Apologise like everyone is watching…

February 12, 2012 By Leave a Comment

How do you apologise when you’ve made a serious mistake? I wrote about how brands can actually be more successful by admitting imperfections and mistakes last week – and tonight I happened to read a jaw-dropping example of a mistake by a newspaper (via Newspaper Death Watch).

The summary is the photo of an innocent 40-year-old man named Angel Ortiz was used in a front page story about a horrific crime comitted by a 20-year-old with the same, and apparently very common, Spanish name. As a result, the innocent party has lost work, been persecuted and is effectively reduced to hiding in his house in fear of what might happen in public.

I’m sure that noone involved in publishing the story ever intended this to happen, but when a lawyer for the innocent Ortiz wrote to the paper demanding a front page retraction, the newspaper responded by removing the image from its website, and the ‘retraction ran on the bottom of page 2, with no photo‘.

Why apologies are business-critical:

I understand that sometimes the ‘right’ thing to do can run into roadblocks when lawyers advise on the ‘correct legal’ thing to do. But certainly retractions need to be an equal size and prominence to the original content, and reach the same audience.

Secondly, there’s been no personal apology, or any help and assistance in correcting the situation, which would have gone some way to rectifying the situation. I’m trying to think of any legal reasons why the paper couldn’t have run something asking for help in finding work for an innocent man, for example, besides their own guilt?

But here’s the thing – I don’t know the newspaper or any of the parties involved, and I’m located halfway around the world, but I’ll now associated the MetroWest Daily with this debacle. I’ve now also written about it to you, and shared it via Twitter etc. Besides my personal feelings about whether I’ll ever read or do business with the company, some quick google searches for relevant terms shows a number of sites picking up on the screwup, and nothing on the newspaper website offering any explanation or apology to make me think any better of them.

What they should be doing:

Anyone using a search engine for related terms will see coverage of this horrendous mistake. What the paper should have done is looked at how this error happened (and how to prevent it in the future), and then published a full apology in print and online which explains how they’ll avoid making such a disaster in the future. A human response would at least appear online and in search to provide some mitigation.

They should then have followed that up with a decent effort to try to rectify things (along with a personal apology), perhaps by running follow-ups to help Ortiz find work – again, this would show that despite the mistake, there are decent human people working at the newspaper, as well as that evidence appearing in search and social networks.

It’s how you handle mistakes that matters:

Errors have always happened, even if they seem more and more likely due to widespread editorial cuts around the world. But whereas the outcry even 15 years ago would have been barely noticeable in another country, the internet means that everything is catalogued and saved for all eternity.

If you understand that any mistake is extremely likely to be publicly indexed, then you understand that the response is key. And that response is going to be seen around the world, for as long as we have an internet, so responding ethically is more important than any other consideration.

And if you’re publishing or re-publishing any image online, double-check and triple-check the source, the content and the licensing restrictions.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, traditional media Tagged With: , , , , ,

Media companies and losing talent

January 2, 2012 By 6 Comments

A couple of very interesting posts regarding the ever-changing media world popped up last week. Jeremiah Owyang catalysed some interesting discussion when he posed the idea that the Golden Age of Tech Blogging is over (A theme I’d covered earlier with a less provocative headline – curses!) We both broadly agree on the topic, although I think we’re probably both being slightly biased towards anecdotal evidence and especially an understandable English-language bias.

One thing we both mentioned was the move for senior writers and contributors from notable blogs to be starting out on their own – whether as a group or individuals – e.g. The Verge, The Kernel, Uncrunched, The New Gambit, etc).

And related to that was Neil Perkin, with a typically insightful post asking ‘Why big companies get rid of talented people?’. Considering AOL looms large in the stories of TheVerge and Techcrunch,  it’s a pertinent question to the state of tech blogging, along with all large media businesses at the moment. To quote:

Despite talking a good game, many large organisations remain relatively poor at moving talent around the company. The silo culture that still characterises many businesses doesn’t help. Requirements and expectations become optimised to local needs rather than those of the organisation as a whole. Strangely, the people who can really see the bigger picture and are often the ones to challenge existing assumptions are the ones that begin to not fit so easily into those silos. So companies take the easy option.

In my view, it’s their loss.

I’ve certainly suffered from those elements of traditional business culture, and also been lucky enough to benefit from senior individuals who looked beyond it and saw reasons to do things differently. I also commented on Neil’s post that there’s an element of a culture clash – anecdotally, the most talented digital and non-digital people I’ve worked with have all been more concerned with solving problems across the business than staying within their assigned role or concentrating on office politics and have often suffered for it, even within firms which are supposedly extremely tech focused.

The major difference is that digital tools mean those people have less reason to accept their given role – there’s greater access to other opportunities whether with another company or via self-employment. I haven’t timed it for a while, but a new site via Blogger, Tumblr etc is about 1 minute to set up, and however long it takes to get your first post written – all for no financial outlay.

exit.

 

How big media companies can keep talented people

1. Hire and fire the right people:

First up, there’s an oft-quoted rule about A players hiring A players. You need to be hiring people who you can trust with the freedom I’ll mention in tip 2, and who can work with a high degree of autonomy. Those people who will identify a problem, come up with a solution, and then get it done, rather than just sitting there.

You also need management at all levels who can accept constructive criticism, work with it, and are able to change things. And you need a level of honesty throughout about whether or not it’s working, because even if you can convince yourself within your business that everything is fine, it’ll still be apparent outside of the office by the output.

2. Freedom

Everyone knows about Google and their 20% time. Barely any companies ever actually do anything similar. Lots of people can provide empirical evidence about how small changes and innovations lead to big results, and yet very few companies ever put that type of approach into practice. Every company would love the next big thing, but hardly any would let someone build something and get it straight out the door to see whether it works or not, without months of watering it down into something non-offensive, and uninteresting. I have to mention my former employers at Absolute Radio as one example of a business which puts an above average level of mutual trust and respect in the talented people they employ, and as a result continue to constantly churn out a variety of interesting projects and innovations, some of which are highly successful.

And when it comes to freedom, common sense goes a long way in revising employee contracts and guidelines for areas such as social media. In a litigious area, it’s easy to forget the effect that what may have seemed a legal safeguard will actually have on a normal employee, especially when it comes to legal attempts to own innovation rather than encourage and reward it.

3. Support and reward

Psychologically, money is not the biggest lever to increase productivity and success, provided it’s at a decent level. Crucially in the media industry, the attraction of a career leads to a high amount of applicants for roles, and a correspondingly low level of pay for many. If you want employees to focus on the best way to make your business more money, then you need to understand they can’t do that if they’re constantly worrying and stressed about making the next mortgage payment and their increasing overdraft.

I’m not suggesting you pay huge amounts over-the-odds for people who aren’t going to be productive, but that you adequately reward people that are. And that doesn’t necessarily mean in basic wages – give people a chance to share in success, and make it meaningful.

Whatever your opinion of Richard Branson, there are examples in Business Stripped Bare of cleaners and watersports instructors rising to management positions. At the same time, cabin crews on their airlines earn slightly less than competitor employees but receive other rewards for their contributions to improving the business.

 

Culture Jamming by Hugh McLeod (cc Licence, ref gapingvoid.com)

It’s worth reading this Hugh McLeod post that accompanies the above cartoon on Culture Jamming. The money quote is:

‘chan­ging your company’s for­tu­nes NOT by trying to directly change what the gene­ral public thinks of you, but by trying to change what YOU think of you.‘

And that’s the massive, massive problem with most media companies up until now. Along with marketing and advertising, they’re the companies most used to talking at audiences, and have spent decades, or even hundreds of years perfecting that art. And when you’re used to playing a part to an external audience, it’s hard to even start to acknowledge what’s going on internally.

Filed Under: Business, Digital Culture, Digital Publishing, Digital Television, Entrenpreneurship, Magazine Publishing, Media, traditional media Tagged With: , , , , , ,

What really ended EMAP’s golden days?

October 7, 2011 By 6 Comments

There’s an interesting article on the Huffington Post UK site by former EMAP Director Colin Morrison, in which he asks Who Killed Britain’s Best Media Company, and goes on to discuss the inner workings of the leadership of the company at the time, before it was split into a consumer business which was sold to Bauer, and a B2B business which continues the EMAP brand joint-owned by Apax and Guardian Media Group.

It makes for interesting reading – the relationship between Robin Miller and David Arculus for example. By way of context, the ‘glory days’ appear to have been 80s and 90s – basically right up until around the time when I joined, which was after U.S investment went badly wrong, and the initial heavy investment in transferring brands to the digital worlds also had a major stumble.

But I do think he overestimates the brilliance of the leadership versus the problems of a traditional media company faced with the age of digital disruption that has seen the internet, mobile and tablets appear alongside a number of major digital properties which now command the attention economy.

Even now traditional media companies are still struggling and battling to make the transition to the web, whether newspapers, magazines, radio or television, and they’re all still behind where they should be. A lot of that is down to the nature of the organisational structure, and the risk averse tendencies of a middle management who are being pressured from above, and block so much potential from below.

It’s no coincidence that at the time myself and other digitally-addicted colleagues were pushing for ideas like low cost digital launches based around teams of 2 or 3 and a blog-based platform, Mashable was being launched by the then 19-year-old Pete Cashmore (2005). The same year saw Yahoo Answers launch – I suspect that was before I suggested the idea of the Ask An Expert section on MCN, but certainly we beat the likes of Quora by some way. I’d try and check, but it appears Bauer’s sites are experiencing an outage at the moment…

And funnily enough, the best time and definitely the most innovative I experienced was when for a few months a small team of us operated with barely any ‘adult’ supervision. Suddenly we were able to produce a variety of RSS feeds for starters. And initially noone paid much attention to my friend, colleague and talented video specialist Angus Farquhar starting to mess around with Youtube, establishing a channel which became a Partner channel early on, and has now racked up over 88 million views. I’d like to think that was partly down to my own appearances on the daily news show we started, that sadly petered out due to a lack of involvement from anyone else, along with the podcast Angus initiated.

I also took the chance to start playing with social media – we quickly had a Myspace page and Flickr group up and running, to be joined by Facebook and Twitter.

This isn’t to blow our own trumpets – there were lots of other talented digital people across the business, and many of them have gone onto great success since moving to other companies or starting their own businesses.

But the scary fact is that EMAP had websites for titles dating back to 1998, such as the original motorcycleworld.co.uk site, as captured by the Wayback Machine Internet Archive. That was around the same time as Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google. Since then, we’ve had Myspace (2003), Facebook (2004), Youtube (2005), Twitter (2006), the iPhone (2007), the iPad (2010), and Blogger (1999) or WordPress (2003). In addition to Mashable, there’s the likes of Techcrunch, PerezHilton, the Huffington Post itself, Boing Boing going web only, and hundreds of other sites commanding a large amount of content and attention.

And many content companies have changed how they do things, giving rise to the likes of the Demand Media content farm which is built to respond to search and advertising demand. And that’s before we get into the likes of Paper.li, or Flipboard etc.

(I actually remember bringing in the wonderful Andrew Davies from Idio to discuss the idea of personalised digital magazines on-demand to a bemused audience).

Oh, and there’s the whole world of Glam Media, Shiny, B5 and all the other content networks that exist in a myriad of sizes, shapes and forms.

And yet, the traditional organisations, structures and practices still remain. Even when they did try, they put all their eggs in one basket, and then set fire to the basket (e.g. Ditto.net).

As any blogger will tell you, bespoke quality content is incredibly labour-intensive with low margins, and the rise in content marketing is due to the fact it works extremely well for business which have products to sell.

What’s going to hurt even more…

And that’s where the increased pain is going to come. More and more businesses are realising how useful content marketing can be, which is great for me as a consultant in that field, but not good for magazines, which are going to increasingly be cut out of the loop as middlemen unless they can build their own value as arbiters of taste in a cost effective way which includes social signals and added value.

And the areas which do create bigger margins are those around social, data, analysis – all the areas which allow a small team with a lot of technical knowledge and skill to achieve far greater scale for the cost of servers and number crunching. Meanwhile we’re still in the very early days of social media and mobile, and both are still operating in a manner similar to media companies when it comes to generating revenue, which means as they’ve gained respect and interest of the advertising agencies and clients, the pot of money available for the media brands is being thinned out.

Meanwhile small independant blogs and websites are still appearing every single day, powered by the availability of self-publishing and self-promotion, and the simple fact that some of us, despite the knowledge of the economics of the media, just love to write. Hot Mod Media is the catch-all for my own network of sites, and with a total financial outlay of about £500 per year, it’s already reaching over 200,000 uniques annually (Oct 2010-Oct 2011, and that’s going to rise massively with audiences increasing 500% already this year). Most importantly, the only ongoing investment at the moment is my spare time, and that of a small number of volunteers.

So as much as the leadership changes and struggles may make for good reading, and there’s undoubtedly some elements which affected the company as a whole, I wouldn’t say that it’s ultimately what ended the golden days of the big British media company…

Filed Under: Digital Publishing, Magazine Publishing, Media, newspapers, Print Publishing, traditional media, Writing Tagged With: , , , , , ,

All the news that’s fit to Tweet

July 28, 2011 By 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about how great journalism should be impartial rather than neutral, and today it’s the related subject of distribution mediums – in this case, what should and shouldn’t be reported on via Twitter.

It was sparked by an article by Matthew Ingram over at GigaOm, who is definitely someone worth reading if you’re interested in journalism and the media. I originally tried to leave a comment on his article ‘Are there some things that shouldn’t be tweeted about‘ but when it vanished into the ether upon submission, I figured it made more sense to blog a full response here.

Matthew’s article was sparked by recent outcry in the media community in Boston, due to a sports reporter tweeting from the funeral of the wife of New England Patrios’ owner Bob Kraft, and also references other notable incidents when people have tweeted about personal experiences, such as sexual assault or the death of their child to try and ask whether Twitter is a suitable medium for these topics.

Twitter and suitable content:

I think that perhaps there are a few different issues being rolled into the one question here, and seperating them out might be helpful:

  • Is it fine to be tweeting on your smartphone during a funeral, for example?
  • Does Twitter differ to reporting on the same event for print or TV?
  • Should it be the media community judging as gatekeepers on what is the right medium?

 

So, the first issue is fairly easy to discuss, as it’s really a question of how an individual reporter is handling themselves at an event – I don’t think many people would necessarily have a complaint about a reporter making notes on paper during the funeral of a prominent public figure, and the comment on Matthew’s article which equates using a smartphone to using a Nintendo DS or playing Angry Birds is pretty disingenuous, as it presumes that the method of reporting is less serious if it’s using technology, rather than a reporter doodling in their notepad. Whether reporting is being done with paper, smartphone, laptop or TV camera, it’s about using the right level of respect and decorum to be able to avoid detracting from event itself – for instance, if proceedings have to stop due to the incessant click-clack of keys being pressed, that would be worthy of critiscism, or if there’s a bank of reporters in the front pew all waving phones around in front of mourners.

Is reporting on Twitter different?

So the mechanics of Twitter are different to those of an article published elsewhere, due to the fact that it’s possible to update in real-time, and the 140 character limit.

The real-time nature of Twitter can be used as an excuse for sloppy spelling and punctuation when you hurry to get a tweet out, but that’s a reflection on the skills and accuracy of the reporter, not the social network itself. If you’re reporting on an event, why would you take less time to craft a tweet than to craft an article headline or your first sentence?

The second critcism is the perception that reporting via Twitter lacks the gravitas of other formats, as if reading ‘Singer Amy Winehouse dead at age 27′ has less impact if it’s not accompanied via a full opinion piece, photos and a byline. That’s quite blatantly a load of old rubbish, as underlined by coverage of the recent tragedy in Oslo, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks on Twitter, for example. If we believe that a well-crafted impactful headline covering an event can stop people in their tracks and perhaps lead them to buying a newspaper when they’ve scanned it on the newstand, why would we believe that a well-crafted impactful tweet would not have the same effect, unless digitising words makes them meaningless?

The last gasps of the media community as gatekeepers?

The process of print publishing with limited space and limitations on who can afford to print or broadcast mass media led to journalists, subs and editors as gatekeepers who made judgements on the right way to present the news in those formats. And that’s completely changed with the availability of formats for news consumption.

As a reader, I can choose print, TV, radio, websites, social networks, podcasts, photo sites, audio microblogs. And that is right which I’m far more empowered to exercise now that I can select from such a range of formats and outlets. Much of my general news information comes from social networks, and without going into the debate over echo chambers and filter failure now, I have yet to see any concrete evidence that has damaged by general news awareness or any serendipity in finding out about events.

However the media community thinks their debate and decision about formats may make any difference to me, I’m not really sure? As digital tools and technology democratise news production and coverage, the odds are that someone somewhere will be covering events and publishing on the format I choose to enjoy, and the decision of my preferred format comes down to my choice, not that of the journalist elite.

So what could be improved in Twitter journalism?

Having said all of that, there is one glaring error which can occur in digital journalism, and which is pronounced in certain cases – consistency. If I follow a reporter for sports updates on scores and transfers, and suddenly it switches to funeral coverage, that can be jarring, as it is when someone switches from general daily updates to discussing the loss of their child or a physical attack.

In the later cases of personal events, that jarring shock and the resulting upset is something that we as readers need to realise is our personal response, and those tweeting shouldn’t feel obliged to hide their thoughts or responses from the network which they may rely on for emotional support (In one of those cases, the local police did have legal reasons for curbing their output, which is understandable).

In the former case of professional journalism, then it’s probably advisable to seperate those reports which are out of context of the general daily output of your account – to allow those who wish to follow to choose without necessarily offending those who would rather not.

But in all cases, readers carry the ultimate decision of what they may or may not find acceptable, and have the choice on social networks to follow or unfollow accounts as they wish – and although stretching the boundaries may carry risks at the moment, the changing opinions of society and readers measured by what they actually do (following, clicking links, rubbernecking at accidents when they drive past), is a good way of seeing what people actually find acceptable, rather than presuming that as the media, we might know readers better than they know themselves. And as much as you may believe society and readers have become more salacious over time, the response to the Huffington Post’s ill-advised Amy Winehouse and small business lessons article is just one example of how readers are more than willing to let you know directly if you’ve overstepped the mark.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, Privacy, traditional media, twitter, Writing Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts