted this blog to the rankings. I didn’t think I’d crack the top 150 but figured I wouldn’t know unless I tried.

To no one’s surprise, this blog is not listed among the elite top 150. But now the Ad Age rankings include 658 blogs, and this one has found a respectful niche in the middle of the long tail. As of today, Higher Ed Marketing is at No. 340, right between HRmarketer.com and Drew B.’s take on tech PR. (Technically, these three blogs and six others are in a nine-way tie for 338th place, as we all have 44 points.)

What really surprises me, and bothers me, is that I appear to be the only higher ed blogger in the rankings! Or at least in the top 500. I didn’t bother to surf the remaining 158 blogs, because I figured if some of the best higher ed blogs weren’t in the top 500, they most likely weren’t in the list at all.

My fellow higher ed bloggers, this state of affairs is unconscionable. There are some terrific higher ed blogs that focus on marketing and PR. Many of them are listed on my blogroll. None of them are in the Ad Age rankings. Why?

There’s no excuse for higher ed bloggers to be absent from this list. So consider this an open challenge to the higher ed blogging community to get its collective act together and get on the Power 150 rankings.

It’s as simple as visiting this site, filling out an online form and clicking the submit button. Really, how much easier does it have to be?

Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Lend me your URLs!

I’m issuing a challenge to five veteran higher ed bloggers: Karine Joly, Andy Shaindlin, Robert French, Brad Ward and Kyle James (OK, Kyle’s not a veteran but he blogs like one). Here’s the challenge:

  1. Submit their blogs to the Power 150 rankings, and
  2. Challenge five other higher ed bloggers to do the same.

Let’s get off the sidelines and into the game! After all, we are in the marketing business, right? It shouldn’t take the guy who runs the 340th most influential marketing blog to remind us.

—————-
Now playing: Radiohead – 15 Step
via FoxyTunes

Putting on my PR hat

I’m heading to Baltimore to attend and present at How Colleges Can Obtain National and Regional Publicity, an annual conference put on by Keith Moore Associates. On Monday, I’ll be co-presenting with Dan Forbush, one of the pioneering PR-on-the-web guys, and I’m looking forward to it greatly. I’m also looking forward to sticking around for the entire conference. It’s been a while since I’ve been to a conference that focused mainly on PR. It’s also been a while since I’ve been to a conference where I wasn’t spending most of my time presenting or moderating.

This conference will include plenty of discussion about new media and media convergence. Dan and I will present on “New Media Promotion: Facebook, YouTube and Bogs,” and it should be an interesting discussion. As I mentioned, Dan is a veteran in online PR. He’s the founder of Profnet, a service that connects journalists with colleges and universities. He founded Profnet back in the early 1990s, when only a few journalists were online and they all had Compuserve accounts. Profnet later merged with PRNewswire, and Dan is now executive director of communications at Skidmore College.

I remember hearing Dan talk about the impact of the Internet at a CASE conference in Denver, circa 1994 (when the only web browser was Mosaic), and something he said back then has stuck with me and is still relevant all these years later. It went something like this:

We’re in the middle of a revolution, and in a revolution, kings lose their heads. Therefore, think like a peasant.

I don’t know if Dan remembers that quote but it made a big impression on me. The kings of marketing and promotion, with their institutional, top-down, command and control approach, are headed for the guillotine. The “peasants” are creating their own marketing, and the smarter of us will be working with them and thinking like them.

If you’re planning to attend the conference, give me a shout.

—————-
Now playing: Los Campesinos! – Broken Heartbeats Sound Like Breakbeats
via FoxyTunes

The blogging informavore’s dilemma

According to this Slate article, I’m an “informavore.” You probably are, too.

The informavore is a new breed of hunter-gatherer, who forages for information online.

“On the Internet,” writes Slate’s Michael Agger, “we hunt for facts. … [W]e assess a site quickly, looking for an ‘information scent.’ We move on if there doesn’t seem to be any food around.”

The dilemma for an informavore who also happens to blog (and hopes for a modest readership) is that blogs aren’t very good sources of information. That’s according to usability expert Jakob Nielsen, who is the primary source for the Slate piece. Nielsen suggests that most blog postings are limited in their value to building business.

Blog postings will always be commodity content: there’s a limit to the value you can provide with a short comment on somebody else’s work. Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they’re definitely easy to write. But they don’t build sustainable value.

So, what’s a blogger to do in a world of informavores? Can a blog succeed only by linking to and sharing information? Agger argues that “a thoughtful blogger who tags his posts can cover a subject well.”

I tend to agree with Agger. I enjoy reading blogs that don’t necessarily follow the readability (scannability?) formula designed to cater to informavores:

  • bulleted lists
  • shorts paragraphs
  • lots of white space
  • bolded words
  • subheads
  • etc.

This is a subhead (in bold type, no less)

So, maybe blogging success equals thoughtful posts plus thorough taxonomy.

Based on my own experience since the first of the year, the theory that informational posts are of more interest seems to hold true. For this blog, posts that offer information of value to my main audience (higher ed folks, marketing and PR types) seem to be the most popular in terms of unique visits.

Since the first of the year, the top five posts (in terms of click-throughs) have offered something of value to the online community I interact with. Here they are, in order of number of unique visits. (Interestingly, each of the five links has an average time-on-page that is less than the site average. I’m not sure what that means, but I think it means that since I provide links to other information sources, as a good informavore-centric site should, they find the info they’re looking for and click through to it.)

  1. The habits of social network addicts pointed to a study comparing the characteristics of hardcore Facebook, MySpace and Twitter users. That’s obviously of interest to higher ed marketers.
  2. My “breaking news” post about the Northern Illinois University shooting last February.
  3. del.icio.us as a PR measurement tool.
  4. Friday Five: Q&A with Roy Adler and Tom Hayes, authors of ‘University Marketing Mistakes’.
  5. Book review: ‘University Marketing Mistakes’, a follow up to No. 4 on the list.

Each of these posts includes a morsel or two of info that I thought would be of interest to readers of this blog. Still, I don’t think I would ever beat Google, Digg, del.icio.us or any of the other info-portals. Nor do I hope to.

One thing blogs can do that those sites can’t is provide a bit of human voice and context to the data.

But maybe that isn’t the point anymore. Maybe it never was.

—————-
Now playing: Ladytron – Predict The Day
via FoxyTunes