From Allen Weiss. Read the original plus comments here.
What the Young People Say About Social Media
Once upon a time I wrote a weekly column for an online technology magazine. When new Internet technologies and web sites emerged, I was tasked with predicting their fate.
Whenever I said something would take long to adopt (like e-books, for example), I got tons of hate email saying a) I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that b) the upcoming generation would look at the technology completely different than we did and readily adopt it. That I didn’t know what I was talking about wasn’t surprising, but what was curious was this faith that once younger people came along, everything would change.
Well, last week I had the chance to talk to two classes of undergrads at a major university about Internet marketing. After explaining search engine optimization, web analytics, paid search, etc the subject turned to social media.
I gave them the typical talk about listening, participating, having a dialog, giving up control, etc, and how social media is a big deal (you know, the standard rap about if you’re not on a social networking site, you’re not on the internet). Then I showed them the various social networking platforms and asked them which ones they participated in.
Now, just a bit of background here. These are juniors and seniors in a business school. When you look at them, you know these are the kids who aspire to move into the business world very soon.
So, the first class told me that MySpace was considered pretty passé, and they were all on Facebook and almost all on LinkedIn. When I asked about Twitter, however, only 4 (out of 40) in the first class used it.
I immediately posted a tweet about this and heard back from several people. Matt Collier, for example wondered whether many of them had even heard of Twitter (perhaps this was about non-awareness, rather than a disinterest in using this platform).
So, during the second class I asked this question again. It turns out almost everybody had heard of Twitter, but only 1 of 40 was using it. When I asked them why they were so disinterested, they explained they got most of this experience on Facebook and didn’t see the value. Frankly, the general comment was “why would anybody waste their time on this?”
When I showed them what TweekDeck looked like, I got almost pained looks and comments about information overload (this from a generation that has grown up with information overload).
Now, some people think that when relationships and business are important, these people will flock to Twitter. Hmm. Business is important to them right now and they are obsessed with finding jobs and building relationships. So, what does this platform mean for their future?
Other people think this is about being “ahead of the curve”. But whose curve are we talking about…the curve of people who are in business right now, or the younger generation that isn’t living in the land of curves?
As many who heard me talk about this subject know, I have no proverbial dog in this fight. I’m not an evangelist of any platform, just trying to understand what is going on.
But one thing I know is that you can’t have it both ways. If you believe that looking at younger people give you an idea of what will be popular in the future, then you have to seriously consider what this group of future business people are saying about the technologies they feel are valuable to them.
So, what do you think? Well, it turns out if you're over 20 years old, what you and I think isn't relevant here. But look through a really objective lens (no evangelism, please), and what do you see for the generation about to enter the working world?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
How to Write for the Web
From Non-Profit Times:
Communications ...
The vanishing print medium
Extry! Extry!
Reading all about it already is undergoing fundamental changes, as many news media cut back on or (as with the nonprofit Christian Science Monitor) eliminate their print media in favor of online reporting.
With that in mind, it might be helpful for nonprofits that deal with the media to be aware of the changes of approach being undertaken by the media.
According to “Telling The Story” published by The Missouri Group, there are 10 guidelines for writing online.
Think immediacy. Reporters have to think that their readers are going to be reading right now, instead of over their morning coffee.
Save readers’ time. Be clear, use simple words, keep most sentences short.
Provide information that’s quick and easy to get. Be guided by what readers want or need to know.
Think both verbally and visually. It is not just words but graphics, even video.
Cut copy in half. Most online readers will simply not read long stories.
Use lots of lists and bullets. For print journalists, these items were discouraged. No more.
Write in chunks. What can’t be put in a list can be organized into chunks of information.
Use hyperlinks. Print can tell readers where they can go to check. Online allows them to do it right away.
Give readers a chance to talk back. There are reporters’ email addresses, and there are comment sections.
Don’t forget the human touch. Facts are just facts until they are related to people.
Communications ...
The vanishing print medium
Extry! Extry!
Reading all about it already is undergoing fundamental changes, as many news media cut back on or (as with the nonprofit Christian Science Monitor) eliminate their print media in favor of online reporting.
With that in mind, it might be helpful for nonprofits that deal with the media to be aware of the changes of approach being undertaken by the media.
According to “Telling The Story” published by The Missouri Group, there are 10 guidelines for writing online.
Think immediacy. Reporters have to think that their readers are going to be reading right now, instead of over their morning coffee.
Save readers’ time. Be clear, use simple words, keep most sentences short.
Provide information that’s quick and easy to get. Be guided by what readers want or need to know.
Think both verbally and visually. It is not just words but graphics, even video.
Cut copy in half. Most online readers will simply not read long stories.
Use lots of lists and bullets. For print journalists, these items were discouraged. No more.
Write in chunks. What can’t be put in a list can be organized into chunks of information.
Use hyperlinks. Print can tell readers where they can go to check. Online allows them to do it right away.
Give readers a chance to talk back. There are reporters’ email addresses, and there are comment sections.
Don’t forget the human touch. Facts are just facts until they are related to people.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Three Newspapers Move to Mornings
3 newspapers moving to mornings
KENDALLVILLE – Three northeast Indiana newspapers are switching from afternoon publications to mornings effective April 6.
The News-Sun of Kendallville, the Herald-Republican of Angola and the Evening Star of Auburn are all owned by KPC Media Group Inc.
Company president Terry Housholder said the switch reflects the changing needs of readers and advertisers.
KENDALLVILLE – Three northeast Indiana newspapers are switching from afternoon publications to mornings effective April 6.
The News-Sun of Kendallville, the Herald-Republican of Angola and the Evening Star of Auburn are all owned by KPC Media Group Inc.
Company president Terry Housholder said the switch reflects the changing needs of readers and advertisers.
Another Invented Tale?
NYT Unloads on Discrepancies in Minor-League Baseball Memoir
Matt McCarthy's recently-published ODD MAN OUT, his "salacious memoir of his summer as an obscure minor league pitcher," is full of "wide-ranging errors and misquotations" according to the NYT. "Statistics from that season, transaction listings and interviews with his former teammates indicate that many portions of the book are incorrect, embellished or impossible."
Are they minor chronological errors and the complaints of those who are depicted in an unflattering light, or indications of a seriously flawed or even invented narrative? The newspaper clearly implies the latter--but would they have treated Ball Four the same way if it were published today? The author says the book is based on detailed journals he kept at the time and conforms to his recollection of events.
"McCarthy directly quotes people stating incorrect facts about their own lives and tells detailed (and mostly unflattering) stories about teammates who were in fact not on his team at the time. The book's more outrageous scenes could not be independently corroborated or disproved; several teammates who were present said in interviews that they were exaggerated or simply untrue....
"McCarthy recounts game sequences and player performances that were substantially different from what actually happened, including his own games. One scene describes Tony Reagins, the Angels' director of player development, telling McCarthy that his contract is being restructured with incentive clauses. But a copy of McCarthy's original contract, signed a week earlier, before he met Reagins, already included those clauses."
Plus: "The most vocal objector to McCarthy's book has been Kotchman, the manager described at various times as implicitly suggesting to Dvorsky that he try steroids (Dvorsky denies this), going on misogynistic tirades, and ordering a pitcher to hit an Ogden batter in retaliation for a Provo player being hit twice (when box scores from the local newspaper show no Provo player being hit in the series).
"Kotchman read an early copy of the book and had his lawyer, Jonathan Koch of Tampa, Fla., write a 13-page letter to Penguin alleging inaccuracies and requesting it be examined before publication. A Penguin lawyer responded that the concerns were minor and that the company stood by the book's contents."
NYT
Matt McCarthy's recently-published ODD MAN OUT, his "salacious memoir of his summer as an obscure minor league pitcher," is full of "wide-ranging errors and misquotations" according to the NYT. "Statistics from that season, transaction listings and interviews with his former teammates indicate that many portions of the book are incorrect, embellished or impossible."
Are they minor chronological errors and the complaints of those who are depicted in an unflattering light, or indications of a seriously flawed or even invented narrative? The newspaper clearly implies the latter--but would they have treated Ball Four the same way if it were published today? The author says the book is based on detailed journals he kept at the time and conforms to his recollection of events.
"McCarthy directly quotes people stating incorrect facts about their own lives and tells detailed (and mostly unflattering) stories about teammates who were in fact not on his team at the time. The book's more outrageous scenes could not be independently corroborated or disproved; several teammates who were present said in interviews that they were exaggerated or simply untrue....
"McCarthy recounts game sequences and player performances that were substantially different from what actually happened, including his own games. One scene describes Tony Reagins, the Angels' director of player development, telling McCarthy that his contract is being restructured with incentive clauses. But a copy of McCarthy's original contract, signed a week earlier, before he met Reagins, already included those clauses."
Plus: "The most vocal objector to McCarthy's book has been Kotchman, the manager described at various times as implicitly suggesting to Dvorsky that he try steroids (Dvorsky denies this), going on misogynistic tirades, and ordering a pitcher to hit an Ogden batter in retaliation for a Provo player being hit twice (when box scores from the local newspaper show no Provo player being hit in the series).
"Kotchman read an early copy of the book and had his lawyer, Jonathan Koch of Tampa, Fla., write a 13-page letter to Penguin alleging inaccuracies and requesting it be examined before publication. A Penguin lawyer responded that the concerns were minor and that the company stood by the book's contents."
NYT
Monday, March 2, 2009
In Print We Trust . . .
Source: click here
In PRINT we TRUST… and on the WEB we LOOK
March 2, 2009
In a survey polling 316 people ranging in age from 12 to 72, The Rosen Group, a New York City based Public Relations firm, found that “the vast majority of adult consumers still consider the print editions of these publications indispensable sources of news and entertainment.” In fact the survey found that
Nearly 80 percent of respondents still subscribe to magazines and the vast majority (83 percent) find that daily newspapers are still relevant.
Despite a pronounced move toward online news consumption, respondents still believe news is fit to print. When asked if newspapers and magazines will exist in 10 years, nearly half of those surveyed (45 percent) said yes, while 40 percent remained uncertain.
“People are looking online for news and lifestyle information, but they are not abandoning their print editions,” said Lori Rosen, founder and president of The Rosen Group. “There is still a certain satisfaction and ease to holding printed text in your hands, and PDAs or PCs will not replace this just yet.” Among the evidence: Even though the public can’t ignore the burgeoning blogosphere, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed agree that the information found on blogs is not credible.
The survey also found that:
* Thirty percent cite Web sites devoted to news as their top source for updates; 66 percent say that they are among their daily news sources.
* Only 18 percent say that a print newspaper is their first stop for news, but 55 percent of respondents still look at newspapers on any given day. Fifty-three percent still subscribe to the print version of a newspaper.
* When it comes to leisure time, print magazines and Web sites tied for first as a leading entertainment source (26 percent). Only seven percent seek out their favorite magazines online.
* Sixty-five percent of respondents find weekly news magazines relevant.
The results of the survey are clear. Print is still an important and major player in the life of people. The key is to provide the relevant content in print. News and ink-on-paper may no longer be the most relevant content for our papers and magazines. However content that takes the “searching surfing” audience and turns it to a “critically thinking” audience is and will continue to be the essence of print and its future.
Studies like the one above conducted by The Rosen Group and the forth coming Magazine Innovation Center, are but the first steps in the journey of the one thousand miles to amplify the future of print. Stay tuned and thanks Lori Rosen for this timely study.
In PRINT we TRUST… and on the WEB we LOOK
March 2, 2009
In a survey polling 316 people ranging in age from 12 to 72, The Rosen Group, a New York City based Public Relations firm, found that “the vast majority of adult consumers still consider the print editions of these publications indispensable sources of news and entertainment.” In fact the survey found that
Nearly 80 percent of respondents still subscribe to magazines and the vast majority (83 percent) find that daily newspapers are still relevant.
Despite a pronounced move toward online news consumption, respondents still believe news is fit to print. When asked if newspapers and magazines will exist in 10 years, nearly half of those surveyed (45 percent) said yes, while 40 percent remained uncertain.
“People are looking online for news and lifestyle information, but they are not abandoning their print editions,” said Lori Rosen, founder and president of The Rosen Group. “There is still a certain satisfaction and ease to holding printed text in your hands, and PDAs or PCs will not replace this just yet.” Among the evidence: Even though the public can’t ignore the burgeoning blogosphere, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed agree that the information found on blogs is not credible.
The survey also found that:
* Thirty percent cite Web sites devoted to news as their top source for updates; 66 percent say that they are among their daily news sources.
* Only 18 percent say that a print newspaper is their first stop for news, but 55 percent of respondents still look at newspapers on any given day. Fifty-three percent still subscribe to the print version of a newspaper.
* When it comes to leisure time, print magazines and Web sites tied for first as a leading entertainment source (26 percent). Only seven percent seek out their favorite magazines online.
* Sixty-five percent of respondents find weekly news magazines relevant.
The results of the survey are clear. Print is still an important and major player in the life of people. The key is to provide the relevant content in print. News and ink-on-paper may no longer be the most relevant content for our papers and magazines. However content that takes the “searching surfing” audience and turns it to a “critically thinking” audience is and will continue to be the essence of print and its future.
Studies like the one above conducted by The Rosen Group and the forth coming Magazine Innovation Center, are but the first steps in the journey of the one thousand miles to amplify the future of print. Stay tuned and thanks Lori Rosen for this timely study.
'Most Brutal Week Ever' for Newspapers?
From New York Post:
Rough times
This week may be the newspaper business' most brutal ever.
E.W. Scripps yesterday said it is closing the Rocky Mountain News today after a fruitless search to find a buyer ended at the end of January.
The Denver-based paper was Colorado's first newspaper and the state's oldest continually published daily. Scripps bought it in 1926. Last year, the paper lost $16 million, according to Scripps.
But that figure is nothing compared with what's happening in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Chronicle lost $50 million in 2008 and is on target to lose even more this year.
Hearst, which bought the Chronicle in 2000, said earlier this week that unless it can wring out major savings, it, too, will shut down the paper.
The company said it will immediately seek discussions with two major unions, Northern California Media Workers Guild Local 39521 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 853, which represent the majority of workers at the Chronicle.
On top of that, Hearst said it was cutting 75 newsroom jobs at the San Antonio Express.
It's enough to suspect that Steve Swartz, the newly appointed president of Hearst Newspaper Group, might be wondering what he's got himself into with his new job.
Swartz, along with Frank A. Bennack Jr., Hearst's vice chairman and CEO, said in a joint statement, "Survival is the outcome we all want to achieve."
Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper chain and owner of USA Today, which has been slashing hundreds of jobs and cutting back on work weeks, said this week it will cut its dividend by 90 percent to a meager 4 cents a share.
The drama started over the weekend when New Haven Register owner Journal Register and the Philadelphia Newspaper Group, owner of Philadelphia's two dailies, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, each filed for Chapter 11.
Philly p.r. man Brian Tierney, with backing from in vestors, purchased the papers for $562 million in mid-2006, but has run into trouble ever since.
PNG and Journal Regis ter join two other news paper groups now functioning under Chapter 11: Sam Zell's Tribune Co., which owns The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which filed in December and January, respectively. keith.kelly@nypost.com
Rough times
This week may be the newspaper business' most brutal ever.
E.W. Scripps yesterday said it is closing the Rocky Mountain News today after a fruitless search to find a buyer ended at the end of January.
The Denver-based paper was Colorado's first newspaper and the state's oldest continually published daily. Scripps bought it in 1926. Last year, the paper lost $16 million, according to Scripps.
But that figure is nothing compared with what's happening in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Chronicle lost $50 million in 2008 and is on target to lose even more this year.
Hearst, which bought the Chronicle in 2000, said earlier this week that unless it can wring out major savings, it, too, will shut down the paper.
The company said it will immediately seek discussions with two major unions, Northern California Media Workers Guild Local 39521 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 853, which represent the majority of workers at the Chronicle.
On top of that, Hearst said it was cutting 75 newsroom jobs at the San Antonio Express.
It's enough to suspect that Steve Swartz, the newly appointed president of Hearst Newspaper Group, might be wondering what he's got himself into with his new job.
Swartz, along with Frank A. Bennack Jr., Hearst's vice chairman and CEO, said in a joint statement, "Survival is the outcome we all want to achieve."
Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper chain and owner of USA Today, which has been slashing hundreds of jobs and cutting back on work weeks, said this week it will cut its dividend by 90 percent to a meager 4 cents a share.
The drama started over the weekend when New Haven Register owner Journal Register and the Philadelphia Newspaper Group, owner of Philadelphia's two dailies, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, each filed for Chapter 11.
Philly p.r. man Brian Tierney, with backing from in vestors, purchased the papers for $562 million in mid-2006, but has run into trouble ever since.
PNG and Journal Regis ter join two other news paper groups now functioning under Chapter 11: Sam Zell's Tribune Co., which owns The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which filed in December and January, respectively. keith.kelly@nypost.com
National Grammar Day is March 4
National Grammar Day is March 4
WHO HAD THE WORST GRAMMAR IN 2008? FIND OUT!
MEET OUR BLOG PARTNERS
Do you adore clean, correct sentences? Do ungrammatical advertisements make you cringe? We understand completely, and this is why the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar and MSN Encarta have designated March 4 as National Grammar Day.
How can I participate?
Speak well! Write well! And on March 4, march forth and spread the word. We want people to think about language and how it can be used best.
Some of our members are planning Good-Grammar Potlucks at their offices. What do you serve at good-grammar potlucks? High-fiber foods, of course. They're good for the colon. Afterward, at happy hour, we recommend the Grammartini. (Recipes are here.)
We put together a Bad Grammar Hall of Fame Playlist, full of songs we love despite their bad grammar. You'll find it at the bottom of this page.
We've also produced a special National Grammar Day T-shirt so you can proclaim your love of language for all to see.
For more information, log onto http://nationalgrammarday.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
