THE NEWEST THREAT TO PR

Last night, I was researching various newspapers, in preparation for a release I was about to issue for one of my clients.

For one thing, I was researching who’s still there. I was researching who writes what (very important after the constant layoffs at newspapers). I was also looking at what they’ve written recently, so I could sound educated when I contacted them. I was looking at their bosses…Editors, Managing Editors, and so on. And I was also studying the general tone of the papers’ recent coverage, to discern their priorities, and those of their readers.

And then it hit me. Are we going to be able to do that next year? Next month?

What happens if newspapers – and magazines – actually do start charging for online content, instead of just talking about charging for online content? I haven’t read anything, yet, about how this will affect public relations practitioners. But it seems to me the effect could be like a tsunami.

I’m particularly concerned with independent practitioners, who are becoming an ever-more vital part of the PR workforce. These people may not have the resources to subscribe to comprehensive media databases (which may or may not provide all the information I’m able to gather by simply going to a paper’s website). And they may not have the resources to pay for online subscriptions to hundreds of newspapers and magazines.

On a larger scale, however, all the talk about (and possible movement toward) pay-for-content models affects all of us in this industry, from the solo practitioner to the large agency, as well as corporate PR departments. It’s already tough enough to connect with many journalists, because they’re now doing the jobs of two – and sometimes three – people. Putting another wall between us will only make the job harder.

Let’s remember, too, that this is hardly a one-way street. Many journalists – often, because they are doing the jobs of two people – depend on PR pros for a lot of their ideas. By inserting a barrier between PR pros and journalists, pay-for-content will only make the journalist’s job even harder than it’s already become – because it may shut them off from some good sources of ideas.

Look, no one’s saying that the current media models shouldn’t change. They must change, because they’re obviously unsustainable the way they are now. What I am saying, however, is that those of us in this industry had better start tossing around some ideas as to how this is all going to play out. And how we’re going to be able to perform some aspects of our jobs when it does change.

I’ve been reading a lot of talk about whether people will be able to – or want to – pay to subscribe to their newspapers or magazines online. But I haven’t read anything about how PR people are going to afford to pay if pay-for-content becomes standard.

And it’s something I think we should be talking about - before it happens.

Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com

REPORTS OF THE DEATH OF MAGAZINES ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

Here's one LinkedIn, Facebooked, Twittering PR maven who echoes Richard Wanderer's belief that magazines are not quite dead yet. And I have to say that it's really refreshing to hear a voice of optimism amidst all the naysayers who bellow with such certainty that the age of the magazine has come and gone.

For all its faults - particularly with its business model - the magazine still does a lot of things better than anything else. It still analyzes the news better than anything else. It still has the ability to get in-depth better than anything else. It still, in its purest and most exciting forms, has the ability to enlighten (and to engage) us better than anything else. It still attracts the finest writers in America - more than any other medium. And - not to sound arrogant - those writers are true journalists (not "citizen-journalists"), who are trained to observe, report objectively, and search for the hidden facts. And, who - even though most of them, because of layoffs, are now doing the job of two, or even three, people - still do it damned well.

In addition, I think magazines still have a kind of excitement to them, a kind of excitement that the web - despite its 24/7 news cycle - cannot yet match. When I walk out to the mailbox and see one of my magazines in there, I know that I'm going to have an hour or two of good reading, written by good writers, and tailored to my taste. And I know that it's going to be an hour or two without any flashing e-mail messages or (hopefully) phone calls...an hour or two, in a quiet place, just for me.

I want to make the point, as well, that not only do I still read magazines, but, as President of a Public Relations/Marketing firm, I pitch them regularly. And they still work pretty damned well for me. Many people, still, like to hold the printed word in their hands, not only read it on a screen. Many people, for better or worse, still ascribe more credibility to something they read in print than something they read online. Many of my clients, still, believe that magazines are just as important - or more important - than the web. And many of them - still - are more satisfied with the results of exposure in print than with exposure on the web.

So, hopefully, to paraphrase Mark Twain...reports of the death of the magazine are greatly exaggerated.

Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com