One of my real bugbears is when an online article/post mentions a website, but fails to link to it. I can understand not wanting to litter content with links, that just gets silly, but when it is fundamental to the story and there is no link it just drives me crazy!
And, without wanting to pick on anyone in particular, as I know the problem is widespread, today I have to single out New Media Age/Mad.co.uk.
Because of the nature of the site, they talk about websites, A LOT! So why oh why oh why don’t they link out to them? Is it out of panic about loosing link-juice? Do they want to try and keep users on the website at all costs? Is it just an administrative step too far for a publication that is still driven by a print-based magazine?
I don’t know.
All I do know is that it really annoys me and makes me avoid using the site over others that, frequently, have the same story with links.
As Dave Winer says, on the quote that adorns this blog: “People come back to places that send them away”
Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has been making headlines this week following his controversial anti-Brown outburst at the European parliament (video below). The headlines didn’t appear in traditional media outlets however. Rather, they appeared online and were spread via social media.
Maybe the traditional news believe that the speech, in purely political terms, was fairly inconsequential no matter what was said. As Daniel himself says: “I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP.”
But the public disagrees. With over 80,000 hits, the rant quickly became the most viewed video on YouTube, in the world – quite a feat!
This raises a few interesting questions: Is the mainstream media out of touch with public sentiment? Is it relying on traditional stories released or issued from the same old sources? Does this (again) merely demonstrate that social media has the potential to become a fundamental news distribution services that resonates very powerfully with consumers because it is driven by consumers?
I am perhaps being too tough on the traditional media. The old ‘quality control’ argument surely stands up. This wasn’t front page news, but the comments raised do seem to have resonated very powerfully with a public that is disillusioned and fed up with the dreary, bland news we are getting day in, day out.
Its also worth pointing out, as the Guardian mentions, that the speech itself is perfect for the Internet. A short video, with easy to follow arguments, delivered in a passionate way, not to mention the money-shot of Brown at the end. Succinct, to the point and engaging.
Whatever your politics, the democratisation of news is well and truly upon us.
Poor old ITV. Just when it looks as though they might be getting it together, it all goes wrong.
Today’s announcement is hardly surprising considering the nature of TV, TV advertising, advertising in general etc. and, of course, the ‘economic climate’.
I don’t really watch ITV – only really the football (and even that is in trouble) – and rarely rarely rarely visit the website.
Over at the Guardian, Jemima Kiss has a nice analysis of exactly what today’s ‘restructuring’ will mean for the company:
“With a share price already at a rock bottom 23.75p, ITV has been forced to take some drastic action. But ditching digital and abandoning investment in the most innovative parts of its business is extremely short sighted. If you think of a business as a family, these young digital businesses are the children that haven’t yet achieved their full potential, and ITV has given up on them already.”
And for the most part I agree with this viewpoint, although getting rid of portals like Friends Reunited is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that ITV has simply failed to find a niche in this new fangled digital world.
The local video arena that Jemima mentions is an interesting one and is certainly ripe for the taking. Especially with the demise of local media in general. Over in the US, the NYT is launching a new blog network to try and capture local news. In my mind, ITV are ideally placed to do the same here in the UK. But can they? Will they? Doesn’t look likely after today.
Rummaging through my feedreader tonight, I came across a number of interesting little nuggets all of which could justify their own post, but unfortunately, due to time pressures, that is never going to happen! So here they are all mixed in together. Enjoy.
What’s in a (SEO friendly) name?
A great little story from the Telegraph centering on a French town called Eu which has decided to change its name because it is unable to get enough Google-juice to ramp up its ailing tourist industry. Its not an easy process though. If ratified during a town referendum it will take five years to become legitimate. That is certainly a long-term SEO strategy!
iMP
Via Graham Jones, I came across this interesting study looking at how MPs are using the Internet. According to the report (which I haven’t read in full), 92% of MPs use email, 83% of MPs have a personal website, 23% of MPs use social networking and only 11% of MPs blog. As Graham suggests, these numbers are quite scary in some cases, but they possibly explain why the Digital Britain Report was so disappointing!
Twitter to the rescue
Channel 4 today sourced an interview with a eyewitness of the Amsterdam plane crash via Twitter (via Journalism.co.uk). Presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy made the connection via a tweet asking Jonathan Nip to “direct message me a number to ring you on please?”. Twitter saves the day again (at least for Channel 4!).
Joanna and the Birmingham Post ‘Get It’
I’ve given newspapers quite a tough ride in the past as I still don’t think many of them are making much of an effort to really transform themselves for the digital age. However, one journalist that really ‘gets it’ is the Birmingham Post’s Joanna Geary (soon to become web development editor at the Times). She has published a great slideshow demonstrating the work she has done at the BP over the last few years:
At a time when so much advertising fails to excite (perhaps due to the growth of online viral videos?), Cadbury’s eyebrow ad is, for me, one of the best in a long time. Its great to learn that they are now running an online event to maximise its success. JiveBrow09 will be run in conjunction with MSN and will encourage people to record and share their own versions of the ad. Safe to say, I wont be one of them – but a great idea nonetheless!
Finally my post on the Wildfire blog earlier this week on the Ryanair blogging fiasco has been driving huge amounts of traffic all week. You might like to read the update that I’ve posted tonight.
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged €600m (£565m) to help the country’s troubled newspaper industry. Ok, not too bad, news in certainly important.
But, he goes further….
He had added that he will give every teenager a free, one-year, state-subsidised subscription to a daily newspaper of their choice, as an 18th birthday cadeau.
Non? Oui. His words:
“The habit of reading a daily paper takes root at a very young age.”
Ok, so just forget about all the issues surrounding free press etc. etc. for a moment. I can understand the need to preserve the media. If state aid is the way to do this then fine. But why encourage youngsters down the route that will get media companies into the same situation again. As the lovely Guardian says:
“Sarkozy said he would increase sales points, loosen rules and pump aid into distributing papers to readers’ front doors. The number one problem is the cost of printing in France, with printworks tightly controlled by the communist union, Le Livre, which has rigid hours and protections. Sarkozy said the state would support negotiations with printers’ unions to reduce the costs by 30-40%.”
Ok, so printing is a problem. Ummmm…. Hmmm….. I wonder what could solve that?
This Week in Tech had an interesting discussion this week. They were reporting on a story from Business Insider which claimed that it costs the New York Times twice as much to print and deliver the paper each year than it would cost the paper to send each of its subscribers a free Amazon Kindle [with which they could read the digital edition].
They estimate that to print and deliver the NYT, it costs $644 million per year! Ouch!
So M. Président, by all means bail out the media companies. But put in place a caveat that they need to start investing in the modern day infrastructure that means they can start running a well-oiled business that is fully self-sufficient and realises when to change, move on and develop its ways.
Don’t believe me? Read what other [younger] people think (courtesy of the lovely Guardian again).
Tech journo supremo Charles Arthur this week compared the client/PR/Journo relationship with the car industry.
Confused? Well, yes, you might be! But stick with it. There are some interesting points raised (some more valid than others) including in the comments section if you can be arsed to wade through them.
Here are a few short, sharp observations of my own:
Mr Arthur is not your typical journalist
Every journalist is different – see this post Not all PRs/journos can be tainted with the same brush – this is a big industry with many sectors
Media relations (which is what we are talking about) is only a (diminishing) part of PR
MRs (and therefore PRs and their clients) still depends on journalists
There are more and more PRs and fewer and fewer journos
There is still a place for good quality, best practice MRs
PRs need to be consultants and need to be specialists and need to be realistic
As Guy says, the journalist doesn’t work for the client
But, the PR does work for the client
And most many journos need MRs
Many PRs HATE MRs
‘Did you get my press release’ – these calls do work sometimes and, in desperation, are understandable (if unfortunate)
But they don’t justify/want/need spam
As with everything in modern-day marketing, targeting is absolutely crucial
Good PRs are not merely consumed by money and/or results. We know the issues and the topics and how to write good stories
But we all (PRs and journos) have commercial interests; sometimes (at the best times) these can be mutual
