Blog
The Online News RoomFebruary 21, 2012 by kaypaumier One of the most frequent questions I see on LinkedIn (PR section) is about online press rooms. It seems there is a lot of confusion about the topic. Here are my thoughts on the matter. I’ll first discuss the general content of the press room. In my next post, I’ll talk about navigation and give some additional tips. But first, the basics. The term “online press room” (also called a “news room” or “media room”) refers to an area on the web that is dedicated to providing the news, visuals and other information reporters may need to cover your company, product and services. The section also gives other visitors an organized way to get background information. A good online press room has several advantages:
The online press room could be a designated area on the general website or a mini site with its own URL. If the former, make the link obvious on all pages—especially the home page—and make sure it takes only one click to get there. Here are some other tips. Content Make the online press room complete. Provide all the information someone who knows nothing about your organization would need to understand your business. For example, include the following material, as appropriate for your organization:
You might also consider:
In my next post I’ll discuss navigation and give some other tips for an effective online press room.
Posted in Public Relations (PR), publicity |
Twitter Makes Us Better Writers?February 16, 2012 by kaypaumier Does Twitter make us write better? Amanda Cosco, author of “How Twitter Can Make You a Better Writer,” thinks so. I was initially surprised by her premise, but she makes some good points. After all, Twitter, by its nature, demands brevity. You have to rely on nouns and verbs. For the most part, adjectives and adverbs need not apply. That focus on making every word count made Hemingway an excellent writer. Perhaps it can help some other aspiring authors out there. Amanda also points out that Twitter lets writers try out ideas. Using Twitter to ask people’s opinions is a great way to brainstorm. (Twitterstorm?) Amanda admits she asked her followers what they thought about Twitter and its influences on writing before she wrote her article. So perhaps communicating in 140 characters is good for us after all. LOL everyone.
An Infographic as a News Release?February 9, 2012 by kaypaumier In his article in Ragan’s PR Daily (http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9686.aspx), Mickie Kennedy cites five reasons “why Infographics could be used for a news release.”
I believe a good infographic would help an announcement stand out in the crowd. I also doubt that an infographic, by itself, could truly convey the news. Probably the most famous infographic of all time, Charles Minard’s 1869 chart of Napoleon’s 1812 Russian campaign, requires text explanation. Still, it seems that the infographic is becoming more important and popular, making it a good tool in the publicity toolchest Stay on the Sunny SideFebruary 7, 2012 by kaypaumier “A massive language study, spanning Google Books, Twitter, popular songs lyrics and The New York Times, has found that English tends to look on the bright side of things. Positive words outnumber the negative.” So reports Brandon Keim in his article “Happy Words Trump Negativity in the English Language” (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/english-positivity/). This comes as no surprise. As a former writing teacher, I often advised students to write positively rather than negatively. It is harder for people to understand a negative sentence (e.g., “It is not as difficult now”) than a positive one (e.g., “It is easier now”). And positive statements tend to be shorter than negative ones, again speeding comprehension. I guess this means we can pack more positive sentiments into a given conversation or paragraph than we could pack negative ones. So, as the old song goes “accentuate the positive.” Sounds like a worthy goal.
Turn Right Here LeftFebruary 2, 2012 by kaypaumier As the political campaigns heats up again (sigh), I’m fascinated by the political labeling. We have red, blue and purple states (and perhaps red, blue and purple people). We have conservatives, liberals and moderates. (Not too many of that last group, unfortunately.) And, of course, we have the “right” and the “left.” This is perhaps the most pervasive of the labels, because we use the words so often in daily, non-political speech. After all, if you’re “right,” you’re “correct.” What a nice, positive statement. But we don’t say someone is “left,” do we? Any driver will tell you it’s easier to go “right” than go “left.” And it can be tricky to follow the directions to “turn right here left” or “turn left right here.” But you can be “left” behind (not good, generally, although it might be good in some circumstances). And we say someone “left;” we never say someone “righted.” As a left-hander, I know too well how much in this world favors the right. I’m reminded of that saying: “If the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, then only left-handed people are in their right minds.” Who Can You Trust?January 26, 2012 by kaypaumier Fully 75 percent of Americans think news organizations generally don’t get the facts right, according to Pew Research. Two-thirds (66 percent) say stories are often inaccurate–a new high–and almost 75 percent believe that journalists try to cover up their mistakes. Julia Moos discusses these statistics in her article, “Pew: 75 percent of Americans Say Press Can’t Get Their Facts Straight” (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/147038/pew-75-of-americans-say-press-cant-get-their-facts-straight/ “Taken together, the findings indicate negative opinions about media are higher than ever,” Moos says. But even given those dismal percentages, most Americans trust traditional media more than other sources of news. What does this mean? We believe only a quarter of what we read or hear? If so, why do we repeat (and retweet) so much of this “fiction”? Why do so many bits of news have a greater life on sites like Twitter and Facebook than on traditional media channels? To venture a guess, I think lots of us feel it is less important to be accurate than to be interesting. Being “interesting” is important (perhaps essential) for many online “communications.” But being “interesting” (by itself) does not an informed populace make.
TV News Becoming More PopularJanuary 23, 2012 by kaypaumier Who would have thought it? Network TV news, which was supposed to be on life support, grew their audiences last season, the first time since 2001-02. In his article, “New Life in Television’s Evening News” (http://news.yahoo.com/life-televisions-evening-news-105534857.html), AP writer David Bauder says that ABC, CBS and NBC are continuing to add viewers this season. Collectively they are seen by more than 20 million people each weekday. As Bauder notes: “Many pundits believed evening newscasts would become obsolete with the availability of news 24 hours a day on cable TV and the Internet. Instead, the curating function of the evening news has become more vital.” It seems that many of us get Internet and news fatigue, and just want someone reputable to sort through things, explain them and give some perspective. I understand, really I do. NBC is the most popular TV news, followed by ABC and CBS, a rating that hasn’t changed since the days of Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. But the content of at least two of the newscasts has changed somewhat. With Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” as anchor, CBS “has aired a meat-and-potatoes newscast for a serious time.” The network has devoted more time to foreign policy and economic subjects than either of the other shows. ABC emphasizes celebrity, health, medicine and family stories more than CBS and NBC. Although it’s called “World News,” the ABC newscast covers foreign affairs and foreign policy less than either CBS or NBC. Diane Sawyer is anchor. NBC’s “Nightly News” with Brian Williams covers more late-breaking news than ABC or CBS, and spends the most time on natural disasters. It’s also the least-changed broadcast. But when you’re number one, you don’t need to change…much. New Words Describe Mobile TypesJanuary 12, 2012 by kaypaumier In the November 13 issue of the New York Times Magazine, Lizzie Shurnick suggests several new words, all geared for cell phone/smartphone users. “Clogin” is defined as “one who blocks an entrance or exit while checking a smartphone.” “Mailingerers” are “those who pretend to have messages.” And “e-ander” is “walking slowly while checking messages.” I ran into several clogins and mailingerers, not to mention a few e-anderers, just the other day. It’s amazing how they appear if you’re running late. LinkedIn Popular with JournalistsNovember 21, 2011 by kaypaumier Facebook seems to get all the buzz, but I’ve always been a LinkedIn sort of person. So I was glad to see that journalists are on LinkedIn more than any other social network, according to a survey from Arketi Web Watch Media. http://socialtimes.com/journalists-flock-to-linkedin_b77877 The survey found that 92% of journalists actively use LinkedIn, up from 85% two years ago. The impact? Besides being a forum for business connections, LinkedIn becomes a publicity vehicle. And that means that sharing your content and information freely on LinkedIn can help you market not only to prospects and business associates, but also to media professionals. Once you become established as the LinkedIn “go-to” person for particular topics, guess who the reporters will call when they need someone with your expertise? Just another tool in the publicity tool chest.
Posted in Media, Public Relations (PR), publicity, Social Media |
Tags: media, publicity, social media Social Networks Soaring, Nielsen SaysNovember 17, 2011 by kaypaumier Americans spend about a quarter of their “online time” on social networks and blogs, according to Nielsen’s third quarter social media report. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392800,00.asp#fbid=LF7speCVOdS Not surprisingly, Facebook is the most dominant Website. What is surprising (to me at least) is that Americans spent more than 53 billion minutes Facebooking last May alone. That comes down to a total of nearly 101 years. Where, I ask, do people get all that time? Other interesting statistics:
|
Get e-mail updates |
