Public relations and media relations professionals are finding that like the mainstream media, they too must adapt and move resources to better tap into online outlets. But they say print has maintained its value and cachet.
It used to be that if you wanted to promote your company or were in the business of public relations, you pretty much knew were to look. You had a few local print publications – the local metro paper and maybe a regional magazine – a few local radio and TV stations and a few national outlets. Now the number of media outlets is ballooning faster than people can keep track of the new options.
Obviously the new information sources have taken their toll on the old standbys, reshuffling PR’s bread and butter.
Consider that just in the six months prior to March, paid weekday circulation decreased by an average of 3.6 percent among American newspapers; The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s paid daily circulation is 10.4 percent smaller than it was in 2001. Media General, parent company of the Times-Dispatch, announced a plan in May that would cull 750 employees in 2008. Newspapers around the country have shed staff and told reporters to do more with less.
Public relations and media relations professionals are finding that they too must adapt, moving resources to better tap into online outlets.
“It causes everybody associated with those industries – whether they’re a PR person or an advertiser or a marketer – to consequently reinvent themselves as well,” says Jonathan Rhudy of Rhudy & Co. Communications and Marketing.
Yet for as often as pundits have declared that “print is dead” and despite its declining readership, PR professionals say it has maintained its value and cachet.
Part of that value comes from print’s prestige and credibility, its still substantial infrastructure which can deliver compelling content, and the fact that a metro paper still reaches hundreds of thousands of people, says James R. Rubin, an assistant professor of business administration who studies media and business relations at UVA’s Darden School of Business. And, even though a PR professional may question the utility of print next to online media today, many clients still find great satisfaction in seeing their name in print – that is, on real newsprint – regardless of the fact that fewer people are seeing that story today.
“The credibility that comes with print is still important to clients,” says Rhudy.
Of course old media’s prestige can be a challenge according to Jeff Wilson, director of business development at the public relations firm CRT/tanaka. He says clients may come in with visions of a splashy story in USA Today but a wiser option might be to, for example, target “mommy blogs” when there is an appropriate fit between product and audience.
Leaner staffs at old media outlets – the result of significant industry layoffs — also mean there are fewer reporters to pitch on behalf of clients. Reporters are often overwhelmed with press releases at a time when they may be asked to not only report on a story but also shoot video or maintain a blog. And many former media hands have since gone to work for public relations firms, meaning even more competition to get the ear of someone who can turn an idea into an article.
PR pros say that this supply and demand inequity has helped print hold its value in the PR arsenal. Of course, in many cases, getting a client “in print” means that the story will also be online, owing to the common practice of porting printed articles to the web. The number of readers who will read a story in print has declined, but, to some extent, newspapers recoup some of those numbers when the same article makes its way to the web.
Most media relations companies sell a basket of services together for which one pays a fee – be it a monthly retainer or something by the hour or by the project – but some offer pay-for-placement (pay-for-play) or pay-for-performance fee schedules. Rather than pay an upfront fee, a client pays only when the agency places a story.
Local businesses looking to try a pay-for-play PR company will have to look outside Richmond as officers with the city’s chapter of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) did not know of a local agency with such an arrangement. Hellerman Baretz Communications, which has a local office, has a pricing plan that includes a fee if the firm lines up an interview but this doesn’t approach the simple pay-for-play menu that PayPerClip PR, which is based in Califon, NJ, posts on its web site. For example, the agency charges $1800 for obtaining a feature article in a newspaper with circulation of less than 100,000 while a mere “mention” in the same paper would cost only $800. Yet, when comparing print to an online publication, PayPerClip charges $850 for a feature on a consumer web site with 50,000-199,000 visitors per month whereas obtaining only a mention runs $650.
As PayPerClip’s menu shows, the value of an online PR story might be substantial but more value is still ascribed to old fashioned print.
So is print dead? Not yet. Does it reign supreme as it once did? No. But it does seem to have held its value as a public relations outlet – if only in large part because there is less of it to go around.
“I think sometimes people are putting a nail in the coffin of traditional media too quickly. Traditional media is still very, very important. But now when we’re counseling our clients, we’re definitely looking at a mix of coverage: traditional outlets – newspapers, magazines, radio, TV – but you definitely cannot ignore … online media as well,” says Wilson.
Evaluating Online Media
There is a well-used infrastructure to evaluate who reads which magazine, who watches which TV shows and who listens to certain radio stations. A variety of third-party audit organizations such as Nielson Media Research (the “Nielson Ratings”) and the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) offer trustworthy numbers as to how popular a certain media outlet is. Beyond the raw numbers, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations often provide a wealth of information about their audiences, be it household income, hobbies, buying patterns, etc. It makes sense because if advertisers are going to spend money to reach these audiences, they want to know who exactly it is that they’re going to be reaching. That infrastructure also serves media relations professionals well. If they’re looking to get the word out about a certain product, they can fairly easily sort through media outlets to determine the most appropriate fit; perhaps it’s young, male executives or music-loving teens.
But online media is not so easy to evaluate. While there are ratings services like Nielsen Online and the new ABCi , they track but a fraction of the ocean of millions of online sites. Also, many web sites tend to self-report their traffic numbers without a third-party assessment and there is still some confusion in the marketplace over the metrics: What constitutes a “hit” and are visitors to one’s site unique or are there duplicates? How long does someone have to be on a site to constitute a real visit? When web sites do offer solid visitor numbers, they often lack much depth; few sites offer much in the way of demographic data on visitors.
Jeff Wilson of CRT/tanaka says that online properties that are offshoots of traditional media outlets are easier to trust when it comes to their audience data, but, overall, scouting out the right online outlet requires “a lot of homework.” It means checking to see which sites link to the site in question; Wilson notes that even though a site may not have a very large audience, it can still be a very important property, either because it has a very focused niche audience or is an important “thought leader” site which shapes discussion, thus garnering more coverage in other outlets.
For those looking to evaluate the reach of web sites on their own, Technorati lists blogs by a power index which approximates how popular the site is. Alexa allows users to examine web visits to various sites but isn’t very illustrative when it comes to measuring web sites that are not among the web’s most popular. Some sites provide a media kit or press kit with an audience profile but, again, look to see what credibility lies behind those numbers.
Lee Gimpel is a Richmond-based journalist who covers business, technology and culture. His work has appeared in Inc., Entrepreneur, The Washington Post and Men’s Journal.” You can read more about him at his website.
Public relations and media relations professionals are finding that like the mainstream media, they too must adapt and move resources to better tap into online outlets. But they say print has maintained its value and cachet.
It used to be that if you wanted to promote your company or were in the business of public relations, you pretty much knew were to look. You had a few local print publications – the local metro paper and maybe a regional magazine – a few local radio and TV stations and a few national outlets. Now the number of media outlets is ballooning faster than people can keep track of the new options.
Obviously the new information sources have taken their toll on the old standbys, reshuffling PR’s bread and butter.
Consider that just in the six months prior to March, paid weekday circulation decreased by an average of 3.6 percent among American newspapers; The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s paid daily circulation is 10.4 percent smaller than it was in 2001. Media General, parent company of the Times-Dispatch, announced a plan in May that would cull 750 employees in 2008. Newspapers around the country have shed staff and told reporters to do more with less.
Public relations and media relations professionals are finding that they too must adapt, moving resources to better tap into online outlets.
“It causes everybody associated with those industries – whether they’re a PR person or an advertiser or a marketer – to consequently reinvent themselves as well,” says Jonathan Rhudy of Rhudy & Co. Communications and Marketing.
Yet for as often as pundits have declared that “print is dead” and despite its declining readership, PR professionals say it has maintained its value and cachet.
Part of that value comes from print’s prestige and credibility, its still substantial infrastructure which can deliver compelling content, and the fact that a metro paper still reaches hundreds of thousands of people, says James R. Rubin, an assistant professor of business administration who studies media and business relations at UVA’s Darden School of Business. And, even though a PR professional may question the utility of print next to online media today, many clients still find great satisfaction in seeing their name in print – that is, on real newsprint – regardless of the fact that fewer people are seeing that story today.
“The credibility that comes with print is still important to clients,” says Rhudy.
Of course old media’s prestige can be a challenge according to Jeff Wilson, director of business development at the public relations firm CRT/tanaka. He says clients may come in with visions of a splashy story in USA Today but a wiser option might be to, for example, target “mommy blogs” when there is an appropriate fit between product and audience.
Leaner staffs at old media outlets – the result of significant industry layoffs — also mean there are fewer reporters to pitch on behalf of clients. Reporters are often overwhelmed with press releases at a time when they may be asked to not only report on a story but also shoot video or maintain a blog. And many former media hands have since gone to work for public relations firms, meaning even more competition to get the ear of someone who can turn an idea into an article.
PR pros say that this supply and demand inequity has helped print hold its value in the PR arsenal. Of course, in many cases, getting a client “in print” means that the story will also be online, owing to the common practice of porting printed articles to the web. The number of readers who will read a story in print has declined, but, to some extent, newspapers recoup some of those numbers when the same article makes its way to the web.
Most media relations companies sell a basket of services together for which one pays a fee – be it a monthly retainer or something by the hour or by the project – but some offer pay-for-placement (pay-for-play) or pay-for-performance fee schedules. Rather than pay an upfront fee, a client pays only when the agency places a story.
Local businesses looking to try a pay-for-play PR company will have to look outside Richmond as officers with the city’s chapter of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) did not know of a local agency with such an arrangement. Hellerman Baretz Communications, which has a local office, has a pricing plan that includes a fee if the firm lines up an interview but this doesn’t approach the simple pay-for-play menu that PayPerClip PR, which is based in Califon, NJ, posts on its web site. For example, the agency charges $1800 for obtaining a feature article in a newspaper with circulation of less than 100,000 while a mere “mention” in the same paper would cost only $800. Yet, when comparing print to an online publication, PayPerClip charges $850 for a feature on a consumer web site with 50,000-199,000 visitors per month whereas obtaining only a mention runs $650.
As PayPerClip’s menu shows, the value of an online PR story might be substantial but more value is still ascribed to old fashioned print.
So is print dead? Not yet. Does it reign supreme as it once did? No. But it does seem to have held its value as a public relations outlet – if only in large part because there is less of it to go around.
“I think sometimes people are putting a nail in the coffin of traditional media too quickly. Traditional media is still very, very important. But now when we’re counseling our clients, we’re definitely looking at a mix of coverage: traditional outlets – newspapers, magazines, radio, TV – but you definitely cannot ignore … online media as well,” says Wilson.
Evaluating Online Media
There is a well-used infrastructure to evaluate who reads which magazine, who watches which TV shows and who listens to certain radio stations. A variety of third-party audit organizations such as Nielson Media Research (the “Nielson Ratings”) and the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) offer trustworthy numbers as to how popular a certain media outlet is. Beyond the raw numbers, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations often provide a wealth of information about their audiences, be it household income, hobbies, buying patterns, etc. It makes sense because if advertisers are going to spend money to reach these audiences, they want to know who exactly it is that they’re going to be reaching. That infrastructure also serves media relations professionals well. If they’re looking to get the word out about a certain product, they can fairly easily sort through media outlets to determine the most appropriate fit; perhaps it’s young, male executives or music-loving teens.
But online media is not so easy to evaluate. While there are ratings services like Nielsen Online and the new ABCi , they track but a fraction of the ocean of millions of online sites. Also, many web sites tend to self-report their traffic numbers without a third-party assessment and there is still some confusion in the marketplace over the metrics: What constitutes a “hit” and are visitors to one’s site unique or are there duplicates? How long does someone have to be on a site to constitute a real visit? When web sites do offer solid visitor numbers, they often lack much depth; few sites offer much in the way of demographic data on visitors.
Jeff Wilson of CRT/tanaka says that online properties that are offshoots of traditional media outlets are easier to trust when it comes to their audience data, but, overall, scouting out the right online outlet requires “a lot of homework.” It means checking to see which sites link to the site in question; Wilson notes that even though a site may not have a very large audience, it can still be a very important property, either because it has a very focused niche audience or is an important “thought leader” site which shapes discussion, thus garnering more coverage in other outlets.
For those looking to evaluate the reach of web sites on their own, Technorati lists blogs by a power index which approximates how popular the site is. Alexa allows users to examine web visits to various sites but isn’t very illustrative when it comes to measuring web sites that are not among the web’s most popular. Some sites provide a media kit or press kit with an audience profile but, again, look to see what credibility lies behind those numbers.
Lee Gimpel is a Richmond-based journalist who covers business, technology and culture. His work has appeared in Inc., Entrepreneur, The Washington Post and Men’s Journal.” You can read more about him at his website.