How journalist-friendly is your #highered website?

newsMedia relations and PR in higher education continues to evolve. The old days of pitching story ideas or blindly sending out news releases is giving way to a different model — one that relies more on the Internet to connect us to our audiences.

We’re trying to optimize our websites to make them easier for journalists to find and easier for Google to index. We’re sharing more news with our audiences via social media. We’re putting our content in more media vessels than ever before, re-purposing print stories for the web and web for print, posting video and audio online, encouraging interaction through blogs and social. More and more, we are relying on the Internet to help get our news and our stories to our audiences.

That audience includes journalists, and many of them rely on the Internet to conduct research about the stories they’re working on. If we’re doing a good job getting of making our institutions visible in the online world of search and social, then chances are a journalist will end up on our .edu site in search for background information, or perhaps a source for an interview.

So, how well do our websites communicate the type of information journalists are looking for?

To my knowledge, no comprehensive study of .edu pages has tried to answer that question. But PR on Websites, a recent study by Nielsen Norman Group, does look at corporate, government and non-profit sites, and much of the information from that study translates well to the higher ed sector.

The free, 287-page report 287-page report offers more than 100 design recommendations for improving the design of PR areas of corporate websites, as well as helpful screenshots, discussions and quotes from journalists who took part in this comprehensive usability study. This is the third edition of this report, but it’s the first one I’ve read, and its expanded list of tips — 103 this time, as opposed to 32 from the first edition — provides a wealth of takeaways that should benefit anyone interested in making their websites friendlier to journalists.

Despite the report’s length, it’s an easy read — as you would expect of any report created by usability guru Jakob Nielsen and his company — so if you do no more than skim the executive summary (pages 3 through 7), you’ll glean some useful information.

“Ultimately,” write report authors Kara Pernice, Hoa Loranger and Nielsen, “PR-related usability comes down to a simple question: Why spend a fortune on outbound PR (trying to pitch journalists) when you neglect simple steps to increase the effectiveness of inbound PR (satisfying journalists who visit your website)?”

Some takeaways for higher ed PR folks and web designers:

Ditch the marketing talk

This should be a no-brainer for anyone with a PR background, but it’s worth emphasizing up front. “Journalists are not gullible,” the report notes, “and they don’t take a company’s own word as truth. Indeed, almost all journalists said that press releases were useful only to find out how a company is trying to position itself.” I would like to think that those of us in higher education are less buzzwordy than PR folks in, say, the tech sector. But I’ve seen my share of marketing dreck in higher ed PR pieces. (Heck, I’ve had to put my fair share of said dreck in press releases.)

The Nielsen folks further advise: “[B]asic information must be easy to find and should be cleansed of the marketese and excessive verbiage that smother the facts on many sites. Journalists don’t have time to … sift factual wheat from marketing chaff.”

How much of your PR content is actual wheat and how much is chaff? Better to do the sifting before you put your content on the web.

Facts, not fluff

Related to the point above, journalists want access to facts about our organizations.

In general, the more interesting facts you present about your company, products,and executives, the better for PR. Journalists look for facts they can use in their stories. Our study participants were much more excited about genuine information than about marketing claims, which they immediately discarded.

How easy is it for journalists to access interesting facts about your school?

Making contact

Make it easy for journalists to contact the people they need to contact for their stories. Doing so “can set you apart” from the competition.

Specifically, the study says journalists want to be able to easily find this information from our websites:

  • Press: Name, telephone number, and e-mail address
  • Company overview: What the company does, its purpose
  • Products and services: Information at the right level of detail
  • Financials: Trends (e.g., current and yearly earnings)
  • Management: Names, images, and bios of high-level executives
  • Philanthropic involvement: Information on social and environmental responsibility or other goodwill.
  • Spin: How the company wants to be perceived, its angle on a story
  • Images: Downloadable, high-resolution images of important people, products, services, and events
  • General facts: The basics of the company (e.g., CEO, headquarters, number of employees, year established)
  • People: Names and contact information for people who can be interviewed

We should assume they’re looking for the same from us.

Get discovered

Above all, make sure that your institution can easily be found via a Google search. “When looking for information and getting to the company’s website, the majority of the participants used Google and typed the company name in the search bar.” Journalists also relied on Google to get contact information. As one is quoted as saying in the study, “I use Google a lot to get people’s e-mail and phone number. Google is a time-saver.”

* * *

Higher ed websites try to serve a multitude of audiences, which makes focusing on a single one (like journalists) tough. But many of the same features journalists are looking for are useful to other audiences, too. The point this underscores for me is an idea that I’ve made before in this space: the colleges and universities need to start thinking like a media organization.

Photo: © TMarchev | Stock Free Images & Dreamstime Stock Photos

No more RSS sharing: not a plus for Google

Google-shared-itemsOnce upon a time, not so long ago, there was this nifty widget on the left sidebar of this blog. This widget let me share interesting stuff from my Google Reader RSS feed with readers of this blog, five items at a time. (That’s what it looked like, over there on the left.)

This widget held value for me because it gave me an easy way to present shareworthy news items with readers, without going to the trouble of blogging about those specific topics. If I found something I thought might be interesting to readers, I could simply click “share” on my Google Reader interface and, like magic, it would appear in the widget. This was a great way to share additional content here on this blog that I found interesting but not necessarily blogworthy.

Just as I shared that content here on the blog, it also was shared in the Google Reader environment itself with dozens of other higher ed folks and other connections in marketing, PR, music and related interests. I could share stuff from my RSS feed with my Google Reader connections, as well as read what they were sharing. It was an enriching experience.

Then on Halloween, Google pulled the plug on the Google Reader sharing function as we had become accustomed to, and re-routed it to the world of Google Plus.

So now, if I want to share items from my RSS feed, I can only do so via Google Plus. Not on this blog or in the native Google Reader environment.

I think this sucks. And I’m not the only one who thinks that. Many Google Reader devotees have voiced their unhappiness with this switch. They’re saying stuff like:

Keep the social functions! Yes yes yes. Don’t ruin all the functionality of Reader by removing the social stuff, that’s how I get all my news – it’s lovely to have my friends pick and choose what I read, but not have it lumped in with all the Facebook/Google+ style crapola.

And:

The beauty of Google Reader for me is the fact that my friends and I can have discussions about the interesting things we’re reading, in the same place that I’m reading all my RSS feeds. Go ahead and update the user interface if you have to, but don’t take away functionality!

And:

Please keep Google Reader social. I love that my friends and I can have discussions about CONTENT on google reader, unlike other social networks concerned with update status and other nonsense.

And so on. But perhaps the strongest critique comes from former Google Reader Product Manager Brian Shih, who nailed it with his Halloween post (hat tip to TechCrunch). Acknowledging the value of visual consistency as a design aesthetic, Shih rightly points out that “whoever made the update did so without ever actually using the product to, you know, read something.”

The fact of the matter, as Shih points out, is that the purpose of Google Reader is not at all the same as that of Google Plus.

Reader is a product built to consume information, quickly. We designed it to be very good at that one thing. G+ is an experience built around browsing (similar to Facebook) and socializing. Taking the UI paradigm for G+ and mashing it onto Reader without any apparent regard for the underlying function is awful and it shows.

A pretty scathing critique, but also pretty accurate. This change has left a bad taste in the mouth of this longtime Google Reader user. I haven’t exactly cottoned up to G+. (Like Alaina Weins, I’ve more or less given up on G+ altogether.) So shoehorning the sociability of Google Reader, a product that I love(d), into the G+ atmosphere isn’t going to convert me into a G+ fan any time soon.

Plus, I miss my Google Reader sharing widget. And isn’t sharing what social media is all about?