 |
© Newswise.
All Rights Reserved.
|
|
 |
 |
| Issue No. 200506
| June 2005
|
|
 Printer-friendly version |
The PIOnet Newsletter is sponsored by Newswise and Dick Jones Communications
Feature Editor: Dick Jones Editor/Publisher: Roger Johnson
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
PIOnet Newsletter is produced monthly to support media relations' vital role in integrated marketing for your institution. This role is not always adequately recognized, understood, or acknowledged. Our goal is to give you data, arguments, evidence, and ideas to enhance the understanding of and appreciation for media relations at your institution.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 | | |
| |
 |
| |
View full list of jobs in higher education.
| |  |
|
|
Fewer Reporters, More Deadlines Have Changed Journalism and Media Relations
by Dick Jones
Dick Jones Communications
Twenty-plus years ago, reporters seemed less inclined to ask for "a professor to say [fill in the blank] about the just-released commission's report." I call this "story scripting." The journalist seems to have the story written in his or her mind before the reporting is done.
There appears to me to be less openness to the concept that the expert source might come up with an explanation that does not fit a preconceived "box." Such requests are not the norm, even today, but I hear them more often than I used to.
Many years ago, we concluded that offering journalists quotes from our sources significantly increased the likelihood that reporters would call them sources for more input. That's because quotes show the journalist the direction of the source's thinking. It's just human nature, of course. If a reporter can see, by a source's quotes, that he or she is likely to provide a good interview that will advance the story, then that source is going to get a call.
In recent years, we've seen more direct use of the quotes we send in the stories that journalists write. Sometimes, when they're on deadline, they'll ask if they can use the quotes without talking to the source. There's nothing wrong with that. The quotes are authentic and have been approved by the source before we offer them.
I think that both trends, however, are the result of shrinking numbers of reporters at many news outlets, combined with the tyranny of the 24/7 news cycle. There are fewer reporters and more deadlines to meet.
The large newspaper (more accurately news-gathering) chains are extremely profitable. It is not uncommon for them to report profit margins in excess of 20 percent. So the number of journalists is not shrinking simply to keep the wolf from the door. It seems to be in decline to keep the profit margins up. American Journalism Review recently did a story on the Chicago-based Tribune Company about how much content is shared among Tribune-owned papers around the nation. The Tribune Company is not alone in filling up the news hole by using fewer journalists.
One thing this means for our business is that "local" stories with your school mentioned will turn up in papers and on websites in different geographic markets. The interconnection of the news media is blurring the line between local news and national news. And reporters know it. They are more receptive than they used to be to sources from outside the local area because it may help their story to be accepted by editors who see in it the potential for "sharing" with affiliated news outlets.
Recently an east-coast university president told me he wanted more media attention for his institution in Baltimore. He would be surprised to learn that one way to accomplish this is to get more stories in the Chicago Tribune. The Baltimore Sun is a Tribune Company property.
Fewer reporters and more deadlines have changed journalism. Journalism never was an occupation for the leisurely writer, of course, but the pressures on journalists to produce "content" are even stronger today.
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effects of News versus Advertising
by Zoltan Bedy
State University of New York at Oswego
Recently, a fellow PIOnaut asked the following on the PIOnet listserv: Does anyone know how to measure media hits on TV, on the radio, in newspapers, and in magazines in financial terms? That question started a very interesting discussion, the end of which will, perhaps, never be reached to the full satisfaction of all public relations (PR) practitioners. I don't have the answer, either. I do, however, have the results of a piece of research I found helpful in thinking about the question posed.
It has generally been the belief among PR practitioners that news about an organization is more credible than ads about the same organization, and is, therefore, preferable by and more valuable to -- and has a greater impact on -- the organization. News is done by journalists, presents facts, and is straightforward. Advertising, on the other hand, is given to puffery, hyperbole, and sometimes questionable presentation of "facts."
In "Effect of Content Type on Impact: Editorial vs. Advertising" (Public Relations Review, Volume 30, Issue 4, November 2004, pages 503-12), Samsup Jo conducted a project to find out whether news is more effective than advertising in conveying product messages.
Jo hypothesized that
a) a strong argument quality enhances the impact of message believability and attitude toward the message, brand, and purchase intention more than does a weak argument quality, under high involvement conditions (H1), and
b) news has a greater impact on message believability and attitude toward the message, brand, and purchase intention than does advertising, under low involvement conditions (H2).
First, the terms "involvement" and "argument quality" need to be clarified. "Involvement" is a cognitive process connected to new messages that is determined by the extent to which one is involved in a topic or product. As Jo explains, "High levels of involvement entice audiences to pay more attention to the message and less attention to the sources. In contrast, low levels of involvement lead audiences to pay more attention to the source than to the message content. Audiences who lack motivation to seek information about the issue or product tend to rely on peripheral cues about such sources of messages as the communicator's expertise and the content label (news or advertisement) of the message." In this study, computers and printers were determined to be high-involvement products, while cereals and dishwashing liquids were low-involvement products.
"Argument quality" is the extent to which a message has had an impact on persuasion based on involvement conditions. Says Jo, "Under high involvement conditions, people seem to exert intensive cognitive effort to evaluate the argument presented, and their attitudes are functions of this information-processing activity."
The results did not support either of Jo's hypotheses. A strong argument quality did not enhance the impact of the message believability and attitude toward the message (H1), and the content label did not affect the attitude toward the message and brand under low-involvement conditions (H2).
Although the hypotheses were not supported, some significant findings did emerge.
1. What Jo calls "significant interaction" was found between content type and argument quality, with (strong) argument playing "an important role in news" (and a less important role in advertisements).
2. Involvement level and argument quality "had more impact on the purchase intention than did content type."
3. Believability was not affected by content type. Both news and advertising "exerted similar impact on believability."
4. Content type had a "significant impact on brand recall," with more respondents "recalling brand name from advertising" than from news.
So, what does this all mean, and where does it leave us in the discussion about the "value" of news/publicity vis-à-vis advertising? The answer to the second part of the question is "Not far from where we started." As long as we, as PR professionals, are expected to place some sort of monetary value on the effects or results of what we do for our organizations, we can and will continue to use whatever formulas are available to somehow determine such a value.
But publicity/news and advertising serve different purposes and elicit different expectations, if not in our eyes, then certainly in the eyes of those at whom our messages are targeted.
That, then, brings us to the first part of the question above: "So what does all this mean?" It means that our messages must continue to be carefully constructed and our "arguments" to be strong in order to meet both the needs and expectations of our organizations and our audiences.
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book Review: The Public Relations Writer's Handbook
by Steve Maravetz
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine
To attempt to cover the wide array of public relations writing in a little more than 200 pages is an ambitious task, to say the least. In their book The Public Relations Writer's Handbook, first published in 1993, Merry Aronson and Don Spetner do an admirable job.
While a blurb on the book's jacket describes it as "a great reference for more experienced practitioners," this book's primary role is as a primer for students, entry-level professionals, and generalists in the field. Because of that, its brevity is an asset; it covers the most important types of public relations writing concisely and accurately.
Each chapter of the book focuses on a type of writing in which nearly all communications professionals must be well versed -- news releases, speeches, pitch letters, backgrounders, etc. Each chapter is then divided into small, clearly labeled segments that make the information easy to manage. For example, the chapter on news releases covers writing leads, including photos, assembling media kits, and so on. This type of quick overview is invaluable to both the novice and to the generalist who may deal with the news media only on an occasional basis.
This little book is part textbook, part reference work. For those types of writing that are not everyday occurrences, there are some handy little checklists that guide the reader through the process. One example is the list of ten steps to assist a practitioner in his or her speechwriting. As is true throughout the entire book, the steps are clear, concise, logical, and demonstrated with good examples.
One indication that The Public Relations Writer's Handbook is filled with solid information is the fact that except for some examples that are dated, it retains its value even 12 years after it was published.
Although the technology we use in our craft has changed immensely (in 1993, the Web barely existed, and email was in its infancy), the basics of what we do have not. This book emphasizes those basics, and particularly that of well-organized, audience-based writing, which cannot be reinforced often enough (even among seasoned professionals). In short, it provides a solid foundation upon which our junior colleagues can base their writing.
The book is never ponderous or pretentious. Instead, it is short on theory and long on practicality. It says what it wants to say, gives the reader an example or two, and moves on to the next topic. It would be a valuable addition to the reference collection of a junior colleague, a generalist whose responsibilities include a wide range of writing, or of someone responsible for public relations activities who has not had a great deal of formal training.
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
