Posts Tagged ‘Steve Shannon’


Internet and Life in 2029

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Steve Shannon

Media is ChangingThe Internet turned 40 years old, last week, on September 2nd.  As an armchair futurist, here’s what I see lying ahead for us in the years to come.

When the Internet turns 60 in 2029:

1. The landline telephone goes the way of the dodo. All phone calls are routed via the Internet. Everybody gets one phone number, for life, for all purposes. It replaces your social security number as the main means of identification.

2. Mobile phones truly become mobile computers. You make your all your business and personal calls, both voice and video, from this one device. You consume most of your media from it as well. The device links to all your files and applications. When you are in a fixed location, such as office, home, or hotel room, you dock your phone – much like you do today with a laptop –  permitting use of a larger screen, headset, and handset. (Keyboards are mostly irrelevant as speech to text technology types documents as fast as you can speak.)

3. Almost everybody consumes their news via video. Television and the web merge, eliminating the line between broadcast and web video.  

4. Cable companies become exactly that, just a delivery channel for the Internet. The same holds true for cellular phone providers as they shift to providing wireless Internet access.

5. All quality entertainment and sports media is purchased directly from the producers of that media. Media cartels form along the lines of ABC-Disney-ESPN, as one example, to serve a single consumer across a spectrum of programming and content (news-entertainment-sports). News and journalism exists within these entities but it is soft. Media relations still continues to thrive in this realm, providing reporters and editors with story ideas and content.

6. Hard journalism exists, but its audience is small and devoted. Funding for this is very much along the lines of how PBS currently operates, including the use of taxpayer dollars and augmented by advertising. Topics are limited to government and social issues as the media cartels cover everything else. (See previous bullet.)

7. Citizen journalism exists a la Wikipedia, but has narrow audiences, restricted by geography or topic. Public relations has a role here too, with companies being participants in these types of online communities.

8. All media programming and content is on-demand. You can pay for how many commercials you don’t or do want to see, trading money and/or highly detailed information about yourself for programming and commercials. The ads you do see are targeted specifically to you.

9. There’s plenty of free media available as well, a lot of it provided by consumer goods companies who have something to sell. The soap opera of the 1950s are truly reborn a century later. Companies with common audiences link together to form free media cartels, similar to those created by entertainment and sports media.

10. Last, signage, and vibrant ever-changing electronic signage at that, takes over the physical landscape as an inescapable way to deliver mass advertising and branding.

Does this all sound a little too far fetched?  If you find yourself saying that, do some research and see what day-to-day life was like in 1969, and all the advances in personal technology that have occurred since then. Still doubtful?  Then go back another 40 years to 1929, or another 40 to 1889.  One thing is for sure, the only constant is change.

How do you see media, the Internet, and technology changing in 2049? Share your thoughts with the readers of BurrellesLuce Fresh Ideas.

  • Share/Bookmark

A Public Relations Cliché I’m Really Tired Of

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Steve Shannon

If you are going to play business buzzword bingo at any public relations conference, the one phrase that should sit square in the middle as the free space is “seat at the table,” as in, “PR needs a seat at the table in the C-Suite (another buzzword) and/or the boardroom.”  I’ve been associated with the PR industry for 17 years now and I heard “seat at the table” at my very first PR conference, and I’m still hearing it today. No matter the topic, session, or agenda, that gem is sure to come out multiple times. How is it, in 17 years, PR is still wandering the halls, looking for the conference room with the meeting that has their “seat at the table”?

I’ll tell you why: Because the vast majority of PR professionals cannot tell you, in numbers, how their 71926867_14.jpgcommunications efforts impacted the bottom line of the organization and, if not the bottom line, how their communication efforts supported the organization’s overall business objectives, again in numbers.  In fact, other than senior communicators at any given organization, I’d wager you’d be hard-pressed to find PR pros who can rattle off their company’s business objectives, as defined by the CEO.

Why the emphasis on numbers? Simple: it is the language of the C-Suite and the Board. That’s a cliché too, but it’s the hard truth. No CEO or board member worth their salt focuses on clipbooks, story counts, impression counts, and the like. Numbers like that get a SO WHAT, as in “so what did that do for the organization’s bottom-line or business objectives?” Buzz and 50 cents get you a cup of coffee, bub.

So what’s PR to do? How does PR measure its communications efforts in a way that can show bottom-line results or business objective support? Unfortunately, there are too many organizations with differing or unique circumstances and objectives to provide a cookie-cutter approach or it would have happened already.

What I’d like to suggest (and BurrellesLuce is ready to help lead the effort) is that the various public relations organizations such as the Public Relations Society of America, the International Association of Business Communicators, the Council of PR Firms, the Institute for Public Relations, and the Society for New Communications Research, among others, come together, and lay out simple, easy-to-get-started measurement templates for the universal business objectives of the most common business or organization verticals, which do share common circumstances and objectives. 

For example, hotels all share the common business objective of getting guests to book sleeping rooms, meeting rooms, and dining or catering services. How does PR support this? How can that be measured and numerically reported in a way that shows the C-Suite how much PR drives sales of sleeping rooms, meeting rooms, and dining or catering?  With a measurement template out there for hotels, endorsed by all of the organizations above, how much do you want to bet that every hotel PR professional out there not measuring bottom-line results or business objective support would start? 

Imagine if there was a template out there for your industry? Wouldn’t you start measuring how your PR efforts deliver bottom-line results or support business objectives?

  • Share/Bookmark

Tweeting At Conferences Encourages New Level of Engagement

Friday, June 12th, 2009

JR Hipple (Hipple & Company Reputation Management), Debbie Friez (BurrellesLuce), and Joel Swanson (Risdall McKinney Public Relations) attended the recent PRSA Counselors Academy Conference.Like Steve Shannon, BurrellesLuce executive vice president, I have also attended several conferences, recently. (See “Are You a Conference Commando” post). The live tweeting is an interesting phenomenon, which has really taken off. Most conferences now promote a hashtag (# followed by a short tag) to use when tweeting about the event.

This use of a hashtag has allowed me to achieve a new level of engagement:

1. I’ve found new people to connect with by following the conference hashtag. I really enjoy meeting other Twitter users at the sessions, and adding live interaction to our online relationship. Tweeting gives us instant camaraderie!

2. I rarely take notes anymore. My tweets (or someone else’s) will tell me all the important points.

3. I am adding value for my followers, who are able to get the key points from the conference. Many of the conference tweets have been re-tweeted by followers who are not attending.

Here are some of my recent tweets highlighting the latest industry conferences:

  • Steve Holt of WCBS does not answer his phone. Don’t send follow-up e-mails. Don’t pitch a story CBS network is doing. #mrs09
  • A good pitch is a new idea. Parker-Pope doesn’t have time for meet and greets. #mrs09
  • Old media relations tools still apply to social media. Be transparent and have something to say. #mrs09
  • Remember to optimize your tweets for search says @courtneymbarnes #ca2009
  • Hagler: for pitches-don’t lead with your strength, lead with what you want to grow. #CA2009
  • Tip – Measure relationships i.e. process measures, quality of relationship or value of no coverage. #CA2009

Are you creating a hashtag for your next conference? Are you live tweeting from conferences you attend?

  • Share/Bookmark

I’m Not Going to Pay A Lot For That Content!!!!

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Steve Shannon
316929914_238392ea55_m.jpgThe headline of this post paraphrases the great boxer and pitchman George Foreman. Before he got into the grilling business, George “wasn’t going to pay a lot for a muffler.”

Apparently, he and countless others don’t want to pay a lot for the electronic editions of books either. Motoko Rich of The New York Times writes, in this article, that customers of Amazon have balked at paying $15 for the electronic edition of David Baldacci’s newest novel “First Family.” Most e-editions for Amazon’s Kindle reader are priced at $9.99, while the average hardcover book has a cover price of $26.

The argument advanced by these consumers: the costs of paper, printing, and distribution are out of the equation and the price of the electronic edition should reflect it. Sounds right to me. But Rich reports that such expenses generally run 12.5 percent of a hardcover’s average retail price. If that is the case, then $3.25 should cover those costs.

Continuing to follow the logic advanced by the consumers, an e-book should then have an average retail price of $22.75, not $15 or even $9.99. What’s going on here? It turns out that Amazon is likely subsidizing the books – paying publishers $13 for each $9.99 book it sells. Thirteen dollars is the same price Amazon also pays publishers for a hardcover version. The subsidy from Amazon probably encourages adoption of its Kindle reader, which then makes the owner beholden to Amazon for their e-book purchases.

Who’s right?  Publishers? Retailers? Consumers?  Who knows, but that’s the beauty of capitalism.

More importantly, for those of us in PR, what does it mean for the news media, which faces a similar conundrum in the pricing, revenues, and profits of the print versus electronic realms? Personally, I think it means that publishers and news consumers will both have to give a bit to continue to create, sell or receive quality news.  For news publishers, it means finding a way to charge for content they’ve so far given away for free on the web. New consumers will have to acknowledge and pay for the quality of that content with their wallets, their demographic info and/or consuming advertising, along with the editorial. Much like the book publishing example above, the market will take a while to find its equilibrium, but find it, it will.

My bet is that we’ll see a plethora of free and paid news (and topic) sites, and perhaps hybrids of both. My other bet: paid audience will be prized by PR professionals and marketers. That is where the ever-desired “influentials” will reside, as quality content for news (or any topic) will likely be monetized rather than free.

One thing you can be sure of, no matter what models news media sites end up with, BurrellesLuce will be there to monitor them.

  • Share/Bookmark

Can the Average Net-User Rationalize Paying for News Content?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Steve Shannon
Copyright The May 11th edition of the Wall Street Journal contained a very interesting op-ed by author Mark Helprin, “Copyright Critics Rationalize Theft.” In the piece, he discusses how opponents of copyright make various specious arguments that copyright stifles creativity, commerce, freedom and then he deftly points out how they are, of course, wrong.

Without copyright protections, creators of original works would have little financial incentive to create them; thus, there would be less of the very things challengers claim copyright inhibits. Think about how many books, articles, websites, songs, software, and movies wouldn’t exist if their creators weren’t able to make their living doing so.

Helprin’s points also collide with an emerging issue affecting the news media, newspapers in particular:  How will they profit from their creative works published online, which they currently give away for free, when they are not earning enough revenue from a failed ad-supported model? Publishers may look to a system of micropayments and/or “passes” (read: subscriptions) that will charge users to view articles. So, to riff on the title of Helprin’s piece, can the average net-user rationalize paying for news content?

My prediction is that we’ll see a many folks adopt this model right away. The first group is the same “influentials” and “heavy news consumers” who now read the paper version of publications. This group includes me, and I pay $40 a month to have The New York Times chucked in my driveway every day. I’d gladly pay the same to access its great content online, especially if the print edition went away. 

Then there is a second group consisting of “media snackers,” who only consume content from outlets such as The Washington Post, online.  The Washington Post has a print circulation of 665,000 but draws 9.4 million unique visitors to its site each month. Those 9.4 million don’t all live in the D.C. area, and their browsing clearly shows they value something about the original content. (I’m a D.C. area native and I keep up on the region everyday on washingtonpost.com, so I certainly see the appeal.)

Assuming a print subscription to The Washington Post also costs $40 per month, those 9.4 million unique visitors would each need to pay $2.83 per month to equal the subscription revenues the paper gets for its print edition. That’s less than 10 cents per day in any given month. Of course, not all 9.4 million will pony up, but you get my point.

That’s where the micropayment model would work. Want to read one article on a newspaper site that you found through search?  Pay 99 cents.  Prefer to get a pass to let you read as many articles as you wish for a month? Pay six bucks. Want a pass to a consortium of sites? I’m sure that will exist as well.

If you think about it, the vast majority of creative journalism these days is still being driven by traditional media for their ad-supported print edition, and posted online, mostly for free. As revenues associated with the print mode of delivery decline, publishers will need to make up that revenue or go out of business. Like it or not, net-users will have to rationalize paying for content. It may be a micropayment model I’ve outlined above, or some other model, but they will have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch (or journalism).

Would you pay for online content? Share your thoughts with us here at BurrellesLuce.

  • Share/Bookmark