Pitching Business Media Is Getting Tougher and Tougher

One of the untold stories of PR over the last quarter century has been the great rise in business journalism, from a media backwater to a front-and-center element of the media. It just so happens that I had a front-row seat for this transformation, as I entered business journalism in 1981 as part of the first wave of expansion. Back then, for perspective, the Wall Street Journal was only one section, and the New York Times' business section was behind the sports section. There was no CNBC.

This has been a boon for PR -- the more business media, the more PR people and resources needed to deal with them and pitch them.

It has never been easy to get coverage from the business media, but this year, it has gotten much tougher. Buyouts and closures are sweeping the media, taking out scores of talented and experienced business journalists.

Talking Biz News, a very good blog that follows the business media, reported today that 250 business media jobs were eliminated just during the first six months of 2009. That included the entire staff of Portfolio, the ill-timed new business mag from Conde Nast, and 100 positions throughout Bloomberg Media, which is heavily dependent on sales of its information to the financial services sector. But there have been scores of other jobs lost at national newspapers, regionals, magazines and business journals.

What does this mean for us in PR? It means we have to work ever harder to get stories placed. It means we can't waste precious time pitching non-stories to over-worked journalists. It means that when we do pitch a story, we need to be ready to provide facts and figures, human interest, quotable quotes, photos, graphics and other sources for the story.

I know it's hard to do. But that's reality. So get back to work, people. Break's over.

Yahoo's CEO Shows the Big Boys How It's Done

Nice to see some refreshing candor from Yahoo's newish CEO, Carol Bartz.

At the hipper-than-thou D Conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Bartz stage-whispered the f-bomb at media high priestess Kara Swisher, not a direct shot but definitely a signal that she was to be taken seriously.

Then, at the same conference, she interrupted an interview with CNBC's Jim Goldman, who was midway through a statement/question that Yahoo seemed to be "contenting itself" with offering services that Google didn't. First Bartz cut him off with a terse "excuse me" and then took over the question by asserting that Yahoo played second fiddle to no one and that Yahoo is "very different, and just as special as they are."

Why do I like these exchanges? In the case of the Swisher interview, she sends the signal that she is strong and in control, a critical message for anyone with an interest in Yahoo (i.e., investors, employees, users, competitors). With Goldman, she was even stronger: cutting him off wasn't that big a deal, but it did show her confidence as a spokesperson. But then, she went on to assert the strength of Yahoo in the strongest terms, and even if your first reaction is "yeah, right," the overall impression is one of some who is not going to back down until her words are indeed 100% true.

The Goldman interview is prime example of the confidence CEOs ought to exude when they are speaking as representatives of their companies.

The easiest way to watch these videos is at Valleywag right here.

Bancrofts Going Out With a Whimper

Poor Bancroft family (that would be poor in the pitiful sense, not in the monetary sense). Seems they couldn't agree on who to nominate to the News Corp. board as part of their sale of Dow Jones (they were too tired to make a good decision, apparently), so they let their contractual right expire and turned over the decision to Rupert. He picked  27-year-old Natalie Bancroft, a would-be opera singer and race car enthusiast (read "rich party girl") who lives in Europe and couldn't be bothered to attend any of the family's sale deliberations in person. Unbelievable.

I feel sorry for the career journalists at the Journal and other Dow Jones properties.

How NOT to say "No Comment"

Great story in yesterday's WSJ about the subprime mess -- in classic Journal fashion, they looked at the intertwined relationships of players in the mortgage business, tracing the story from the misfortunes of a single homeowner up to giant multinational financial institutions that invested in mortgage-backed securities, including securities whose returns were dependent on the homeowner continuing to pay his mortgage. If you're at all interested in understanding the subprime situation, I recommend it.

Buried about 75% of the way into the story, though, was a media relations "teachable moment."

The story was about the tribulations of "Colorado truck driver Roger Rodriguez," who over-mortgaged his home in Westminster, CO. After he took out his mortgage, it was packaged into a security and sold to investors, including James C. Kelsoe Jr., a senior portfolio manager at the asset-management unit of Morgan Keegan & Co., a Memphis, Tenn., investment firm and unit of Regions Financial Corp.

When the mortgage market was riding high, so was Kelsoe's fund. But after the crash, his returns suffered, as Rodriguez and others started defaulting on their loans. "At the end of August," the Journal wrote, "Mr. Kelsoe's Select High Income Fund posted a loss of nearly 28% for the month -- dead last among its peers for the year and for five years as well, according to Morningstar."

Naturally, the Journal sought comment from Kelsoe. Here's what they got:

A Morgan Keegan spokeswoman said Mr. Kelsoe wasn't available to comment because he was focused on managing his funds.

Every moment of the day? 24/7? Of course not. This was just a way to duck the interview, to say "no comment" without saying "no comment." In my trainings, that's exactly the strategy I recommend, with one additional element: your dodge needs to be plausible. As in, "Sorry, I can't help you, that information is confidential." That wouldn't have worked in this case, and in fact, I'm not sure there's any plausible dodge in this situation. So the best strategy would have been to simply say, "Sorry, Mr. Kelsoe's not available for an interview," and hold your ground with that.

When you use an implausible dodge like the one above, the journalist will usually find a way to embarrass you. And they did a few grafs later:

In a letter to a Memphis newspaper, Charles Reaves, an attorney who had invested in one of Mr. Kelsoe's funds, wrote that Mr. Kelsoe was "hiding under his desk" and "should have the fortitude to face the public and explain...what he intends to do."

Bottom line: don't hide, and don't use implausible dodges. But if you don't want to talk, just say so and hold your ground. That's your right.

Coming Next Week: Fox Business Network

Even as Rupert Murdoch moves forward to close the deal to by Dow Jones, Fox is close to launching its much-anticipated Fox Business Network to compete for business news viewers with CNBC.

The Talking Biz News blog is doing a good job tracking this new entrant in business news. If you're interested in pitching FBN, you should check in with this blog to see who's signing on.

I was interested to see that Carly Fiorina has just signed on to be a commentator on the channel. Coincidentally, I heard her speak on Tuesday night in Oakland. She's very, very impressive and articulate. And perhaps most importantly, she talked about business and life and rarely lapsed into business jargon. THAT's how you communicate with a mass audience and rise to the top -- not by talking in buzzwords and jargon.

Great New Article on Wall Street Journal

There's been a lot of crappy speculation on the fate of the Wall Street Journal once Rupert Murdoch takes over. Here's one article, though, that does an excellent job: A new jewel for Rupert Murdoch’s crown: Will he fix what isn’t broken at The Wall Street Journal? It's in the latest edition of PRSA Tactics.

What makes it interesting is that Tactics interviewed two ex-journalists who have come over to the dark side for their point of view. Here are some nuggets:

From Gene Coulter, editorial director at Peppercom in New York and, until last year, news editor of the Money Investing section of the Journal:

“Everyone in the newsroom is dealing with it,” says Coulter, whose role with Peppercom includes strategic consulting on media relations. “Ask any of them if they would have preferred to stay independent and they would say yes. Some people will leave, but everyone isn’t heading for the doors. These journalists are the best in the world at analyzing business, and they understand they are at a point where the industry they are in has to change.”

Coulter figures Murdoch will move quickly to build the Journal brand globally using his existing News Corp. holdings in Europe and Asia and will make the brand a major part of his new digital cable channel to launch in the fall.

The newspaper will continue to pursue analytical journalism under its “How” and “Why” headlines and will continue to be a tough nut to crack for PR professionals.

“The paper’s stock in trade,” he says, “is the explainer. If you are a company with a quickie message you perceive to be news that you want to get out through the Journal, they are not really interested. They are more interested in 25 pieces of string you weave together and make a bigger ball of yarn.”

Coulter says his first piece of advice to clients looking for that kind of publicity is “don’t presume you’re ever going to get into the Journal.”

“Too many companies and clients think only about what their problems are,” he says, “and don’t consider what problems the reporters have. What are their editors asking them to do? What are the gaps in their reporting? Do they work on short- or longer-term stuff? How can you help them become more successful reporters? They are looking for you to explain what the world means. It’s strategic and takes time and patience. Be available for comment and background, but it will take 10 phone calls to get one message in a story.”

The Journal, adds Coulter, is interested in two kinds of scoops — news scoops and scoops of ideas.

“You need to learn how to think like a Journal reporter and editor and help them explain the world,” he says. “If you want that big home run in a publication like the Journal, you need to let reporters look behind the curtains a little bit. A lot of companies are afraid of showing their problems or perceived problems to journalists. I would counsel that if you talked openly about a problem your company had and then showed the solution, you have a positive story. Sometimes you have to show your warts in public.”

From Ed Cafasso, a former reporter and city editor at Murdoch’s Boston Herald and now managing director of Manning Selvage and Lee’s Boston office, agrees with Coulter.

However the editorial and news sides shake down, says Cafasso, The Wall Street Journal will still loom large in the working lives of PR professionals.

“The Journal is the No. 1 ‘hit’ that a PR professional in corporate and consumer practice can get,” he says. “It’s the publication you both love and fear, but if you can get your point across in The Wall Street Journal it’s not just a feather in your cap, it’s a headdress.”

It isn’t an easy relationship for a PR pro to establish and won’t get any easier, warns Cafasso.

“The Journal is known for doing its due diligence and for being rigorously skeptical,” he adds. “It is also very cognizant of trends and where industries are going. So you have to do your homework. To get a significant front section story in The Wall Street Journal will, on average, take you three months from your first contact with a reporter. There will be a lot of back and forth and a lot of questions. That won’t change. You have to be on top of your game at all times.”

Burson-Marsteller Outed as Microsoft's Sock Puppet

The Wall Street Journal and the U.K.'s Observer both outed Burson-Marsteller today as the "sock puppet" of Microsoft's effort to create an Internet industry group to oppose Google's planned acquisition of DoubleClick.

Seems B-M has sent emails to players in the Internet space urging them to join a new industry group, Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces (www.i-comp.org). Turns out that Microsoft, which opposes the Google-DoubleClick deal, was the big backer behind the group.

From the Journal's article:

In recent months, public-relations firm Burson-Marsteller pitched media outlets and Internet companies on what it said were the dangers of the deal, which would bolster Google's already strong presence in online advertising. In the written pitches reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Burson cites the deal as part of a larger discussion of "fair and free competition" in Internet-search and privacy rights of consumers.

In Europe, Burson urged Internet companies to become signatories on an online petition for a more "transparent and competitive Internet," according to the pitches. It directed the companies to a Web site, www.i-comp.org, and provided user names and passwords to log in.

The pitches cited a number of groups and an individual who had signed on to the effort. The pitches didn't disclose that Burson was working for Microsoft, Google's largest rival.

In the Observer story, the author of the emails to companies quickly admitted that B-M was working for Microsoft, while a Microsoft spokesperson was coy about the company's relationship with B-M and the initiative.

No matter. By today, the ICOMP web site names Microsoft as a "partner" with B-M. I had never heard of any of this before reading about it in today's Journal, so I don't know what the ICOMP web site said yesterday. FWIW, kudos to B-M and Microsoft for reacting quickly and putting Microsoft's name out front, rather than taking heat for several days and then doing it.

PS -- check out the B-M home page -- cool use of an avatar to give an intro speech about B-M.

Links I've Been Meaning to Share

Had these links on my desktop for several weeks. Click if interested:

• New York Times: Can Blogs Become a Big Source of Jobs?


• New Yorker: Profile of Walt Mossberg


• Second Life TV: A Second Life Video on Faith and Spirituality from UC Berkeley School of Journalism

WSJ.com Wants to be Free

The only subscription-only daily newspaper site in the U.S., WSJ.com, is on the road to becoming at least a partially free site, according to a story on today's subscription-only WSJ.com site.

From the story:

Mr. Murdoch has been dropping hints that he is contemplating doing just that when he takes over, raising the idea in interviews before he clinched the deal and more openly in recent meetings with top Journal editors and Dow Jones Chief Executive Richard F. Zannino.

Yesterday, the News Corp. chairman went even further, telling an investment conference that the issue was "right on the front burner" and, although no decision has been made, a free site "looks like the way we are going."

This of course coincides with the New York Times throwing in the towel and getting rid of TimesSelect, which required either an online subscription or a print subscription to access the op-ed columnists and the archive. I liked TimesSelect, but of course, I didn't have to pay extra for it. I just liked the VIP status. ;)

FWIW, some of the content on WSJ.com is already free, such as Walt Mossberg's columns, career information and small business news. There's a complete list here.

PR Pros on WSJ Sale: Yawn...

PR Week made a few calls last week and concluded that the sale of the Wall Street Journal was "no biggie" to the PR industry.

The author, Hamilton Nolan, wrote a story for the print version of PR Week and then blogged about it on PR Week's site, providing quite a bit more detail in the blog than in the story.

From the story:

The consensus among several experts who have worked closely with the paper was that the widespread fears of the erosion of editorial quality at the Journal are, as one put it, "overblown."

His best point, from the blog:

This story is a great example of the different perspectives of those in PR and those in journalism. And on that note, look for a lot of PR firms to hire ex-WSJ reporters in the near future.

One more time, for the record: I think the sale of the Journal and the rest of Dow Jones will have major, major repercussions in American business journalism. I think News Corp. will slowly but surely erode the quality of coverage, not just at the Journal but also on the Dow Jones newswire. You will definitely see fewer hard-hitting investigative pieces in the Journal. You will definitely see current Journal reporters and editors either heading for the exits or hanging on for dear life. They will likely be replaced by lesser journalists who are friendlier to business.

More on Dow Jones

Of course, the media world is awash in commentary about the Dow Jones deal and "what it all means." It would be impossible to summarize it except to say there is a range of opinion, from "he won't really change anything" to "it's over."

If you're interested in reading more, go to Romenesko's page on Poynter: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45.

A couple of my own follow-up thoughts:

• One of the stories mentions that Murdoch-watchers will be on the lookout for WSJ stories about Murdoch or his business interests, looking for bias or soft-peddling. That's the least likely thing to happen. First off, they probably won't write much about Rupert and News Corp. beyond press releases (pretty much following the New York Times' model of covering itself). What will happen is that over time, all business news in the Journal will be less hard-hitting and more deferential to business. Journal reporters and editors will find that this is where their bread is buttered and will either accept this state of affairs or move on.

• Personally, I've found the Journal boring and uninviting for the last several years, and I'm not sure why. Except for the occasional juicy investigative piece or quirky A-hed story, there just hasn't seemed to be much in the Journal beyond business-as-usual. I even contemplated canceling my print subscription and going for online only, but their web site is so dreadful I decided that wasn't a good alternative. So to some extent, I think Dow Jones and the WSJ were ripe for the taking, and perhaps Murdoch's forces will actually inject some much needed life into the operation.


• No one's talking about the effect on other Dow Jones properties yet, particularly the Dow Jones newswire. This is an absolute lifeblood of the securities industry, and I think its impartiality and honesty has been taken for granted for generations. What will people think once Murdoch owns it? Does it matter anymore in a world in which there are so many other sources of business news?

It's Over: Dow Jones is Sold to Murdoch

Mark the day folks: it's the end of an era in journalism, especially business journalism. One of the great temples of journalism, Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, will change hands and now be owned by right-wing media baron Rupert Murdoch.



As I've said before, this will have cataclysmic effects throughout journalism. There will be a diaspora of current WSJ staffers. There will be a gradual but inevitable dimming of the Journal's bright light on corporate malfeasance. There will be even more blatant cheerleading for capitalism, investors and company management.

From a media relations standpoint, it's actually probably a good thing, if what you want is a more accommodating media that helps you promote your business and doesn't probe too deeply. After awhile, you won't have to worry about that IRS-like call from an experienced Wall Street Journal reporter digging into a less-than-positive story about you or your company. That reporter will have left the building.

Wall Street Journal Sale: It's Happening

As predicted below (damn I'm good ;) ), the Bancroft family is getting close to selling the Journal to Rupert Murdoch. There's plenty of coverage around the net, and especially in the Journal itself, but here's a free New York Times link.

It's playing out just as predicted: the Bancrofts are getting their "independent" editorial oversight board, and Rupert is getting what he wants, which is Dow Jones. Of course, you know he'll start to exercise as much editorial control as possible as soon as the check clears.

Update: The two sides reportedly reach agreement.

Murdoch will get the Wall Street Journal

This blog will concern itself mostly with the tactics and strategies of working with journalists, but sometimes, it's going to be important to comment on upheavals in the media business. This is one of those situations.

I've been watching Rupert Murdoch for decades, and I continue to marvel at his ability to take his business where it needs to go. I don't like his brand of journalism at all -- he's the prime example of a media cheerleader for the rich and powerful, always ready to put his resources in the service of those who are already winning the game. And he has consistently positioned his media outlets to not only support the powerful, but to actively bully his political opponents and those who would challenge the status quo. He's done it in New York for the better part of 30 years with the Post and on a national stage for more than a decade with Fox News Channel.

Now he has set his sights on Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswire, Barrons, Marketwatch and other media properties. It has been said that this is a play for legitimacy, to own one of the crown jewels of American journalism. But I don't think that's the real reason he's made this move.

It has been widely reported that Fox wants to start a business channel to challenge CNBC. Unlike broad-based conventional news, which he successfully upended when he started Fox News Channel to challenge CNN, there isn't nearly as much of a market for business news, and hence, for two strong business channels. After all, CNN has already tried and failed with its CNNfn channel.

So Rupert needs a brand name to get his product over the top. And what better names are there in business news than Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal?

That's the real reason why Rupert wants Dow Jones, and why his is willing to pay about $2 billion more than the company was worth before he launched his bid.

The perfect analogy is his daring bid for the rights to broadcast NFL game in 1993. From Wikipedia: "FOX offered a then-record $1.58 billion to the NFL over four years for the rights, significantly more than the $290 million CBS was willing to pay. FOX was only seven years old and had no sports division..."

Why was he willing to "overpay" for NFL rights? Because it bought his fledgling FOX network instant credibility and legitimacy, which he leveraged several times over in building the network into what it is today. This is precisely what he wants out of the Wall Street Journal brand, and he's willing to pay $2 billion for it.

OK -- now we know why Rupert wants to buy. Why would the Bancrofts, the controlling family of Dow Jones, sell?